US Vogue March 2009 : Michelle Obama by Annie Leibovitz

[Bahiyya]

^that is definitely NOT a fact. and these photos on this page prove it.
i don't think anyone is saying Annie is an awful photographer, but good god has her work grown to be sub-par.

Thank you. I like how rh85 conveniently snipped out the part in my post in which my ire is specifically against her covers (more than any of her other works, at least).

If the work Vogue asks her to do seriously affects the quality of her work can't she negotiate or in the end refuse? She hardly needs Vogue to get work or cement her reputation, it's frackin' Annie Leibovitz. Celebrities would eat their young to be in her pictures. And she's been with Vanity Fair long enough to pull strings there. In the end I find her recent work superficial on several levels and just not my taste. Her recent ed with Queen Elizabeth and Nicole Kidman (which looked better in print than as scans) have that fake computer generated background flavour she seems attached to these days.

And we're waaaaaay off-topic. Sorry mods! Shutting up. Feel free to ship this over to her Behind the Lens thread if necessary. (Or delete it .)

Edit: Thank you, rh85, for eloquently expressing your redoubtable position based on your informed knowledge of photography.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

sorry but i just guess we'll have to agree to disagree

Like i said,i don't hate her but if she's the best celeb portraiture of time that says a lot about the celeb portraiture of today. (and not in a good way, IMO) i know that she is hailed as being the best but if she truly is how could this be the result? Even if it's not her say whether or not she shoots the cover these shots could have been a milestone in American Vogue history and to think they will still be simply because it was shot by Annie and Michelle was the subject is just outrageous.

Like i said to put the whole blame on her is not right imo, Wintour should have showed some balls and did something more iconic, she is in more control than Leibovitz.But sure we can agree to disagree, no problem there, i love most of her work for V & VF.

I think Conde Nast spent all of their energy in securing her for the cover alredy (after all, this was shot few days before the innaguration) this is all they could have pulled off.Another proof how desperate Vogue is for good selling result's.

 

[Mchunu]

I actually think it's very fitting she chose the clothes herself...I mean, that's what she's famous for...she doesn't have a stylist, it's all her! Thank you Vogue for letting her dress herself.

oh no, im not saying that it isn't fitting. i just think that the fact they think her power transcends through the outfit she chooses for a beacon of "fashion" such as US Vogue is a little funny..i guess it's how it was written.

 

[rh85]

If the work Vogue asks her to do seriously affects the quality of her work can't she negotiate or in the end refuse? She hardly needs Vogue to get work or cement her reputation, it's frackin' Annie Leibovitz.

I don't think she thinks the quality of her work is being affected by Vogue, she has done many pictures like those of Michelle so many times, with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton .... simply office pictures and that's it, that's how they are intented to be.

it's just part of the versatility of this kind of photographers.

 

[thiago:)]

The cover is so simple, actually it's more than it should be. Hilary Cilnton's, for example, was simple but it was so nice... Actually with a nice background. Maybe it's that simple because of the crisis (?).
And I had reasons to be worried, the photoshop affect her so much. Her arms are looking huge and so does her expression. Even the text... I'd rather see a bit more.
And I agree that Irving Penn would be an amazing choice. His photography is simply the best, imo.
*edit* Another example of wrong use of photoshop in Leibovitz's photos: Sarah Jessica Parker's cover from last year.

 

[KKnardi]

oh no, im not saying that it isn't fitting. i just think that the fact they think her power transcends through the outfit she chooses for a beacon of "fashion" such as US Vogue is a little funny..i guess it's how it was written.

yes, it's an important statement of freedom by her. but i'm sure she got a ton of advise from vogue as well B)

 

[Bahiyya]

could someone please post the previous 1st lady covers ? i have no idea what they look like ....

their article about powerful ladies seems boring !!!!! well at least the names they've chosen for their cover .... carla is boring me (well i'm french ... so i hear about her very often !!!), queen of jordania is there forever (why not chosen someone else from arabian countries ? like cheika moza - "queen" of qatar) ..............

I found the one for Hilary but it's really small and LQ. I'm guessing it's fine to post it in here...? Taken from salon.com

 

[Mchunu]

oh i love that cover!
looks just fine viewed small that way, thanks Bahiyya!

 

[Miss Dalloway]

Me too, its really a cool cover, especially since it was December.

