Can I ask a question.

What point in the world is there to people 'listing' which photographers they like in a form of celebrity hierachy?

Rarely does anybody reference a true master of photography here. This really makes me worry about people coming through. If I hear one more person rate Rankin as an innovator and not mention Horst, Bourdain, Philip-Lorca Dicorcia or for heavens sake at least Oliviero Toscani as a relevant photographer I think I'll burst...

Perhaps the work of past masters just is'nt relevent to todays up and coming photographers Ben. Society has changed completely and the work of photographers such as Horst & Bourdin certainly to me suffers from this. But surely you'd expect that?! You can appreciate the work in a historical context for sure but as far as being relevent in todays world...I don't think so. You have to look forward, not backward.

Its the same as children who dont know what pacers are or have never seen a DCC cassette or never watched nieghbours with kylie and jason... its a scary world man and these kids dont have the same knowledge of the wolrd as what they know is fed through magazines and media, and whoever has the biggest media presence will be the first person off their tongue.

In attempt to bring more kudos to my list i would say lousie dahl-wolfe is one of my favourite fashion photographers and so to Cecil Beaton. David Baileys work in the 60's of celebrities are excellent as well.

Always wanted to be michael cane with those big black glasses...not a lot of people know that.

Actually Patch you are very wrong, but that is probably because you are still a student.

When I do guest lecturing at my old college up in Yorkshire I always speak about Beaton, Horst, Avedon etc. and any of the kids who truly love fashion and want to get into it find way more inspiration from looking up their work than they would looking at 'Rankin - Portraits'.

Oh so very young...

What about Helmut Newton, you cant forget Helmut Newton.

Hi Ben,

I think the question you ask is a valid one. I don't think you can deny however that the world does see through different eyes...and thank god. It's good to see that you
are passionate and care about the state of photography, but with all respect, I do think that people should be allowed to enjoy the work of whom ever they please without attack.

Art as subjective as it is is always going to mean something completely different to one person that it is to another. It was Richard Avedon who said "My portraits are more about me than they are about the people I photograph" and it is for that reason I'm interesested in the person behind the imagery as much as the imagery it's self. Life is a self referential journey, it's natural too see someones work and gravitate towards it, no matter who they are, what they do, or even what quallity the work is. You can get something from a snap shot your friend took.

The list I made is a *part* list. I mentioned I could go on forever and I really could. I make similar lists when people ask me what kind of music I like. I could rabbit on for ages telling of the classic acts I've listened to for decades or I could give you a snap shot of where I'm at right now, begin a conversation and go from there.

Any brief conversation...particularly one over an internet forum board is going to be the tip of an iceburg.

I poured over the pages, completely transfixed by the likes of Penn, Horst, Cartier-Bresson, Bourdain, Newton..gof even Nicéphore Niépce (I could seriously go on forever again) in my uni days long before I even looked at an Italian Vogue. And I've very much taken a part of each with me. But first of all I was in an environment to do so and secondly that was quite a while ago...you can't blame someone new for being drawn to what they see in monthly press. In time, if they choose to they will find the base, the root of what they're looking for.

A master, is quite often semantically confused by someone who has spent a life time photographing...even Horst in 1946 was widely regarded as a master. I can't imagine anyone even questioning the fact he is or questioning the fact at the time. I think a few of the names listed in this thread are already masters of the medium today...I personally don't think that being a master of the medium is something that you can catergorize post death. Art is liquid, it's shape is changing constantly...especially so since once again, the world sees through different eyes. My definition of a master is completely different to someone elses.

I'm glad though that there are people passionate enough like your self to voice your concerns, and it's great that you are teaching the these things in the uni you guest lecture at. I do think though that we have to all recognise that we all are walking different paths. If people want to find out they will.

That's my persoective anyway, Best wishes, David.

Very good David, very good points there.

It's not even a passion thing, it's simply a matter of people thinking Rankin or Terry Richardson are innovators, without delving deeper into looking at Nan Goldin or Harris's great example, Helmut Newton.

These days there is a blurred line between photographers being celebrities or artist's. The comments about Terry Richarson above for instance, show that. Look at Mario Testino, doesn't he have a star on the walk of fame in Hollywood now? Interestingly I can't remember the last shoot or story I saw of his that said anything whatsoever, other than 'check me out, I'm mates with Hollywood A listers'.

