If the fashion editorial was shot by one of his assistants, I do not think that it would be credited as Steven Meisel. However, I think that is nonsense. The editorial looks like a typical studio work by Meisel. I do not think that it is terribly retouched and I love it!Meisel's ed looks AI generated, it's so artificial. I wonder if it was even photographed by him or he just delegated one of his assistants.
Sorry not sorry but Nicole hardly looks like that anymore, great job nevertheless.Nicole's name keep popping up so I tried and experiment a little bit and now I see it. She's also a perfect fit.
View attachment 1294447
Flaunt would have also been a suitable logo alternative.On the other hand, for the second cover, this is the more suitable logo alternative for that picture.
The difference is that French Vogue made the error not US Vogue. I believe that Anna Wintour cares who's taking the pictures inside of her magazine. She knows the difference between Meisel's and Klein's photography style. As a result, this typo did not happen in US Vogue.Is Meisel here for it? I'm not so sure.
I would be very surprised if we ever see anything that approaches the level of his work from the 90s and 00s, at best, we'll be lucky if we get another retrospective volume out of the upcoming Vogue Italia anniversary, and like the Linda book, that'll be a modern reminder of glory days that are never coming round again.
As for having his name credited on his editorials as representing proof of anything - in some issues, he doesn't even get that. French Vogue had no problem recently mislabelling him as 'Steven Klein'.
That action shows they couldn't care less who's taking the pictures, they're not even invested enough to check the names. The people handling the pages can't tell the difference between one man's work and the other. Conde Nast now cares so little about details of that nature, they'll have no interest in being straight with readers as to whether Meisel takes the pictures or he delegates to a team.
He has done "remote shoots" and was still credited as the photographer so it doesn't mean anything.If the fashion editorial was shot by one of his assistants, I do not think that it would be credited as Steven Meisel.
However, Meisel must have worked on overseeing the direction and results of the photographs and that means something.He has done "remote shoots" and was still credited as the photographer so it doesn't mean anything.
Given that the editions are now photocopies of each other, and most of them no longer have actual editors of their own, someone has to assume overall responsibility for a fleet of magazines which have to follow orders from a central source.The difference is that French Vogue made the error not US Vogue. I believe that Anna Wintour cares who's taking the pictures inside of her magazine. She knows the difference between Meisel's and Klein's photography style. As a result, this typo did not happen in US Vogue.
So why not mention the name of person who took the photographs and credit Meisel as the creative director?However, Meisel must have worked on overseeing the direction and results of the photographs and that means something.