 

[KKnardi]

the hillary cover says: grand dame in the white house _period_ , while the michelle cover evokes a feeling of modernity and liberty.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

*edit* Another example of wrong use of photoshop in Leibovitz's photos: Sarah Jessica Parker's cover from last year.

I could not more disagree with that statement, did you perhaps miss the photoshop monstrosity that was last year's Steven Meisel's March cover with Drew Barrymore looking as if her face is melting? Or Mario Testino's August cover with lobotmized looking Kate Moss?!!Then check their cover's for UK Vogue and Vogue Italia, its clear that when they work for American edition their photography is limited.

 

[t-rex]

They could've done something iconic but instead chose to do what every other photographer working close with the Obamas do. These could've run in TIME, but without the ridiculous photoshop.

I think Mario Testino should've done this...

 

[Deleted member 1957]

nice colour of drtess but i also agree that its just a cover nothing special about it. would have prefered a more styled cover than this one that is no different from their people magazine feature

 

[apertures]

It's not anti-feminist that you're coming off as

I am appalled, for one. Just because someone doesn't want to see Michelle Obama on the cover of Vogue, they suddenly become ignorant, unintelligent, and their opinion means nothing? Yes, Michelle and Barack have made history as a black couple in the White House. It's fantastic, exciting, and historical. However, I don't really care if she is the best dressed woman in the world... I will be impressed by what she does with her time as first lady. I understand that Vogue is not just about fashion but also about society, etc.... but branding those uninterested in the Obamas as racist and deciding their opinions are worthless ...that is just as ignorant as you are accusing them of being.

 

[tarsha]

Vogue is not just about fashion but also about society

Agree

 

[thiago:)]

I could not more disagree with that statement, did you perhaps miss the photoshop monstrosity that was last year's Steven Meisel's March cover with Drew Barrymore looking as if her face is melting? Or Mario Testino's August cover with lobotmized looking Kate Moss?!!Then check their cover's for UK Vogue and Vogue Italia, its clear that when they work for American edition their photography is limited.

Sure, I understand... And you can check out Pringle of Scotland... It's OVER airbrushed.
But the point is that Annie is the photographer whose photographs are always over airbrushed, and it doesn't happen all the time with Testino or Meisel... Ok, I won't try to deffend them. I was just trying to focus on Leibovitz, who's a great photographer but her pictures seem like they were made digitally. And I said that thing about SJP cover mainly because of her lips... They were looking terrible. That's such a pity because I love her and the photograph was stunning.
*edit* Just another thing: sometimes the photoshop can be used in a great way like Missoni's ad (shot by Meisel ) and others in a terrible way, making the person's features stronger, like Michelle's.

 

[t-rex]

I am appalled, for one. Just because someone doesn't want to see Michelle Obama on the cover of Vogue, they suddenly become ignorant, unintelligent, and their opinion means nothing? Yes, Michelle and Barack have made history as a black couple in the White House. It's fantastic, exciting, and historical. However, I don't really care if she is the best dressed woman in the world... I will be impressed by what she does with her time as first lady. I understand that Vogue is not just about fashion but also about society, etc.... but branding those uninterested in the Obamas as racist and deciding their opinions are worthless ...that is just as ignorant as you are accusing them of being.

My comment had been directed towards MarryMeTomFord who implied somewhat that people who like the Obamas only do so because they're black:

Originally Posted by MarryMeTomFord
wow. somehow i am coming off as an anti-feminist :-O
Lets put it this way - if the Obamas were white, would everyone still be so supportive and non-judgemental of them? i dont think Vogue is racist since they put any and every first lady on their cover. heck, they put ANYONE on their covers....Melania Trump?? Now SHE'S the definition of a trophy wife!

 

[Fiercification]

Well I expected it wouldn't be AMAZING coming from Leibovitz's recent work, I'm so excited about the lack of clutter and the lighting is lovely. It's just her smile is really bad otherwise it would be decent.

 

[thiago:)]

MarryMeTomFord, I think that everyone's being supportive with him not because he's black but because he makes people feel a bit safer through such hard times that we've been living... And as Michelle, she's got a great fashion style and she's beeing so supportive with new designers... Look at the previous first lady... Is her name Laura? I don't even know So it means that Michelle is successful, charismatic, definitely a Vogue woman.

 

[simple_elegance]

yeeeeeeeeah...*looks around*

any word on the content inside? ads? editorials? models? SOMETHING?