Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
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?].

No.  I don't watch television.  But, when one of my closest friends told me about it, after witnessing his behavious and asking coworkers about it, I did some research for myself.. 

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.

Opinions are just that.  Sure, they're right.  And I'm also right when I say that your work is incredibly breathtaking and beautiful.  I don't judge my own work.

Justin N Lane wrote:
they've made a point to stylize the sleazy snapshot aesthetic, nothing more...

So did YSL and Marc Jacobs. And through them, my new mortal enemy...Juergen Teller.

Aaron S wrote:
my new mortal enemy...Juergen Teller.

???

Christopher Bush wrote:

???

He makes naturally beautiful women look ugly.

And that's just enough to get on my mortal enemy list.

Aaron S wrote:

He makes naturally beautiful women look ugly.

And that's just enough to get on my mortal enemy list.

i must strongly disagree.  richardson sometimes uglifies, but i've never seen that in teller's work at all.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
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...

that, and the fact that there are no smoke and mirrors to obscure any lack of definite vision.  what's in the frame better be well thought out and interesting.

Christopher Bush wrote:

that, and the fact that there are no smoke and mirrors to obscure any lack of definite vision.  what's in the frame better be well thought out and interesting.

Exactly...and as I said, when someone challenges the art on the basis of "quality" [read "pretty"], you'd better have your story straight, something GWCs usually don't.

THE CARRASCO IMAGE wrote:
is photography about what we see or about how we potray what we see using lighting?

the photographer has to use lighting, otherwise the pictures would all be black.  i generally do not enjoy viewing images in which the photographer's lighting skill takes the center stage.  i am not impressed by it.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Exactly...and as I said, when someone challenges the art on the basis of "quality" [read "pretty"], you'd better have your story straight, something GWCs usually don't.

Hey...that's not fair...

I appreciate plenty of work that isn't necessarily "pretty."

Christopher Bush wrote:

i must strongly disagree.  richardson sometimes uglifies, but i've never seen that in teller's work at all.

I didn't really realize it until taking a good look at the same models in other shoots, and in person.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
If I had to choose mortal enemies in the fashion photo world based on what their photography represents, I'd be thinking more along the lines of Gilles Bensimon, David LaChapelle, Herb Ritts, Patrick Demarchelier....

agreed, on each one.

Christopher Bush wrote:

agreed, on each one.

I can agree with 1, 2, and 4. But since Herb Ritts is dead, so I think we can cut him some slack. So in his place I suggest Rankin, all he does is yell and scream at people.

Aaron S wrote:
I can agree with 1, 2, and 4. But since Herb Ritts is dead, so I think we can cut him some slack. So in his place I suggest Rankin, all he does is yell and scream at people.

I like some of Rankin's work very much, at least in some respects. Actually, quite a lot of it. He's got a wonderful wink in a lot of his work.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

I like some of Rankin's work very much, at least in some respects. Actually, quite a lot of it. He's got a wonderful wink in a lot of his work.

When I see his portraits, it always seems to me that he just goes to the person, "Hey, do something cool." and then photographs it. Versus some one like Paolo Roversi or Irving Penn, who both have portraits that seem very very controlled, like they have created every single part of the image, and left nothing to chance.

Also, he's just not a very nice person.

Shyly wrote:

Hey...that's not fair...

I appreciate plenty of work that isn't necessarily "pretty."

I wasn't necessarily talking about you, but...

Many of our prior conversations have led me to the conclusion that you prefer images with high production values -- big sets, costumes, makeups, lots and lots of pre-production.  There's nothing wrong with that, but it does seem to be giving you a blind spot to imagery that dosen't posess that [eg: Terry Richardson, American Apparel, "True Detective" style images] -- regardless of any actual artistic tradition said images may be following.  Granted, you do like work that's "unpretty", but you seem to insist that it be elaborately unpretty...The only thing that seems to insulate my work [for example] from that construct is the fact that you know me [and know that I have my "story straight"].  I'm simplifying at bit, but I hate long drawn out responses.

Aaron S wrote:
When I see his portraits, it always seems to me that he just goes to the person, "Hey, do something cool." and then photographs it. Versus some one like Paolo Roversi or Irving Penn, who both have portraits that seem very very controlled, like they have created every single part of the image, and left nothing to chance.

Also, he's just not a very nice person.

I like Roversi (a lot). For totally different reasons. Don't really care too much for Irving Penn, control-freak master that he is. (And totally inimitable, don't know of any photographer, living or dead, that had such a deft controlling hand both technically, compositionally, aesthetically as he had, and given such a range of subjects...

