BYS wrote:
cool aaron so another smile for you this time

http://www.chemamadoz.com/home.htm

tb

Hmm?

Aaron S wrote:

Hmm?

Darling.

K. Holden wrote:

Darling.

What is going on? Am I missing something?

JAY carreon wrote:
I'm not on this list???  Fake!  Fake!  Fake!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

What's fake? The list? You? Me?

Aaron S wrote:
You can edit it, but I know what you said.

I said that being left off this list isn't necessarily bad. I removed it to be a good sport. I thought it was suspecious how quickly she dismissed Boyer's work. If you look at his work, he definitely has some artistic pieces. Since then many commercial images have been included which further raises a question as to the OP's motives behind starting such a list. I fail to see how some of these commercial pieces included are above the works of Boyer's. Many of the better photographers on this site have been excluded. You can argue that may be because she is unaware of those photographers but I highly doubt that's the case. There's something about this thread that doesn't seem truthful.

Your agruments about how fashion and art may not be exclusive are correct, but whereas what is considered great art photography is subjective, what is considered as great fashion photography is not, and forgive me for saying so, but I would question both your opinion and the OP's opinion about what makes a great fashion photograph. This is beyond the understanding of most. Great fashion photography is a developed taste, not something you study in class. Furthermore, fashion photography has a meaning beyond gallery walls.

Edit: The OP mentions that she is a critic, so she has credibility. Based on what? An education? You can't intellectualize this stuff.

LiliOPhoto wrote:
what is considered as great fashion photography is not,

How can you even begin to say this? Lets just talk about contemporary work. Fashion Photographers who are around now who would be considered "great" by people.

I'll just start off with three

Paolo Roversi - http://www.cultframe.com/img2/t/transph … rsi-gr.jpg
Nick Knight - http://www.anthem-magazine.com/blog/bjork.jpg
Juergen Teller - http://jozworld.club.fr/imagesHD/Marc-J … te_004.jpg Also a Marc Jacobs ad

Those are three completely different aesthetics, and many people would consider some of those butt ugly wastes of time, but to deny that these are three of the most in-demand, and most influential contemporary photographers is ludicrous.

Aaron S wrote:
How can you even begin to say this? Lets just talk about contemporary work. Fashion Photographers who are around now who would be considered "great" by people.

I'll just start off with three

Paolo Roversi - http://www.cultframe.com/img2/t/transph … rsi-gr.jpg
Nick Knight - http://www.anthem-magazine.com/blog/bjork.jpg
Juergen Teller - http://jozworld.club.fr/imagesHD/Marc-J … te_004.jpg Also a Marc Jacobs ad

Those are three completely different aesthetics, and many people would consider some of those butt ugly wastes of time, but to deny that these are three of the most in-demand, and most influential contemporary photographers is ludicrous.

Who is saying those are not some of the most influential contemporary photographers? We haven't even mentioned names. So far in this thread only about five fashion photographers have been mentioned and most of them have not even been mentioned with their fashion work. There seems to be an undeniable exclusion of any photograph that features a high-fashion model.

I agree with your mention of those photographers. This is exactly my point when I said that great fashion photography is not subjective. Those who mention that work is probably an ugly waste of time are exactly those I was criticising as not fit to judge fashion photography. Let's completely lose the pretentions as in regards to this thread. This thread has very little to do with great fashion photography and the great fashion photographers on this site, even though a couple of them have been mentioned, but not exactly with their best fashion work.

Edit: What makes this thread ridiculous is the mention of how these photographs are gallery-wall worthy. Who's to decide that? A critic? Did anyone ever thought that LaChapelle would adore so many gallery walls when he first started reaching a mass audience? I think the ones who will make it on a gallery wall one day are those we least expect.

LiliOPhoto wrote:

Who is saying those are not some of the most influential contemporary photographers? We haven't even mentioned names. So far in this thread only about five fashion photographers have been mentioned and most of them have not even been mentioned with their fashion work. There seems to be an undeniable exclusion of any photograph that features a high-fashion model.

I agree with your mention of those photographers. This is exactly my point when I said that great fashion photography is not subjective. Those who mention that work is probably an ugly waste of time are exactly those I was criticising as not fit to judge fashion photography. Let's completely lose the pretentions as in regards to this thread. This thread has very little to do with great fashion photography and the great fashion photographers on this site, even though a couple of them have been mentioned, but not exactly with their best fashion work.

Edit: What makes this thread ridiculous is the mention of how these photographs are gallery-wall worthy. Who's to decide that? A critic? Did anyone ever thought that LaChapelle would adore so many gallery walls when he first started reaching a mass audience? I think the ones who will make it on a gallery wall one day are those we least expect.

I should've articulated better, while I can't deny his influence, I think that Juergen Teller is the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen, and the only thing worse than him are the people who think that means they can take a disposable and are suddenly amazing because they took a picture of a bag of poop. And I can see plenty of people thinking the Roversi shot is just a bad blurry picture.

And obviously someone thought that LaChapelle would, that's the way you get started. Whether it's a Critic in ArtForum, or it's an Art Director, these people all decide what goes where.

Aaron S wrote:
I should've articulated better, while I can't deny his influence, I think that Juergen Teller is the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen, and the only thing worse than him are the people who think that means they can take a disposable and are suddenly amazing because they took a picture of a bag of poop. And I can see plenty of people thinking the Roversi shot is just a bad blurry picture.

I rest my case. Fashion is not about what equipment you use, as you would obviously agree. It's about content, so whether you use a disposable or a $30,000 dollar camera, it's what you're photoraphing and how you are doing it that counts. And yes, a disposable camera is capable of taking a great fashion image. A bag of poop is not fashion work, I agree, but Teller's work goes much beyond a bag of poop.

Aaron S wrote:
And obviously someone thought that LaChapelle would, that's the way you get started. Whether it's a Critic in ArtForum, or it's an Art Director, these people all decide what goes where.

I agree to that argument, but this thread started with an absolute statement that read those that are art-gallery worthy. I think that's a bit too much. I brought up LaChapelle because had he been new to this site and no one had ever heard of him or his work, the OP would probably not have included him here. Only in hindsight can you say that you would have.

LiliOPhoto wrote:
I agree to that argument, but this thread started with an absolute statement that read those that are art-gallery worthy. I think that's a bit too much. I brought up LaChapelle because had he been new to this site and no one had ever heard of him or his work, the OP would probably not have included him here. Only in hindsight can you say that you would have.

Well, everything in hindsight is 20-20. But then again, in this thread, I have not heard of most of the people she has posted.

As far as the bag of poop, I only mentioned that because there is this photographer who has shot numerous shoots for Nylon (including covers), and aside from them being mediocore at best, he has this whole section of his portfolio that is nothing but crap like that, like someone said "I want to be Juergen Teller, Terry Richardson and Nan Goldin at the same time."

But I can still say those photographers that have become the most famous fashion photographers have had the art in their photography, as their work has intent and often concept and is mostly more than just "Ohh, pretty." Which has consumed recent (or so) fashion photography. Into streamlining it into one basic aesthetic.

Also, it isn't necessarily Teller that I hate, it is the legions that have seen his work and decided that they don't actually need to do anything or understand what's going on.

LiliOPhoto wrote:
I said that being left off this list isn't necessarily bad. I removed it to be a good sport.

What you said, purportedly to the person who posted an image by Boyer, was "Being left off this list is a good thing...don't be sorry"

My original response to that was that it was certainly not a bad thing. I see you changed your mind to that "being left off...isn't neccessarily bad". I'd go further and say that it's not bad at all. I tend to stay away from value judgements like "good" and "bad" in the first place. My OP says, and has said from the beginning of this thread, that this is not a "best of" thread.

Anyway, I'm glad you decided to repost, so we can discuss. The sport, if anything, is to muse.

I thought it was suspecious how quickly she dismissed Boyer's work. If you look at his work, he definitely has some artistic pieces. Since then many commercial images have been included which further raises a question as to the OP's motives behind starting such a list. I fail to see how some of these commercial pieces included are above the works of Boyer's.

I'm curious as to what your suspicions are? I'm hardly an evil mastermind. I think that Boyer is a fine photographer. I did not think that the image previously posted and removed fit into my aesthetic, which however vague, is the thread of the thread. I may well in fact revisit his portfolio and see if there is something there I'd like to add here. Right now, I think it's been fun exposing some of the lesser-known artists in this community. So, if there is any agenda as of late, that would be it. I particularly enjoy seeing what younger eyes are doing.

My motive. That's interesting. I remember feeling there was something lacking in the forums, and I remember feeling bored with the threads that were there. So, I was motivated to begin a thread that might service the community in some way.

I don't think that any of the work I've posted is "above" or "below" Boyer's. Again, I think that kind of a value judgement is worthless to make.

Many of the better photographers on this site have been excluded. You can argue that may be because she is unaware of those photographers but I highly doubt that's the case. There's something about this thread that doesn't seem truthful.

Again, and I have said this on numerous occasions. There have not been any exclusions. This list is perennially incomplete.

As to truth and art. I can start by saying that the title of this thread is truthful to the content. I have found many truths in discovery of the work included. But, the term truth is so vast and vague, I wonder what you mean?

Your agruments about how fashion and art may not be exclusive are correct, but whereas what is considered great art photography is subjective, what is considered as great fashion photography is not, and forgive me for saying so, but I would question both your opinion and the OP's opinion about what makes a great fashion photograph. This is beyond the understanding of most. Great fashion photography is a developed taste, not something you study in class. Furthermore, fashion photography has a meaning beyond gallery walls.

I disagree with you. I think what is considered great fashion photography is certainly as subjective as art. It would be quite difficult to disprove that. Individuals are subjective. Eyes are subjective. There are agreements and disagreements. Many agree that Patrick Demarchelier, including Conde Nast, is a Great Fashion Photographer. Many agree that Jeurgen Teller is a Great Fashion Photographer, and many disagree (Aaron, it appears is in the "disagree" camp).

There are a host of issues at hand when you assert that Great Fashion Photography is objective. Foremost and linear to your post, is that, if it is indeed objective, it would certainly be teachable in terms of recognition of what is Great. Another issue is that fashion photography is made for a commercial purpose: to sell a fashion, or to further a fashion editor's reputation in the guessing/selling what one should be seen wearing, and inevitably, what one should not. Fashion photographs are, by and large, "unsigned". We can recognize the work and styles of heavily published fashion photographers, but the signature is that of a house, a brand, an advertising firm.

Now, when fashion photographs are taken out of the commodity fetishism of monthly magazines, they may indeed prove to stand up to photographs that never were subjected to the removal of aura.

Edit: The OP mentions that she is a critic, so she has credibility. Based on what? An education? You can't intellectualize this stuff.

If you read the original post carefully, you will see that my art writing and my credibility are not if-then clauses.

Credibility is based, I believe, on a multitude of factors. Education and publication are obvious ones. But truly, and I believe this is the artist in me, the first me, talking, all of that falls flat without community. My dearest friends, most artists, some not, many older, a few children, some formally educated, some self-taught, it is from these wonderful minds, these intellects that I, as one individual and entirely subjective artist and writer, take much of my courage.

Art is created by the intellect. It is inherently intellectual. And, if it were not, if it were a mere sensory experience that was never processed by the more advanced sectors of the human mind, art would not lose it's beauty, but perhaps cease to define what beauty means.

And isn't that what we are doing.

K. Holden wrote:
Fashion photographs are, by and large, "unsigned". We can recognize the work and styles of heavily published fashion photographers, but the signature is that of a house, a brand, an advertising firm.

Tangent....but this is why Helmut Newton mostly shot editorial, even though it was to the point of begging on the street.

Aaron S wrote:

Tangent....but this is why Helmut Newton mostly shot editorial, even though it was to the point of begging on the street.

I cannot blame him.

K. Holden wrote:
Art is created by the intellect. It is inherently intellectual. And, if it were not, if it were a mere sensory experience that was never processed by the more advanced sectors of the human mind, art would not lose it's beauty, but perhaps cease to define what beauty means.

And isn't that what we are doing.

Art in western society has become intellectualized.  Actually it's a commodity.   But I would disagree that all art comes from the intellect or that it is inherently intellectual.

KM von Seidl wrote:
Art in western society has become intellectualized.  Actually it's a commodity.   But I would disagree that all art comes from the intellect or that it is inherently intellectual.

Oh, I totally agree that western society tends to commodify art. "Tends" is putting it rather lightly, I think. That's one of the reasons I posted Benjamin's essay on the subject.

So, if art doesn't come from the intellect, where does it come from? The heart? Emotion? Yes. I just, as NewBoldPhoto alluded to, believe that the heart and the emotions rest inside the mind. I go with the scientists on that one.

But maybe you mean something else?

K. Holden wrote:
Koray Ates Satiroglu

Two words: Jerry Uehlsmann.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

LiliOPhoto wrote:
Many of the better photographers on this site have been excluded.

She`s not done.