Shyly wrote:
I've never understood what's made their advertising images compelling to some people.

they are voyeuristic and unabashedly slutty.  what's not to like in that?

Christopher Bush wrote:
they are voyeuristic and unabashedly slutty.  what's not to like in that?

There's nothing wrong with those qualities, if that's what you see.  I don't.  They just strike me as bad photographs.

Is the amateur vibe to the images necessary for the voyeuristic thing to be effective?  It's like that on a lot of porn sites, I've been told - people actually prefer amateur shots to well done images.  (Though I still don't get the psychology of that, either.  Maybe it's a man thing?)

Shyly wrote:
Is the amateur vibe to the images necessary for the voyeuristic thing to be effective?

it helps.  it is much easier to connect with a simple photo than an elaborate one that is divorced from reality.  a polaroid of girl in her undies is much more compelling to me than some over-lighted playboy or maxim shot. 

a "gwc" does not understand this, and therefore that comparison is not appropraite here. (not directed at you, shyly, just a general observation)

Christopher Bush wrote:
it helps.  it is much easier to connect with a simple photo than an elaborate one that is divorced from reality.  a polaroid of girl in her undies is much more compelling to me than some over-lighted playboy or maxim shot. 

a "gwc" does not understand this, and therefore that comparison is not appropraite here. (not directed at you, shyly, just a general observation)

Okay, that makes some sense.  But then my question is, how do we separate a compelling voyeuristic image that understands those elements of your psychology from just a plain old bad snapshot?  I can't tell the difference.

Can we even call anyone a GWC anymore?  I mean, I may not like the American Apparel photography, but no picture I've taken is on a billboard, so they clearly know something I don't.  (Terry Richardson is looming large in my mind as we discuss this as well.)

This is all very perplexing.

Shyly wrote:
Is the amateur vibe to the images necessary for the voyeuristic thing to be effective?  It's like that on a lot of porn sites, I've been told - people actually prefer amateur shots to well done images.  (Though I still don't get the psychology of that, either.  Maybe it's a man thing?)

Most guys prefer Mary Anne to Ginger.

The psychology of it might be:

A well photographed, highly paid, attractive model is seen as 'fake', and something that is unobtainable by the average Joe.

An amateur shot of a rather attractive, yet plain model makes it seem like a reality.  "Hey, I might run into her on the bus this morning, if I do I can hook up with her" type of thinking.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
Most guys prefer Mary Anne to Ginger.

The psychology of it might be:

A well photographed, highly paid, attractive model is seen as 'fake', and something that is unobtainable by the average Joe.

An amateur shot of a rather attractive, yet plain model makes it seem like a reality.  "Hey, I might run into her on the bus this morning, if I do I can hook up with her" type of thinking.

Ah-HA!  I knew it was a man thing.  Thank you for the input, Mr. Cheez.

Shyly wrote:
Can we even call anyone a GWC anymore?  I mean, I may not like the American Apparel photography, but no picture I've taken is on a billboard, so they clearly know something I don't.  (Terry Richardson is looming large in my mind as we discuss this as well.)

it's tricky, shyly.  this is very important, though.  my favorite photographers (juergen teller, helmut newton, etc) would likely be called "gwc" by the much of the internet peeps.  they do/did not go around flaunting their lighting skills, as they understand that would not make for interesting photos.

there is a huge difference between terry richardson, juergen teller, or helmut newton,   and a "gwc" from this site!  terry knows exactly what he's doing, but most around here can only see the technical attributes of his photos.  technicians are not usually the best at creating compelling imagery (although mastery of technique is important, whether or not it's used is a different question).  helmut newton is an easy example as most would agree that his imagery is extremely compelling, but he did not schlep around a bunch of equipment at all.  often he merely used an on-camera flash.  his later color work is actually quite simlar in its *surface appearance* to the "snapshot aesthetic" of people like terry richardson.

SayCheeZ! wrote:

Most guys prefer Mary Anne to Ginger.

The psychology of it might be:

A well photographed, highly paid, attractive model is seen as 'fake', and something that is unobtainable by the average Joe.

An amateur shot of a rather attractive, yet plain model makes it seem like a reality.  "Hey, I might run into her on the bus this morning, if I do I can hook up with her" type of thinking.

that too

Shyly wrote:
I've never understood what's made their advertising images compelling to some people.

