Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,990   Posts: 1,524,169   Online: 1070
      
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59
  1. #11
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Aww, come on! This is the ultimate proof that Lennon was a real hipster: he smokes Gitanes, and not the more common Gauloises. Gitanes rips your throat in two, obliterates your voice (a must for any singer), chokes any dog within a radius of five miles, and does more to assert your frenchiness than any striped shirt or béret. I like the photo for the Gitanes pack.
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  2. #12
    Cheryl Jacobs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,707
    Images
    211
    My take on this and most all of Annie's work....

    She's a commercial photographer, and she shoots like one. She serves up images that look like you'd expect them to look. She's an assignment shooter, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it says absolutely nothing remarkable to me whatsoever. This image of Lennon, like most of her celebrity work (which is pretty much all she does) simply says, "Look who I get to hang out with." Same message as in her recent TomKatieSuri stuff. I see her images as records of privilege, and that's about it.

  3. #13
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Mitchell View Post
    What parody?
    I apologize to those that had to read it the first time.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum50/4347-ansel-liebowitz.html


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheryl Jacobs View Post
    My take on this and most all of Annie's work....

    She's a commercial photographer, and she shoots like one. She serves up images that look like you'd expect them to look. She's an assignment shooter, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it says absolutely nothing remarkable to me whatsoever. This image of Lennon, like most of her celebrity work (which is pretty much all she does) simply says, "Look who I get to hang out with." Same message as in her recent TomKatieSuri stuff. I see her images as records of privilege, and that's about it.
    I like some of her pictures of Susan Sontag.

  5. #15
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargazer View Post
    Well, I like it. I find it impossible to think about it as being something it isn't though (without John Lennon). Seems an odd way to be thinking about it. It is John Lennon, and catches him in quite an off-beat mood, makes a change from the Lennon-Ono pics, makes him seem very ordinary (well, as ordinary as it is possible for him to seem).

    I can't look at any pictures of John Lennon without feeling sadness - somehow this makes me sadder than most.
    Cate
    The reason I mention the Uncle Bob comment is that a very large number of pictures of celebrities are only "good" because it's a celebrity. That's why I mentally impose "Uncle Bob" into them. If it stands up, it's a good picture, if not, well....

    Part of this is because we seem to have this strange relationships with media created celebrities and make emotional connections with them, even though we have no real idea what they are really like. We sort of treat them like an exhaulted family member. When we see their pictures our hearts race a little, much like they would if it were of our child or loved one.

    While we do this, we promote the photographer who happened to get access to this celebrity, to a celebrity status as well, somehow thinking that since we "love" the person in the image, we are in some sort of awe of the person who took this masterpiece. This picture says nothing more about the photographers ability than the fact that she had access.

    The magazine industry understands this and finds that readership goes up with virtually every magazine on the racks, if a celebrity is on the cover. This happens even though there is nothing about the celeb in the magazine. It's an strange interesting human quirk.

    The adage "if you want to be a famous photographer, take pictures of famous people" applies to this genre.

    This picture was probably during the time Leibovitz worked for Rolling Stone and had access to rock stars, and almost any picture of one's rock "hero" was considered sacred.

    I agree this is a "nice" picture of an unglamorous moment, but without the emotional 'baggage" that you, a lover of John Lennon bring to it, is it a good picture?

    In my opinion it's not a bad picture, just nothing special. Maybe to you that is the point. Not sure.


    Michael
    Last edited by blansky; 10-10-2006 at 02:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    I agree this is a "nice" picture of an unglamorous moment, but without the emotional 'baggage" that you, a lover of John Lennon bring to it, is it a good picture?

    In my opinion it's not a bad picture, just nothing special. Maybe to you that is the point. Not sure.


    I'm not sure I'm a lover of John Lennon exactly, or even a fan, it's more associations with early childhood & The Beatles - an unbelieveable phenomenon in the sixties in the U.K. - and then his untimely death which was pretty horrible - 'Emotional baggage' doesn't sound quite right, I prefer to think of it as 'associations'...and yes, it's hard or impossible to discard this, and I'm not sure of the value of doing so, as that is all part of how I respond to this particular photograph. This was, infact, the orignal poster's question, or reason for posting, rather than a consideration of Liebovitz as a photographer, and I suppose I was trying to keep to that too.

