The A to Z of Rubbishing a Photograph (Or: The Life & Times of Annie Leibovitz)

Fajitas!

Oh ho, I like this, a lot.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/the-worst-photo.html

Complete and utter honesty. Yes, there *IS* such thing as a bad photograph, objectivity matters not. Prime example above.

(Bonus content, re; the previous photograph; http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/09/annie-leibovitz-sued-over-lavazza-coffee-campaign.html )

humberklog

I blew a semi masticated cheese sambo and a mouthful of beer out my nose when that page opened. Worth every ounce of pain.

Really good writing, I like the retort best.

Slidinginfinity

Sad, just plain sad...







...well and funny.

elven

But it's her ART. You can't tell her it's no good!

Placebo

she has some mind blowing photos though

Placebo

Placebo wrote: »

she has some mind blowing photos though

Not any more she doesn't.

humberklog

Placebo wrote: »

she has some mind blowing photos though

And photos that make you want to blow your mind out.

Quackles

I dunno, I think it's good...

ThOnda

It is not her art anymore. It is her product. And product of the whole team.
I would not be surprised seeing picture like that (and the spaghetti bowl one) in some magazine competition. Somewhere close to the bottom.
Those pictures look like desperate cheating with only purpose - make money and save money. That should be professional work, not entry level photoshop competition entries!

Photography can produce art, but don't get me wrong, I cannot see art in there at all. Even the fuzzy feet in the grass by Fajitas! have more personal involvement and spirit than those space stealing creations.

ThOnda

ThOnda wrote: »

It is not her art anymore. It is her product. And product of the whole team.
I would not be surprised seeing picture like that (and the spaghetti bowl one) in some magazine competition. Somewhere close to the bottom.
Those pictures look like desperate cheating with only purpose - make money and save money. That should be professional work, not entry level photoshop competition entries!

Photography can produce art, but don't get me wrong, I cannot see art in there at all. Even the fuzzy feet in the grass by Fajitas! have more personal involvement and spirit than those space stealing creations.

Not even. She has put all her photos into hock to get that loan.

kmick

Its an advertisement not a photo. There is a big difference. A photo can exist for its own sake an advertisement has an alterior motive.

ThOnda

What? Purpose of creation of some picture should be the excuse for horrible quality of the picture? Now I am laughing...
She did put her name under the picture. Therefore she is responsible for the picture. She is responsible for crappy picture that wouldn't get single thumbs up in our Random threads.
I don't need to know who created the picture, what is the story behind. The picture must be always able to speak for itself. The picture is either good or bad.

Fajitas!

Actually, it was under her creative inititive the whole image was directed under, rather than a seperate creative team. The blame lies soley under her feet.

Fajitas!

elven wrote: »

But it's her ART. You can't tell her it's no good!

All art is amazing and cannot be critically judged. Fact.


*Baulk*

ThOnda

Isn't ART an intentional product of human being that is not supposed to serve any other purpose than to pleasure our senses?
But this is not thread on ART, but on AWFUL picture by lady, who lost it quite a long time ago. Maybe some skint comeback to Leica and few rolls of film could help her a little...

elven

kmick wrote: »

Its an advertisement not a photo. There is a big difference. A photo can exist for its own sake an advertisement has an alterior motive.

It's one thing having an advertisement where the photography is not a key element. But when you get a world famous photographer to do a shoot for your product, you're selling it based on their name/ability, that's why you don't get some unknown to do it. This is not your average product shot.

Fajitas!

ThOnda wrote: »

Isn't ART an intentional product of human being that is not supposed to serve any other purpose than to pleasure our senses?
But this is not thread on ART, but on AWFUL picture by lady, who lost it quite a long time ago. Maybe some skint comeback to Leica and few rolls of film could help her a little...

No, art can have various purposes, to record, to inform, to harass, to make light of, and so on...

Longshanks, that's the same lawsuit I mentioned in the second link up there

humberklog

Bump.
There's this excellent thread and link.

sineadw

humberklog wrote: »

Bump.
There's this excellent thread and link.

