Travelling back on the Eurostar and leafing through the new Paris Vogue, just spotted the latest fashion photographer to 'do a Juergen/Terry' and publish a nude self-portrait. The question is: who will be next after Mario?!
Comments are also posted to the Blog Comments Forum
.......the art of " flashing "....or " flashy ' as art....??
By Galileo's Universe at 20:21 Thu 25 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
He has a good bod in this photo;)
By KaWai at 20:38 Thu 25 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
Helmut Newton did a few nude self portraits in the past.
By KaWai at 20:39 Thu 25 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
Who cares! ...and after all that, nothing about Galliano's slutty geisha thing chez Dior - or am I off track?
By f:lux at 21:32 Thu 25 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
.....somehow there is something in the pic that abruptly projects in the mind.....that image from the fairy tale book..." The Emperor's New Cloth "....and suddenly you hear someone saying “ he is just naked”.....as an observation .....
By Galileo's Universe at 06:43 Fri 26 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
man ray,arbus,penn,traeger,klein,newton,and defo sarah...moon.
By shaw at 11:19 Fri 26 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
it is a thin line with self portraits, its nice to look at an image from a photographer and not have any image or preconcieved notion of them - it can just get in the way of their work, unless their work is to be centered around them as a subject.
By Lie at 18:34 Fri 26 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
oh my god is he and his photography uninteresting.
it is not on the same planet as the "self portraits" by newton, but the days of that kind of photographer are sadly gone.
here today, gone tomorrow. another 100.000 in the bank.
anyone wonders why photography is almost dead today...
By thefamouz at 19:38 Fri 26 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
But, the photographers have control over artistic point of view! I don't believe the kind of photographer are sadly gone-sounds we need to be in charge of digital technology and not let it take control over us-they are all just tools in the end-if one is a bad photographer-wouldn't matter if he/she uses films or digital-we have to learn to use the technology to express ourselves.
By KaWai at 03:17 Sat 27 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
Agreed KaWai!
By Josh Baker at 12:05 Sat 27 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
WHAT?!!
By Josh Baker at 12:04 Sat 27 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
.....I personally believe that certain works of human creativity are incredibly overrated to put it mildly.....and there is very little scrutinising about the quality...validity...relevance ...of their 'product '....it has all become just a " product' .....and as long as everyone is happy ...why not produce it and validate it ? ....after all if it becomes the latest 'flash-ion' and is validated by the so called 'connoisseurs' in the field ...which ‘philistine' will dare to usher a word about how good , original and aesthetically the work really is ?...join the box !
By Galileo's Universe at 04:59 Sat 27 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
is the question behind this thread 'what photographers do we want to see naked'??
By maria n at 12:40 Sat 27 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
yes Maria n, it was.
Though I must admit I feel it is quite normal for photographer to use themselves as the subject considering how the whole process is ultimately about the photographer and not his or her subject.
By harley at 18:22 Sat 27 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
I disagree. In my opinion the subject being photographed is equaled in authority by, if not more so than, the photographer. Both construct the image.
By Josh Baker at 12:45 Thu 01 Feb 2007 | reply to this >
Harley.....interesting point of view and valid.....in that case I believe that there must be a ' formulation ' of the image....what does it want to convey ?...its purpose.... the message....
By Galileo's Universe at 19:42 Sat 27 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
I thought the quality of the picture is interesting-not great, not bad, but Andy Warhol did bunch of polaroids and the quality of them was similar, but it was different because no one thought of bad/mediocre quality photos to be worthy of printing in magazines until he did it. I thought where he flashed the light was clever-showing all without letting us see full frontal. Sometimes we just want to do something interesting, just try for the sake of trying-without any purpose or message to convey.