Photography is of course extremely subjective, surely thats one of the great things about it as an art form (many even question whether it is that), however I think that in the age of the celebrity this gets lost.

I would reccomend anybody who goes to Berlin to visit the Helmut Newton permanent exhibit. Walk around that for a few hours, watch films of him working, see his equipment and his work and then tell me why Rankin is a good photographer.

It just kills me that people get into photography to be like him (I'm generalising here based on the students I've worked with.)

Just to end it, last time I went up to do the thing at the college, all the younglings who wanted to get into fashion photography were asking the questions about the money, and the glamour of it. They all said they loved Rankin et al and wanted to work for Dazed etc. One young chap didn't say a word all lesson though he looked like he wanted to. At lunch I took a walk in the woods to clear my head, whilst all the students went and smoked draw behind the college. I saw this one young guy running round the woods on his own with a really old camera taking pictures of the trees in the sun. Later in the afternoon I took him to one side and had a chat with him and we spoke for an hour about Robert Capa and the Magnum agency, war photographers Chin etc.

I gave him a job there and then.

Nice story!

You've got some very valid points in there. I think it's very easy to get overly concerned about the state of the world so to speak...but that's fine, it just speaks volumes of your character. Just keep doing what you're doing and foster the talent. You're never going to be able to change someone who is in it for the wrong reasons...chances are they'll do amazingly and be talked about on forum boards in years to come. Your story reminded me of my time studying...there were alot people there who didn't know what they wanted to do in life and were there to try it out. It's the different paths thing again...

Terry Richardsons work is really interesting...it's not that I don't like it, it's just asthetically not really my kind if thing...although in saying that, there are some shots of his that have really stopped me in my tracks.

There is a bare humanity in his work that is unquestionable. It's very disitinctively him. I think therefore he is a valid artist though for different reasons.

As you say, it's barely innovative, but you can't argue with his popularity...it says to me that somehow he has his finger on the pulse of a generation, which says more about society rather than the art it's self.
*Which I think is possibly the point you are trying to make??* He's just saying what's on HIS mind really, and it's quite the open stream of conciousness albiet on the surface one levelled. It always goes deeper though... *The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible, even when it appears to be blindingly obvious*

In personal search, we want to identify with something...sometimes it lasts a week, some times it last years. Each time we assimilate and take a piece of what we like...sometimes it's kept later in life. Sexullity is something that's always going to resurface if only for a purely self referential perspective. It's all about the questions we ask our selves really. I'll leave with one of my favourite quotes...

"...No great artist ever sees things as they really are. If he did, he would cease to be an artist..." Oscar Wilde

i dont consider myself a fashion photographer,just a photographer.but not to know about MUNKACSI,MAN RAY,HIRO,JEAN LOUP SIEFF,MELVIN SOKOLSKY.....and especialy...BOB RICHARDSON....thingys dad is just plain daft.
i think the mistake most kids make is to imitate whats in the mags right now...instead of doing the OPPOSITE.....plus so many kids taking pics for the wrong reasons not looking at it as a lifes vocation but as a lifestyle...its been said before i know but it needs repeating.

Hmm, when I was beginning to shoot and honing my skills and so on, I knew shit all about photographers. I remember being compared to the work of Corinne Day and Diane Arbus and being like "Who is that?" then looking them up on the net.

Looking back, even though it usually made me look very naive and amateur not knowing who's who, I think it was a great way to start. I didn't try to emulate anyone, at least not directly since I can't say there wasn't SOME influence for anything. But I think on the whole I sort of just trial and error'd it to where I am now. Which is, I think, to be able to be self-critical enough to edit and do some stuff and at least look for something uniquely [as I feel] me in the images I shoot. Blah blah blah. Either way, my point is that for starting out, it's better maybe to not know anything, so you can get a head start on your own personal style.

When I went to college for photography, everything changed for me, I did my Avedon thing, I did my Penn thing, then I sort of realized I was emulating. Now it's still pretty hard to keep myself from copying. Although when you're learning I totally think it's ok to copy, so you can learn how to recreate certain technical environments.

Well, I'm off to Tokyo!