Actually - looking at this again brings me back to the La Chapelle exhibition and my reservations about his work. Although I liked some of his stuff a lot more when I saw it up close and personal. That Michael Jackson lookalike photo was bloody awful though...

<ducks>

Fenster

Deviant Art would be too ashamed to host that photo.

ttcomet

In her defence and it is a rather terrible defence she may not have actually taken the picture. She is being sued by an Italian photographer for plagiarism.

Fajitas!

No that poor lad only took the background images (allegedly!), it was her good self that went to town on them.

Thirdfox

What's the catch line for this ad?

"Got milk?"

Not a big coffee fan anyway :P

Trev M

Ooo its so bland oooo its tasteless it offends my sensibilities ..blah blah blah

Im very new to photography, so feel free to jump all over this but it seems the done thing to do in photography these days is to babble mindless ****e about why various photographs are so crap...

Jaysus no one is forcing ya to look at the f**kin thing? Ya like it ya dont...move on... a mere suggestion:o

Dont get me wrong I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I dont wish to attack people here but some people come across as "An Authority" and to my knowledge the world reknowned photogrpaher count on this board hasn tincreased of late ...maye Im being a bit harsh:D

There's always a fine line between someones definition of utter crap and what is groundbreaking and innovative .... you'll find that line running perpendicular to the madness / genius line:D . Personally I dont like the picture, but the article I like less and peoples reactions to it well... its like when one monkey attacks another and next thing ya know there's dozens of monkies ripping this one monkey apart and none of them know why... I'll go away now.:D

This pic is awesome

Anouilh

There is something about fame that brings out the worst in some people.

I think the photo in question is very typical of a tendency to hyper-realism that has become fashionable thanks to digital imaging.

Perhaps widening the discussion could help?

I very much like Atget's work and it still feels fresh and magical today:

http://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/funkymonkey8/review/31187627/

Rather than make a critique of Leibovitz's work on the basis of one photo, perhaps it is worth thinking about how she fits into the history of photography and why her work inspires such strong reactions...

humberklog

Trev M wrote: »

Ooo its so bland oooo its tasteless it offends my sensibilities ..blah blah blah

Im very new to photography, so feel free to jump all over this but it seems the done thing to do in photography these days is to babble mindless ****e about why various photographs are so crap...

Jaysus no one is forcing ya to look at the f**kin thing? Ya like it ya dont...move on... a mere suggestion:o

Dont get me wrong I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I dont wish to attack people here but some people come across as "An Authority" and to my knowledge the world reknowned photogrpaher count on this board hasn tincreased of late ...maye Im being a bit harsh:D

There's always a fine line between someones definition of utter crap and what is groundbreaking and innovative .... you'll find that line running perpendicular to the madness / genius line:D . Personally I dont like the picture, but the article I like less and peoples reactions to it well... its like when one monkey attacks another and next thing ya know there's dozens of monkies ripping this one monkey apart and none of them know why... I'll go away n

I only count 13 individual posters (and that's over a few weeks)so hardly stirring the apocalyptic braying hordes you invisaged. Also some of those post were in the positive and some on the fence. None said bland. No nutty monkies pulling at bones and eating brains.

Seldom does a piece get popped on here for what you say, there may have been more but this is the only one I can think of and it has hardly gone the direction you say.

Another poster was looking for link to a different view of A.L's work as they were finding it difficult to get an alternative view on her work so came here looking and a good choice it was too as Fajitas had posted this and therefore that link. I think that's a pretty positive thing for a photography forum. Discussion, enlightenment, trying out you own techniques of criticism and humour.
Is your idea that photos and articles of a negative type should not be aired through a photography forum?
I read how you invisage the hordes of criticism but I don't see any evidence to back up that thought, not on this forum and certainly not on this thread.

Trev M

Humberklog -

"the apocalyptic braying hordes you invisaged" wtf?

It was a general comment about the amount criticism across forums and blogs in general, not a very well founded one and poorly articulated I admit.

I havent counted criticisms v poitive comments, critique away. Jaysus:rolleyes:. I concede my post was a personal and uninformed perception, I therefore bow before your considered analysis. My intention wasnt to offend anyone on here , work away, indeed discsussion is fair enough.

humberklog

Trev M wrote: »

Humberklog -

"the apocalyptic braying hordes you invisaged" wtf?

It was a general comment about the amount criticism across forums and blogs in general, not a very well founded one and poorly articulated I admit.

I havent counted criticisms v poitive comments, critique away. Jaysus:rolleyes:. I concede my post was a personal and uninformed perception, I therefore bow before your considered analysis. My intention wasnt to offend anyone on here , work away, indeed discsussion is fair enough.

Then start your own thread on the topic you want to discuss as opposed to putting it on this thread. No need to hijack a perfectly reasoned thread with assumptions that other people are unreasoned.
See how your own thoughts float by themselves in a context that makes sense.

Calina

I was wondering why this thread got bumped.

Frankly, if you're going to bump a thread again, please put the reason in the bumping post, not a few posts later after there's been another argument about the photograph in question. I fail to see why you couldn't just send the person a link.

Fajitas!

Trev M wrote: »

Im very new to photography, so feel free to jump all over this

Ok. :pac:

but it seems the done thing to do in photography these days is to babble mindless ****e about why various photographs are so crap...

Hoooooly sheeeet - People... on the internet... with... opinions!? Whatever next!?!

Jaysus no one is forcing ya to look at the f**kin thing? Ya like it ya dont...move on... a mere suggestion:o

We are being forced to look at it, it's an advert. It's placed where we will see it.

Dont get me wrong I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I dont wish to attack people here but some people come across as "An Authority" and to my knowledge the world reknowned photogrpaher count on this board hasn tincreased of late ...maye Im being a bit harsh:D

I'm an authority.

There's always a fine line between someones definition of utter crap and what is groundbreaking and innovative .... you'll find that line running perpendicular to the madness / genius line:D . Personally I dont like the picture

Ugh, I hate that rabble. No, there is actually a clear line between what's good and what's sh*t. It's aesthetics. Building up a good background of critical theory helps in situations like this, but I think in the photo above, it's an easy call.

but the article I like less and peoples reactions to it well... its like when one monkey attacks another and next thing ya know there's dozens of monkies ripping this one monkey apart and none of them know why... I'll go away now.:D

No, the photographers are expressing their like or dislike towards the image, again, it's critical theory, but being able to say what you like and dislike in photography helps build up your own skills, you know what you like and what you don't like, you know what you think works and what dosn't work.

This pic is awesome

It's alright.

I was wondering why this thread got bumped.

Frankly, if you're going to bump a thread again, please put the reason in the bumping post, not a few posts later after there's been another argument about the photograph in question. I fail to see why you couldn't just send the person a link.

-><-

:pac:

humberklog

Calina wrote: »

I was wondering why this thread got bumped.

Frankly, if you're going to bump a thread again, please put the reason in the bumping post, not a few posts later after there's been another argument about the photograph in question. I fail to see why you couldn't just send the person a link.

Well frankly it was hardly ressurection as it's only about a month and regardless of my reason for bumping it could still be an interesting read for those that missed it the first time around. And has proved to be so.
I'm no good at linking frankly.

Micilin Muc

There's a she-wolf ... (probably the only time I'll get to say that for a reason)

Anouilh

Please...

This is a good thread and we could learn a lot about fine art if we focus on the ideas so far.

I have difficulty with much of the New York traditon of photography and rather than greet Andy Warhol's dizzying camcorder documentaries as cutting edge art, I just find them a droll reflection of the times. With Annie Leibovitz, her portraiture is wonderful and it's worth seeking out the documentary made by her sister which reveals quite a lot about her work technique.

I watched the South Bank Show programme on Warhol a few nights ago and was impressed by the influence of screen printing in much of the pulp magazine covers that were so fashionable during his heyday. This links with the Duotone thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055662865&page=7

I think that could also be kept going in order to help us refine our own work a bit more...


There is so much to learn and threads like these help me look at other people's work much more clearly.