I understand completely that comparisons are inevitable. I like his campaigns. The one's that I have seen anyway. I think they have an unusual value in the context of advertising - perhaps this is what I am thinking about - the images are amalgamations of lots of different things - maybe in a subjective way too. I think we should be careful about applying rules to artistic things. Just don't be too demanding. Maybe it's enough for his work to 'shit-stir'. So Helmut Lang comes to you instead of Mr Teller, what idea do you present to him? Is it going to be a collaboration? Perhaps you are friends and have mutual ideas and private jokes?

Oh I don't know. Maybe the difficulty I have is less to do with Teller and his work in themselves, and more to do with the emphasis and importance accorded it when there's so much going on elsewhere. I mean, if you want provocative, look up Joel Peter-Witkin!

Maybe Teller will just grow on me...

''The quotes Pony provided strongly suggest that Teller isn't thinking about anything!''

Ah, i was thinking, posting a few quotes, answers, out of a heap of answers, gives a limited view of the whole. Furthermore, interpretation can sway many ways, mine is the exact opposite to your interpretation.

''Subject is an important element in photography, and martinb has a point - if you can ignore the fact that the spotty, tired looking girl is actually Kate Moss, or the clothes other models are wearing are haute couture, aren't you just left with a load of vacuous, boring imagery? Anybody, anybody at all, can take bad photos - ''

Of course it is a matter of taste, to one boring, to another subtle. Maybe people read the nuances differently, to you it's a spotty Kate Moss, to me it's a freckley etheral figure, for instance.

''Can someone explain what's good about Teller's work, other than shit stirring?''

I don't get the shitstirring part at all. Could you explain to me what you see in his pictures as ''shitstirring'' ? Shitstirring in what context ? Au naturel vs ''perfect'' lighting (editing out) ?

I think Teller work is very provocative and direct(Look at the work with Charlotte Rampling for example) but at the same time very simple and beautiful, that is what it attracts to me of his work.

i saw his work no doubt he is a good photographer he is just representig his style and view of his life around him (party drink smoke travel) i wanna say he sizes his pictures on how he feels he has many diffrent styles

Sorry, "shit stirring" is a very English idiom (style or manner of expression peculiar to a given people) - so "challenging" might have been a better way of putting it?

Look, is it really so complicated? There are people who like Teller's work and others who don't. I suspect I may fall into the latter category but I haven't quite made my mind up so I'm still open to suggestions. But at heart, it doesn't matter what I ever decide, so long as I can at least begin to understand why other people like it so much.

Curiosity demands it - point finale!

At present I'm not convinced anybody really knows, beyond having been told, one way or another, that that's the way they should think. In a similar way to accepting that brown is the new black etc etc. Because still nobody has managed to really, eloquently express what it is about his work that really engages them. Inspires them, Pony. Is this man's work inspirational - or is there something about it that has so easily drawn so many imitators?

What form of excellence, of perfection, does it represent? References?

Any clues whatsoever would be welcome please!

And again, no harm intended.

"What form of excellence, of perfection, does it represent? References?"

I don´t know Flux, but the work of the German photographer August Sander has influenced Teller work.

And a quote from an interview:(About Helmut Lang Backstage campaign) "It´s not that i want to exploit their insecurity, but rather to show that beauty can be found in that frailty and fragility" Juergen Teller.

'' Sorry, "shit stirring" is a very English idiom (style or manner of expression peculiar to a given people) - so "challenging" might have been a better way of putting it? ''

I don't know, as i don't know your exact take on Teller, and shitstirring can mean many things. I'm interested in what you define as shitstirring in his work or challenging or however you want to define it. I don't view his pictures in that context and it's hard for me to find that context because i don't see it, literally, that's why i ask what it is that you define as shitstirring or challenging in his work. What i find interesting is how different people view the same work, totally differently. What set of standards do we have when we view work and what categories do we use to define ''bad'' photography and ''good'' photography for ourselves etc.

''Look, is it really so complicated? There are people who like Teller's work and others who don't. I suspect I may fall into the latter category but I haven't quite made my mind up so I'm still open to suggestions. But at heart, it doesn't matter what I ever decide, so long as I can at least begin to understand why other people like it so much.

Curiosity demands it - point finale! ''

Exactly, and that's why it's interesting for the other ''position'' to hear your position, ie. what it is that you see as shitstirring or challenging etc.

''At present I'm not convinced anybody really knows, beyond having been told, one way or another, that that's the way they should think. In a similar way to accepting that brown is the new black etc etc. Because still nobody has managed to really, eloquently express what it is about his work that really engages them. Inspires them, Pony. Is this man's work inspirational - or is there something about it that has so easily drawn so many imitators?

What form of excellence, of perfection, does it represent? References?''

Ignorant to believe that no one can form their own opinion on what they view as appealing or non appealing. That aside, it depends on what body of work we are looking at. He has a voice, but i don't think it's that easy to pin him down. His style revolves within the boundaries of his taste (i believe) and within those boundaries (that we all have ... not set in stone this thought [not referring to the part after the comma]), he has a wide range. I'm particularly fond of his, i will call them ''natural'' portraits, stripped of superficiality, a soft rawness. I like how skin is portrayed in these pictures, the skin breathes, it isn't one even toned, blank slate. There's so much depth there, already, for me. I find the quality of those pictures to have a certain delicacy, a silence, highlightened by the light that lends the pictures a soothing calm, tranquility and a timeless quality, distant similarities to Julia Margaret Cameron's work, perhaps.
There's an ''air'' quality to his work, which i sub- and consciously find myself attracted to. I like it when there's a (there's that word again) breathing quality to pictures, or space, room. His pictures often have this language that gives you (me) the feeling of room (through emphasis on space, light, imo), room for thoughts, also a drifting element where you get caught up in thought, which i like and relate to, moment in time. I don't find his photos particularly aggressive, nor in your face (quite the contrary), they are more head based, but not in a calculating way, in thought, caught up in thought (how i view many). So, aswell as light/air having an important visual aspect, aesthetically speaking, it also has a deeper felt meaning. If his work has to do with excellence or perfection, i don't know, and it's not always something of importance to me when i view a photo, what is important is what it conveys and i like how it conveys room, space, light, air, mentally and aesthetically speaking.

I agree with you Pony
Kisses...

Fantastic - thank you! Now I just have to go and look again with fresher eyes. Wielen danke.