By KaWai at 20:32 Sat 27 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
...but Andy Warhol ...that is a totally different story...he was as a matter of fact experimenting...pushing the boundaries...the comparison , sorry to say so, does injustice to Andy Warhol’s unique talent.....we are 'millions of years ' away now so to speak....and Andy always had the right shot at the right moment...an incredible good " timer " .....to do something ‘interesting’ was not his aim as I see it or just out of vanity and mind you vanity was somehow an element of his work ......he had always a purpose and the message was arguably always subdued......and not just trying to “impress.”.....but it was a story and a message....
By Galileo's Universe at 08:07 Sun 28 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
I thought it must've been a relief for Mario to shoot something for a fashion magazine without having to deal with all the fuss of fashion styling, huge lights, bunch of people running around in the studio, and photo retouching. It actually was a nice break to see a simple photo in between bunch of overly-retouched, overly styled, overly designed, overly manipulated fashion photos. There's a new concept for a new fashion magazine-everything back to basic-just send a photographer with a model, no hair and makeup stylists, the 2 of them have to do everything-back to how fashion photographs were done 40 years ago, and no overly thoughtout complicated concepts, just 2 people doing simple, basic, photos, and no photo retouching after, print as is.
By KaWai at 22:53 Sat 27 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
KaWai, i cannot understand this going back to 40 years ago stuff.
Times have changed so much since then,there is a totally different medium now with SHOWstudio,youtube,second life,myspace and so on.Please lets look towards the future not the past.Exciting fashion 40 years ago was for magazines like Vogue and Harpers Bazaar,now the exciting stuff is happening here.Tomorrow there is a LIVE shoot with Naomi Campbell here on this site.That is really new ground.And that broadcast /webcam can't be retouched,it's more real than ever before!
By la at 16:41 Sun 28 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
I don't think it's so much the retouching part(since it's something I do and I enjoy doing), of course we cannot go back, but lately I find myself feeling bored flipping through pages of fashion magazines, when every page tries to be eye catching and exciting, I somehow find nothing stimulating-it's like an overload of poppy images. Showstudio is great-it's a new medium. But I was referring to print magazines. This is so off the topic from the Mario Testino self portrait, but interesting how his seemingly snapshot evolved into discussion of the quality of photography, perhaps we are so used to seeing extremely manipulated print images that his snapshot seemed too casual but maybe that's exactly the quality and look Mario was after.
By KaWai at 04:23 Mon 29 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
Uhmmm ??...I don't understand what has the 'medium' , 'the tools' to do do with the outcome as far fantasy, imagination, aesthethics is concerned if we are talking about artists with very high potential.....on the contrary when you are limited with the so called tools, technique, etc.....then that is the moment when things can become really really exciting !...you are put as a matter of fact to the ultimate test.. ... in short words...the ability to pull it off ....... in my opinion, the ultimate challenge is to succeed in creating something really good, meaningful and consequently inspiring out of nothing.....so to speak........
By Galileo's Universe at 08:55 Mon 29 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
The discussion perhaps is spinning into the abyss now...of coursse I might sound contraditory when I myself talked about everything is just tools and the photographers have their own point of view. The challenge with commercial art/photography is to try to do something different, or beautiful, or exciting, within deadline timeframe(even just for the sake of trying, many wonderful things happened by accidents, or what seemed to be mistake-Helmut Newton's story of using the Ring Flash the first time, he ended up with models with batlike eyes in photos, he was horrified, but thought maybe it would be ok, since no time to reshoot; French Vogue editor decided to use the shots), and try to convince the clients it's ok to take risk a bit. The really busy commercial photographers such as Mario Testino, are given many opportunities to try-within the best arena-high fashion-with all the support, of course there's always limitation to tools and technique, and time and the unexpectedness of things, and everytime is a challange. Maybe the best part of the process is in the doing, that's where the meaninfulness of it all comes in, not when the pictures are published, by then the rush is gone. Blah, blah, blah....