Heavy control rarely communicates anything relating to people, the world, or the lives we live.

Communication (and what's being communicated) means a whole hell of a lot more to me than an image's "impressiveness" quotient. Or else I'd not only worship Penn, but I'd love Demarchelier, I'd love LaChapelle, I'd love Richard Avedon, etc. I'd even think Playboy photographers were masters.

Lapis wrote:
Masturbating compulsively in front of employees and interviewers doesn't seem to go very well with the 'sexual equality' workplace they keep marketing.

In any job I ever had, if I was to call my boss a 'Jerk Off', I'd get fired!
At American Apparel, if you call the boss  'Jerk Off'... he will!

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

I like Roversi (a lot). For totally different reasons. Don't really care too much for Irving Penn, control-freak master that he is.

Heavy control rarely communicates anything relating to people, the world, or the lives we live.

Communication (and what's being communicated) means a whole hell of a lot more to me than an image's "impressiveness" quotient. Or else I'd not only worship Penn, but I'd love Demarchelier, I'd love LaChapelle, etc.

I think I can see a lot of communicativeness in Penn's stuff. Of course, he has a LARGE body of work and things have changed significantly over the 800 years he's been alive.

But Roversi, I can definitely understand his communication. And as such, him, and Helmut Newton, and Man Ray, are my three favorite photogrphers ever.

Lapis wrote:
I was surprised that there wasn't more reaction to the magazine article in Jane magazine about Dove's interesting compulsive sexual behaviour. Masturbating compulsively in front of employees and interviewers doesn't seem to go very well with the 'sexual equality' workplace they keep marketing.

I loved American Apparel when I first saw the clothes.  And I have a number of stylish-granola and hippy friends who definitely flock to the stores.  Some of his ads are cute- hey, he even puts hairy boys in their underwear, Yea! Then I came across the Jane article...

What's going on in society when anyone would defend/endorse a company environment where sexual situations are encouraged and excepted.  How can you have fair hiring in this type of situation?  What's the company review like?  And forget about how you can earn a raise...

Dov comes across as a sexual addict, which is really sad, for both him and his employees.  It would be like working in a crack house for a junkie, there's never a separation of work and social expectations.  No one would allow this type of behavior at a "sexy" restaurant, a "sexy" car dealership, or a "sexy" Kinko's. 

I do not shop at this company because I think while it's great that he pays his production employees a fair wage (which he's should be doing regardless), no one should be allowed to sexually exploit the people that have to work the closed with them and who depend on them for their livelihood.

MakeupNV wrote:
Dov comes across as a sexual addict, which is really sad, for both him and his employees.  It would be like working in a crack house for a junkie, there's never a separation of work and social expectations.  No one would allow this type of behavior at a "sexy" restaurant, a "sexy" car dealership, or a "sexy" Kinko's.

I don't think that behavior would even be tolerated at Hustler.

MakeupNV wrote:
no one should be allowed to sexually exploit the people that have to work the closed with them and who depend on them for their livelihood.

In a word:  Bollocks.  Those people don't "have" to work there.  If they don't want to be "exploited," they're free to walk right out the door...McDonalds is always hiring.  They put up with it because they want the prestige and monetary reward of working for a "hip" company.  Dove's buying it, the employees are selling it, end of story.  You're confusing victims with co-conspirators.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
In a word:  Bollocks.  Those people don't "have" to work there.  If those people don't want to be "exploited," they're free to walk right out the door...McDonalds is always hiring.  They put up with it because they want the prestige and monetary reward of working for a "hip" company.  Dove's buying it, the employees are selling it, end of story.  You're confusing victims with co-conspirators.

Sometimes you take my breath away, Melvin.  Being forced to choose between quitting and being sexually harassed is all kinds of wrong.  I cannot fucking BELIEVE you are condoning a work environment like that.

Good to know the feminist movement was a complete waste of time.  Maybe when I start my new job tomorrow the boss will let me know the special terms under which I can remain employed.  That would be super!

Shyly wrote:

Sometimes you take my breath away, Melvin.  Being forced to choose between quitting and being sexually harassed is all kinds of wrong.  I cannot fucking BELIEVE you are condoning a work environment like that.

Good to know the feminist movement was a complete waste of time.  Maybe when I start my new job tomorrow the boss will let me know the special terms under which I can remain employed.  That would be super!