I've always liked their ads...They're a releif from all the excess and artificiality of "mainstream" fashion.

Shyly wrote:
...how do we separate a compelling voyeuristic image that understands those elements of your psychology from just a plain old bad snapshot?  I can't tell the difference.

It's tough.  I can't tell the difference between a Jackson Pollock painting and a 6-year-old's mindless splattering.  But apparently people at MoMA can.

Shyly wrote:
Can we even call anyone a GWC anymore?  I mean, I may not like the American Apparel photography, but no picture I've taken is on a billboard, so they clearly know something I don't.  (Terry Richardson is looming large in my mind as we discuss this as well.)

This is all very perplexing.

The GWC concept may have had some value once upon a time, but more often than not, it's simply a way for insecure photographers and paranoid models to put down things/people who conduct themselves in a way that's different from certain norms of "the profession." 

As for your work not being on a billboard, I think you're confusing artistic merit with money and influence.  There's no trick to renting out a billboard and putting your image on it...if you have enough money.

SayCheeZ! wrote:

Most guys prefer Mary Anne to Ginger.

The psychology of it might be:

A well photographed, highly paid, attractive model is seen as 'fake', and something that is unobtainable by the average Joe.

An amateur shot of a rather attractive, yet plain model makes it seem like a reality.  "Hey, I might run into her on the bus this morning, if I do I can hook up with her" type of thinking.

Did somebody say "Suicide Girls"?

Christopher Bush wrote:

it helps.  it is much easier to connect with a simple photo than an elaborate one that is divorced from reality.  a polaroid of girl in her undies is much more compelling to me than some over-lighted playboy or maxim shot. 

a "gwc" does not understand this, and therefore that comparison is not appropraite here. (not directed at you, shyly, just a general observation)

The fact is, most "GWC" types don't find imagery like American Apparel or Terry Richardson the least bit appealing.  Every "GWC" I ever met aspired to the Playboy/Maxim ideal...The fact that they may not have been technically adept at getting that look dosen't change the fact that it's what they were aiming for.

In a way, one has to have a much more definite vision to do the "snapshot" look, because there's always someone waiting around the corner to challange what they're doing...I've lost count of how many people have regarded my toycamera work as haphazard and incompetent, despite how much time and thought has gone into acquiring my cameras, finding out the "personality" of each one and even deciding which ones [i have nearly 40] I'm going to use at a given shoot. 

Somebody else in this thread brought up the old "Jackson Pollock = a 6 year old" cliche.  For my money, a 6-year-old who can explain to me why their art looks the way it does is just as valid as Pollock.

Christopher Bush wrote:
there is a huge difference between terry richardson, juergen teller, or helmut newton,   and a "gwc" from this site!  terry knows exactly what he's doing, but most around here can only see the technical attributes of his photos.  technicians are not usually the best at creating compelling imagery (although mastery of technique is important, whether or not it's used is a different question).  helmut newton is an easy example as most would agree that his imagery is extremely compelling, but he did not schlep around a bunch of equipment at all.  often he merely used an on-camera flash.  his later color work is actually quite simlar in its *surface appearance* to the "snapshot aesthetic" of people like terry richardson.

In the case of the American Apparel campaign, or someone like Terry Richardson, I really don't know if I need to learn to look beneath the surface more carefully, or whether the whole phenomenon is a case of the emperor's new clothes.  I just can't tell how someone looks at Richardson's work and can ascertain that he knows what he's doing.  I tend to suspect that if you put a disposable camera in the hand of any person on the street and pointed them at some of the fashion models he's photographed, the results would be comparable.

But maybe that's the point?  I dunno.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I've always liked their ads...They're a releif from all the excess and artificiality of "mainstream" fashion.

I saw a chunky girl modeling in one of their billboards around LA recently.  I liked that one. 

Brian Diaz wrote:
It's tough.  I can't tell the difference between a Jackson Pollock painting and a 6-year-old's mindless splattering.  But apparently people at MoMA can.

Yes, but they also put a free-standing urinal on display in San Francisco, so I have my doubts about their trustworthiness.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
The fact is, most "GWC" types don't find imagery like American Apparel or Terry Richardson the least bit appealing.  Every "GWC" I ever met aspired to the Playboy/Maxim ideal...The fact that they may not have been technically adept at getting that look dosen't change the fact that it's what they were aiming for.

Now that's an interesting point.  Does the value of an image increase if it is created deliberately, even if the image itself doesn't have much to redeem it?  How much does intent matter?

Shyly wrote:
I tend to suspect that if you put a disposable camera in the hand of any person on the street and pointed them at some of the fashion models he's photographed, the results would be comparable.

Absolutely not. 

Speaking as a lo-tech specialist myself, I assure you that while there may be an element of serendipity to Richardson's work, it's by no means random.  Besides, if you gave the Richardson's camera [or one of mine] to someone on the street, they would most likely strive to make their result as "professional" looking as possible...That's the whole point of current digital technology -- getting a "good" shot with "ease".  The look of people like Richardson, the DID/True Detective shooters, and the growing number of toycamera/lomo enthusiasts is about the subversion and rexamination of what makes an image "good" or "artistic".  Granted, it's all a bit high-concept, but it definitely makes a difference.

Shyly wrote:

Now that's an interesting point.  Does the value of an image increase if it is created deliberately, even if the image itself doesn't have much to redeem it?  How much does intent matter?

What do you consider "reedeeming"?  I daresay your idea of what makes an image good [or what makes a good image] is totally different than mine.  In fact I'm certain of it.

"Intent" [imo] is the difference between Jackson Pollock and a 6-year-old [unless said 6-year-old has a solid explanation for what he's doing].  I had an art teacher in 12th grade who responded to statements like "I could have done that" with "Well, why didn't you"?

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Absolutely not. 

Speaking as a lo-tech specialist myself, I assure you that while there may be an element of serendipity to Richardson's work, it's by no means random.  Besides, if you gave the Richardson's camera [or one of mine] to someone on the street, they would most likely strive to make their result as "professional" looking as possible...That's the whole point of current digital technology -- getting a "good" shot with "ease".  The look of people like Richardson, the DID/True Detective shooters, and the growing number of toycamera/lomo enthusiasts is about the subversion and rexamination of what makes an image "good" or "artistic".  Granted, it's all a bit high-concept, but it definitely makes a difference.

I agree with your argument in your case, because I think you're a hell of an artist.  I don't see that in Richardson's work, or in the AA campaign, so it's harder for me to believe in those cases.  Richardson in particular has always just struck me as the photographic equivalent of shock rock.  I'm not sure I see inherent value in that approach.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
I saw the segment about "American Apparel" on 20/20 last night.  It seems to be a rebroadcast of a program originally shown in December.

I'm very surprised that I haven't seen anyone make comments (about the segment, or American Apparel) here on MM, or any other forum for that matter.

The segment starts off by explaining how the company is 'different' than most other clothing manufacturers because they manufacture the clothes in the USA by well paid workers who all receive health insurance... something quite different than other companies that rely on child labor in sweatshops of 3rd world countries.

Then they talk about the SEXY advertisements... from web pages to regular ads... to people posting provocative (non professional) photos for all to see in the American Apparel stores.

The segment basically ends, and mostly is about the SEXPLOITATION of the companies manufacturing environment.  They focused on the founders willingness to allow employees to have sex during breaks, the OUI magazine covers which are plastered on the companies walls, his obsessive flirting and sexual triumphs with several workers, and the fact that a magazine reporter witnessed him masturbating, then having sex with an employee during her interview with him.

From the photos used in their advertisements, I think it would be very safe to say that GWC's now can call themselves 'professional photographers', because the quality of the images American Apparel use in their ads seem to come from the lowest form of the GWC breed!

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362781

http://www.americanapparel.net
http://www.americanapparel.net/gallery
http://www.americanapparelstore.com/


PS: If they were located ANYWHERE except LA, I'd be submitting my employment application yesterday!   : )....

I have commented on this once or twice in other's threads.  A friend of mine works for AA and she told me that the owner, whose name is Dov Charney, sexually harasses and even has sex with some of the employees and models.  He has had some charges pressed against him, but not very many,  I think.
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthis … y_of_.html
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=14419
The photos used for ads are very low quality and tasteless.  But, I think it's less a matter of the standards for advertisement photos and more a matter of whether or not he should be having sex with his employees.

Shyly wrote:
I agree with your argument in your case, because I think you're a hell of an artist.  I don't see that in Richardson's work, or in the AA campaign, so it's harder for me to believe in those cases.  Richardson in particular has always just struck me as the photographic equivalent of shock rock.  I'm not sure I see inherent value in that approach.

While your statement is quite flattering, it seems to have more to do with the fact that you know me and don't know Terry Richardson...In my more egocentric moments, I like to think that my work is kindred to Ornette Coleman than to "shock rock" [whatever that entails].  Whether you find value in what AA or Terry Richardson do is purely a matter of opinion.  I like it, you don't and that's okay.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
The photos used for ads are very low quality and tasteless.

People said the same thing about Manet's "Olympia" back in 1865.  Meet me here in about 120 years and we'll revisit the issue.

Shyly wrote:

I tend to suspect that if you put a disposable camera in the hand of any person on the street and pointed them at some of the fashion models he's photographed, the results would be comparable.

But maybe that's the point?  I dunno.

that is the point, and i don't think the results would be comparable.  look at the what the models are doing.  doesn't seem like they're having a much better time than you or i?  don't they live in a, albiet very credible, still inaccessible reality?

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

People said the same thing about Manet's "Olympia" back in 1865.  Meet me here in about 120 years and we'll revisit the issue.

That's just my personal opinion.. Because they are meant to be advertisements for clothing and not the girls who work there.
Anyway.
My point is really not the ads.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:

That's just my personal opinion.. Because they are meant to be advertisements for clothing and not the girls who work there.
Anyway.
My point is really not the ads.

Well then what is your point?  If you don't like how the company does business, fine, but that's not really what's being discussed here.  As for the ads being about "clothing" -- I don't know of many advertisements anywhere that stay strictly on topic -- it's usually more about selling an idea than a product -- why would American Apparel conduct its promotions in a different manner than any other company?

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
But, I think it's less a matter of the standards for advertisement photos and more a matter of whether or not he should be having sex with his employees.

I've lost track of how many of my female friends were dating their bosses...It's an old story.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Well then what is your point?  If you don't like how the company does business, fine, but that's not really what's being discussed here.  As for the ads being about "clothing" -- I don't know of many advertisements anywhere that stay strictly on topic -- it's usually more about selling an idea than a product -- why would American Apparel conduct its promotions in a different manner than any other company?

The original post is about more than the ads.
I responded to the part about sexual harassment.  I think maybe that, probably, the only reason they appear tasteless to me is that these photos are taken during the exploitation process.  Maybe while he's being vulgar and telling them that he wants to stick his penis in their vaginas.
The whole "really bad photo" part is just a bad marketing campaign, I guess.  Every time I've modeled for a clothing line, the clothing was pictured in the ad without a dozen wrinkles because I'm arching my back and sticking my butt out and without being cropped half-way out of the photo.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
I think maybe that, probably, the only reason they appear tasteless to me is that these photos are taken during the exploitation process.  Maybe while he's being vulgar and telling them that he wants to stick his penis in their vaginas.

Unless you were at the shoot where this happend, your statement is groundless and rooted in little more than gossip [do you believe everything you see on television?].  I'm sure lots of people would find the work in both our ports to be "tasteless" -- are they right?

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
Then they talk about the SEXY advertisements... from web pages to regular ads... to people posting provocative (non professional) photos for all to see in the American Apparel stores.

The segment basically ends, and mostly is about the SEXPLOITATION of the companies manufacturing environment.  They focused on the founders willingness to allow employees to have sex during breaks, the OUI magazine covers which are plastered on the companies walls, his obsessive flirting and sexual triumphs with several workers, and the fact that a magazine reporter witnessed him masturbating, then having sex with an employee during her interview with him.

Dina Davis wrote:
I just checked it out..........very interesting, weird as hell. It's like some cult lol

Ha!!


If you think that this is an anomaly you're clearly mistaken.  Some of the things described sound quite a bit like Abercrombie & Fitch where I worked for 3 years.  A&F was wildly cult-like, too, I might add.  Been 5 years since I left the company and I still refuse to shop in American Eagle  (that brainwashing is tough to shake!). 

Now were those acts company policy?  No, but they certainly transpired with regularity.  That stuff happens everywhere...