By KaWai at 18:09 Mon 29 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
I absolutely agreed with you when you write about unexpected things happening in the process, etc...and what might be perceived as a mistake can very often be the trail to something good...or new.....of course it is also instinctive.....You mentioned time limit as a drawback very often in commercial photography there you have a good point.... but for some people the high pressure is just the best motivation....it works different for everyone....I suppose....:) :)
By Galileo's Universe at 20:02 Mon 29 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
The irony of high tech digital photography is-dispites all the high tech stuff, the photography part of it-the set up, working with a model, doing the hair, makeup, posing, the lights, props, are all still very organic, still in the end about working with people and ideas of people. Doing digital manipulation is actually quite an organic process too-about creating your own techniques and using them to create somemore-it's almost about when to not overdoing the digital effects nowadays-knowing when to stop doing the manipulation.
By KaWai at 20:26 Mon 29 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
What I personally find about digital photography is that it somehow lacks "soul.'..it is literally like 'cloning' .....The character of ' things' are erased by the absolute 'perfection' , 'calculation', ' manipulation '...It is rather funny to think that somehow it feels as if today’s digital photography is a fore-proof of things to come as far as the developments that are going on in science today about our quest for........’ flawless perfection......
I think that the whole thing makes one 'unconsciously' weary....because ...there is no inspiration in ‘absolute perfection'....the boundaries are then in a figurative speech 'closed ' to pursue further....and there is also no poetry in that...and photography is poetry too..........look at Ansel Adam’s works....it seems visually so perfect and yet it is all very poetic and inspiring that is the difference to digital photography.....it was his and his only.....Of course fashion photography is different but poetry is also part of fashion photography...it doesn't need to be romantic....but inspiring...yes !...that is an absolute must in fashion photography...
We know in our subconscious that digital photography is carelessly used, abused and misused to lie to ourselves......I understand very well what you mean.....but then get away from it all by simply turning to the inspiring things that nature generously has to offer.... she always knows better !.........a simple leaf blowing in the wind can just open the doors to unimagined hidden visual treasures...
We incredible ‘humble' humans seem to be always good at spoiling things for ourselves........more often that less...:) :) :) ...... just write visual poetry by letting out what makes you feel happy and put those mags aside......... :):) because they are there to perpetuate....the “ visual lie “ for a purpose of course....:):):)
By Galileo's Universe at 06:08 Tue 30 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
Humans have been pursuing perfection for centuries though. I understand what you mean by lacking soul in digital photography. I personally don't like photos that look too high-tech and polished-unless they are done in such a sophisticated and clever and beautiful style. The image must move me, emotionally. Was this something Diana Vreeland said-"Without emotions, there's no beauty." I do lots of digital photography work(styling, working with the photographer figuring out the shot) and retoucing work, and in my own art I am starting to work in photoshop as well. That's the challange I am facing-to extend part of my soul into my art, doesn't matter what tools I use, but if I am not moved by the result, emotionally, it's not good enough for me.
By KaWai at 18:46 Thu 01 Feb 2007 | reply to this >
Back to the simple Mario Testino nude self-portrait-it's not a great shot, his intention probably wasn't to create a master piece; but it's a relief for my eyes and senses to see a much less computer manipulated photo.
By KaWai at 18:53 Mon 29 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
I would like to recommend you to have a look at the works of PIERRE GONNORD and MICHAEL O'BRIEN .......a total different story about beauty.....but you might find it very refreshing ......
By Galileo's Universe at 20:19 Mon 29 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
Thank you:)
By KaWai at 20:26 Mon 29 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
.........you are welcome !
By Galileo's Universe at 06:19 Tue 30 Jan 2007 | reply to this >
That was an interesting read. Thanks.
I can see KaWai's view on photographic cloning, altough is this perhaps due to businesses disallowing, almost fearing, photographic outcomes to be significantly different. Is there really a lot of space for experimental commerical photography?
Possibly the cultural climate is also affecting this. Maybe the audience have become aware of the commercial aspect of advertising methods, making them less effective.