    It's an interesting question though, the relationship between a picture and whatever it is the viewer brings to it. I'm not sure you can ever strip the latter bare, or even if it's desirable to do so. It's important, though, to be aware of the perspective you bring.

    I suppose for whatever reason, I do like this one, and I find it more interesting to reflect on my reasons for liking it (however subjective) rather than considering the photographer's role in general. I suppose, with a different photo or subject, I might be more interested in the latter. It isn't 'anything special' on one level, except, as I said before, it shows John Lennon unusually unaware of the fact that he's in the media's eye and I like that, I think it's part of it's success. You could say L. was simply showing that she knew J.L., or you could say it's showing that J.L. knew L. and wasn't acting up to her - I suppose I'm not sure what everybody is meaning by the 'special' when they describe it as 'nothing special'....to me it has captured something of John Lennon. I might find the photographs that Jane Bown took of him in the sixties more striking but there again...they speak of a different time, a totally different decade, also a different (non-existent really) relationship between subject and photographer...

    I think my main point is (sorry if this has been rambling...) you can't have a picture of an icon and say "Would this work if the subject wasn't an icon?" because that is the essence of the photo, and changes what might work and might not work in other circumstances....

    Cate
    Last edited by catem; 10-10-2006 at 04:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #17
    bruce terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cape Fear NC
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    190
    "I think my main point is....you can't have a picture of an icon and say "Would this work if the subject wasn't an icon?" because that is the essence of the photo, and changes what might work and might not work...." Cate

    True, and I see Uncle BOB being told to go home now. :¬/
    Last edited by bruce terry; 10-10-2006 at 05:36 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: er, bob not bill

  8. #18
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    I'll give one more example of what I'm talking about and then I quit hogging the thread.

    Take 2 iconic portraits Karsh's Churchill and Migrant Mother.

    Possibly the reason we like the Churchill so much is he is celebrated, famous beyond belief, and Karsh did a masterful job of bringing out his grumpyness. All in all a great portrait. But if you take him out and put in another "executive" who you didn't know, would the picture have anywhere near the same impact. Same expression, same lighting but the who cares factor enters it.

    Now with Migrant Mother, we don't know who she is, or really care. We just can see a perhaps distraught, overburdened, human being. We are drawn to it, not because we know her, but because we feel for her. She is a dramatic representation of the human condition. We connect.

    With Churchill, with John Lennon, Madonna, we connect but in a sort of superficial way, with Migrant Mother we connect in a profound way.

    That was what the Uncle Bob thing does for me. If it weren't a celeb would I care.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  9. #19
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,103
    Images
    60
    Michael:

    Have you ever seen the other shot that Karsh did of Churchill during the same sitting, where Churchill is smiling?

    Some times the iconic stature is as much the subject of the portrait as is the icon.

    I like the Liebovitz portrait of Lennon because of the interplay between the man, and his fame.

    It wouldn't work with Uncle Bob, unless it was Uncle Bob Dylan of course.

    Matt

  10. #20
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheryl Jacobs View Post
    My take on this and most all of Annie's work....

    She's a commercial photographer, and she shoots like one. She serves up images that look like you'd expect them to look. She's an assignment shooter, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it says absolutely nothing remarkable to me whatsoever. This image of Lennon, like most of her celebrity work (which is pretty much all she does) simply says, "Look who I get to hang out with." Same message as in her recent TomKatieSuri stuff. I see her images as records of privilege, and that's about it.
    One more thing I would add to Cheryl's astute reply is that since she began working for Vanity Fair her work broadened to include celebrities accross the spectrum of the entertainment industry. Her best know photo IMO, is this one ( a Lennon/Ono ) http://www.art-forum.org/z_Leibowitz/Ip/AL_Lennon.htm or the one of Demi Moore. My favorite was her cover shot on Rolling Stone of Meryl Streep.

    IMO, her book on the summer Olympics in Atlanta and 'Women' were dismal failures and deserved their place in the mark down bins in bookstores.

    Her flair for posing and getting celebs to do somewhat unusal poses was one of the reasons she suceeded as she has. FWIW, I think most of her best stuff was done in her Rolling Stone Magazine years.

    I've also heard through the grapevine she is impossible to work for and can treat her assistants shamefully. My polite way of saying she is a Bee Eye Itch.

    My 2 cents,
    Don Bryant

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin