- This topic is empty.
Annie leibowitz
-
What do you think about Annie Leibowitz’s work? How do you look at her as a photographer? Would you consider her an artist?
Before replying, I had a look at your site. And now I’m wondering what prompted you to ask the question you asked? Certainly you would be far more qualified to answer you’re own question (well the latter two anyway). It might help to know why you are asking and then again, it might not – but I’m curious all the same!
I like her work and she is very highly regarded. I thought her recent work for Disney (for their anniversary celebrations) was quite quirky and interesting. It certainly caught my eye. Is she an artist? I don’t know. It depends on how one defines art. She is certainly regarded as an artist amongst her peers and within the art world in general although like any artist, she’s not without her critics (see “Annie Leibovitz’s reckless candor“)
Incidentally, I see you’re presently located in Lismore. I just happened to pass through there today on my way elsewhere and was reminded once again what an interesting town it is with plenty of interesting locations to shoot in.
I got her book as a christmas gift and have to say I am really a fan of her work.
I did find the book a little frustrating in its layout and format though. There are several
pictures that are two page spreads which takes away from the image.
As an artist though I really enjoy her work. Not sure what else i can say reallyI must admit i had never heard of her before I opened this thread. But from what ive looked up I like what Ive seen!
I’d never heard of her either Flip.
The book was a little bit of shock though.
There are some stunning images, the best of which
are just shots she took of her family. Real candid shots that are just incredible.I have a DVD that i have yet to view on her. Had a look at the recent book purely to look at her images of Susan Sontag who died recently, but was drawn her family images which were intimate and quite beautiful.
I posted these questions for a couple of reasons.
I was on a website that reviewed her recent book. I was not aware that she had published a book repesenting 15+ years of her work. It brought up mixed emmotions that I have regarding her work, and her, as a artist. Also, I like her work and I also really do not like it. I think that she is strong but also, lacks emmotion.She has achieved great success in her work. But, is it whom she is shooting that makes that photograph great? Would the photo of Demi Moore on the cover of Vanity fair have the same impact if it were an unknown pregnant woman? by its self, framed, hanging in a gallery? When I look at her work I think that some of the photographs are really strong, powerful, dramatic. BUt, I also think that they lack emmotion, motivation and insight. It feels to me that the subject of one of her photographs is approached liked business. They seem cold and impersonal.
I have only seen one or two of her pictures from her private life/portfolio and maybe this is where I would find her work to be stronger. Her book women I thought was very weak. I was excited to see what she would do but, when you go to used book shop and find 3-4 copies of this book-something is up… I also was really dissapointed with her book on athlets. The almost perfect model of mother nature and her shots were boring(sorry). When I came upon the shots of Jessie Owen–It was a let down. A let down because of her fame, success and notoriety.
If I am correct, she was the first female photographer to be purchased by the Smithsonian for a photo that was a direct copy of a photo taken by the late, great Imogen Cunnigham. There are a few photos of hers that are direct copies…this tells me she is not an artist but, in business. And, damn good at it.
Thorsten, thank you for sending me that site. And, for sending me yours. I am impressed you are self taught. Lismore, nothing happens here. Great surroundings for still lifes and landscapes. I need a darkroom. And, a good model.
Interesting questions, and I haven’t posed an opinion,
because I don’t really know enough about all of her work.
Your observations do seem to ring true,
although I would agree with Frank about it being a good reason to buy Fanity Fair.
Or at least have a look at someone else’s.She (her team) produces consistently strong images,
and she can obviously engage with her subjects-
I don’t have any interest in the cult of celebrity myself,
but she does seem to be consistently able to cut below the surface-Its worth remembering that she is pretty much a celebrity in her own right:
the days of Baily, and Donovan, and the idea of the photographer as ‘Pop star’ are long gone-Along with Testino, her name is probably most likely to be the name the non photographer, man in the street
would most readily identify as a photographer these days.Although unlike Bailey and Donovan,
most would be hard pressed to put a face to the name.I think you are right,
her ‘professional’ work is all about delivering a product,
and her look is one of the things that sell the magazines.And to the publisher, thats’s quite an important thing.
The public buy magazines, and consume images,
not photographers.Photographers may shoot for the cogniscenti, for other photographers,
but the important thing for the consumer in the hairdresser is usually Demi Moore,
and not the snapper who took the picture.Unless you’re Annie L, of course,
and you have a few columns written about you in the magazine too-If she was to be the Artist that you might expect her to be,
then perhaps you may not have been able to ask the question in the first place-
Maybe too few of us would have heard of her-j
Interesting discussion…and the one point that seems to leap out to me is the idea that once you become commercially successful, then somehow you are not to be considered an artist anymore? This kind of thought runs through all facets of art as far as I can tell. That to be truly great, one must be starving? I’m not saying that is what you were saying Mariela, but it does seem to be a common theme.
Maybe there is a grain of truth in it also. Maybe when artists get to a stage where they are financially secure and life is generally good they lose that edge. I can certainly think of many modern rock musicians that this could be said of.
I guess with someone like Annie L, when she has spent so many years hanging with celebrities she forgets what the real world is like, and finance take precedence over artistic merit. Maybe that is why her more intimate family shots seem more “artistic”.
Personally speaking, I think that it is foolish to try and classify anything as art or non art. In my opinion art can be anything, from the handmade tool turned out by a turner to a Michelangelo sculpture; from a Picasso abstract to a humble photograph on this very site. I think if even one person says you are an artist..then you are. Whether or not you’re a good artist is another question altogether :wink:
byrne5012 wrote:
I’d never heard of her either Flip.
The book was a little bit of shock though.
There are some stunning images, the best of which
are just shots she took of her family. Real candid shots that are just incredible.Whats the name of the book if you dont mind?
A Photogaphers Life 1990-2005.
They have it in Borders in Blanch I know. Not cheap though… :D
Thats the one Robbie thanks.
The book can be a little frustrating as there is no reall flow to it
and as i said some really good shot are spread over two pages which ruins them.Worth a look though
….and she used our studio to shoot a forthcoming cover of VF. I saw this thread and thought you might be interested to know she was here 5 weeks ago.
I couldn’t believe it, I still have to pinch myself….Her whole team and VF creatives were there but she is very much the driving force of her own shoot. I can assure you she is lovely, real, grounded and very, very practical. She spoke about her children and was more interetsed in talkiing about us and our work than hers but we managed to get a few questions to her. I am a huge fan of her work as I have previously posted here….
Also, we saw some of the lighting test shots from her shoot the day before – she shot the portrait of the Queen for the current VF the day before she was in Dalkey. Haven’t seen this issue yet but it was so cool to see the lighting & location tests and then see how it is used in the magazine – my favourite btw.
Her lighting is simple and she was nervous before her shoot like we all would be. Perparation and set-up took 2 hours, in total she was with us for four hours.
Then, she was gone – off to Seattle to shoot a famous computer guy….
They say never meet your heroes…etc. Well, in this case, meeting my photographic hero was an absolute thrill.Margaret
Wow!! That sounds like a real buzz Margaret….must have been something else.
Don’t suppose you have any shots of the occasion to make us even more envious? :wink:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