By Josh Baker at 13:01 Thu 01 Feb 2007 | reply to this >
I am sometimes sounding cynical yet in fact still quite hopeful about digital photography, and retouching, how far it goes depending on each artist/photographer, how we want to explore and how we want to express, according to our own point of view, and whenever things go to one extreme, it will always reverse back to the other. Mario Testino's self portrait looked bad to somepeople I think because it looked like he could've done a better job, it's just too simple of a shot. But maybe that's the intention-are we too used to seeing overly manipulated images that we can't appreciate a simple, even just a so-so quality photo? Even in that simple shot, Mario had to think about where to flash the light-there were still some setting up to do, some sense of design, lighting, and composition involved.
By KaWai at 18:35 Thu 01 Feb 2007 | reply to this >
LOL! I would hope everyone in the industry is supportive of the change to digital. It is the future, and in fact the present. It will eventually be pointless to use film, even to achieve film quality. Digital quality has far surpassed the best 35mm film and is easily on par with medium format film. Besides, I do not believe that equipment has much to do with photography. It is a means to an end. I’m sure that the majority of photographers would agree with this statement.
On the subject of Testino's photo I cannot see why everyone thinks he should have composed a 'glossy' photo. His earlier work, in my opinion some of his best, was very similar to this photo ('Any Objections?'). I think it conveys a sense of fun and relaxation, which is apparent in almost all of Testino’s work, past and present.
In my opinion I do not think digital manipulation is affecting our ability to accept un-manipulated imagery. I agree there appears to be a trend of digital manipulation at present. This is possible due to mainstream introduction of digital products, hardware and software, over the last few years. It is the new, very popular, method of photographic processing. There will be fluctuations in how digital manipulation is utilised, and to what extent, however I believe that digital manipulation is here to stay.
By Josh Baker at 21:47 Thu 01 Feb 2007 | reply to this >
There is an interesting discussion in film and Photography forum regarding shooting with digital vs. film, you might find it very interesting.
By KaWai at 23:16 Thu 01 Feb 2007 | reply to this >
.......you can never stop progress....that is the beauty of it....but it all depends on how you use the medium....like nuclear energy everything seems to have two edges....it is up to the user !...........to put the ‘new medium’ to the best 'personalised' creative use.....the result is what counts in the end as I see it......and only the creator has absolute artistic and quality control, to blame the medium alone would be rather simplistic as I see it.........
On another point.... as matter of opinion, I am not so sure.... people...and I quote ” ... everyone thinks he should have composed a 'glossy' photo....”, if we were to see the same picture met John Doe as the subject.....would it be an exciting picture ?.....would we credit certain artistic value ?...would we even consider it for admiration ?......would it had been rated as a ‘new’ interesting approach or had we bothered to consider its composition, pose, aim.... in this particular case at all ?....the fact that he is the subject of the composition does not register in my mind as an asset of or relevance.........simply because then we would not be sincere in judging the work for its face value....the whole formulation that is what I find more interesting... including its power to inspire............the ‘added value ‘ without the ‘well known name’..... for that matter..........
By Galileo's Universe at 09:16 Fri 02 Feb 2007 | reply to this >
.......Diane Vreeland was a true magician with a unique feeling for fashion and fantasy.....she understood totally how it works.....and you see that in her beautiful statements....like "... pink is the blue navy of India".......fantastic !.....
“ WITHOUT EMOTIONS THERE IS NO BEAUTY.......”..you cannot fake it.....impossible......emotions are just like trying to catch a cloud !....you see it , you know it is there but you can never tie it down to anything......it just floats and floats in space....the job is to translate those emotions that motivate us to create something however unimportant it might seem to our fellow humans........
Everything must come from within.......there lies its honesty, true purity and real meaning and consequently it all reflects in the works.....The medium used is just like a sort of.....“ Beam me up ! “........to illustrate it........
By Galileo's Universe at 10:07 Fri 02 Feb 2007 | reply to this >
Irving Penn.
By harley at 19:32 Thu 25 Jan 2007 | reply to this >