I'm not condoning anything.  I'm merely stating that there are always choices.  We all make them, every day.  If people have a problem dealing with those choices, then perhaps we really DO need the government to tell us what we can see, where we can go and who we can marry. 

As for the feminist movement, the last time I saw Katherine MacKinnon, she was at some anti-porn conference sitting with Ralph Reed and Jerry Fallwell...talk about making choices.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I'm not condoning anything.  I'm merely stating that there are always choices.  We all make them, every day.  If people have a problem dealing with those choices, then perhaps we really DO need the government to tell us what we can see, where we can go and who we can marry...

Dude, I take it you didn't see the movie "North Country," then-- right?  This situation could affect men or women, but if your mom, sister, girlfriend, or whatever came home pissed one day because she had to chose between getting on her knees for the boss or walking off of her job, you really think that you'd be as objective as "...there are always choices?"  Yeah, there are choices but an environment like this doesn't allow for you to NOT be in the mood to hook up on the fly, you CAN'T have days where you just want to do your job and go home.  Why not?  Why, because THAT WOULD BE AGAINST COMPANY POLICY, official or unofficial.  WTF!! 

Even escorts, strippers, and porn stars just want to go to work without some boss/pimp grabbin' at them 24/7.  Yo.

MakeupNV wrote:

Dude, I take it you didn't see the movie "North Country," then-- right?  This situation could affect men or women, but if your mom, sister, girlfriend, or whatever came home pissed one day because she had to chose between getting on her knees for the boss or walking off of her job, you really think that you'd be as objective as "...there are always choices?"  Yeah, there are choices but an environment like this doesn't allow for you to NOT be in the mood to hook up on the fly, you CAN'T have days where you just want to do your job and go home.  Why not?  Why, because THAT WOULD BE AGAINST COMPANY POLICY, official or unofficial.  WTF!! 

Even escorts, strippers, and porn stars just want to go to work without some boss/pimp grabbin' at them 24/7.  Yo.

Actually, I've been sexually harrassed on a job before [by a male actually].  I got up and walked out, simple as that...And had a new job within 24 hours.  And woe betide anyone who thinks of harrassing one of my sisters, because that would be @ss kicking call for sure.

Let me be even more blunt:  These "victims" you're talking about aren't children kidnapped and forced to mine blood diamonds or illiterate young women sold into sex slavery.  These are young, smart, hip, well-educated people [most likely from privilidged backgrounds] who are making a concious decision whether to stay or leave a job.  I can think of more deserving recipients of my sympathy, even if you can't.   I stand by my original position:  Dove is buying, the models and employees are selling [and probably getting better than market value too].  As Winston Churchill's favorite joke ends: 

"We've already established what you are madam, now we're just haggling over the price."

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
These are young, smart, hip, well-educated people [most likely from privilidged backgrounds]..

Are we talking about the same retail employees working for minimum wage, here?  So.. Young?  Young people are hired because Dov is attracted to them.  Smart?  Obviously a lot of these people are not smart enough to stand up for themselves.  Hip?  Sure.  Whatever.  Anything is "hip" right now.  Well-educated?  Not necessarily.. These are people who probably don't meet the requirements [education, experience.. ] for better, well-paying and at least slightly rewarding jobs. 
Most likely from privilidged backgrounds?  That's the one that gets me.  People from priveledged backgrounds don't work.  I see it all the goddamn time.  They go to college on their parents' money.  They don't work during school.  Then, when they get out, they get a job that pays more than $6.75 an hour.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:

Are we talking about the same retail employees working for minimum wage, here?  So.. Young?  Young people are hired because Dov is attracted to them.  Smart?  Obviously a lot of these people are not smart enough to stand up for themselves.  Hip?  Sure.  Whatever.  Anything is "hip" right now.  Well-educated?  Not necessarily.. These are people who probably don't meet the requirements [education, experience.. ] for better, well-paying and at least slightly rewarding jobs. 
Most likely from privilidged backgrounds?  That's the one that gets me.  People from priveledged backgrounds don't work.  I see it all the goddamn time.  They go to college on their parents' money.  They don't work during school.  Then, when they get out, they get a job that pays more than $6.75 an hour.

So why don't you go to the company and educate them all...since you seem to have it all figured out?  Sheesh. 

If they're all as dumb and useless as you seem to think [hippie girl elitism always kills me] then why worry about them at all?  Line 'em up and let Dove have at 'em I say.  I honestly have better things to worry about than this guy or the people who willingly go to work for him.  You should too.

Christopher Bush wrote:
i always thought that a victim mentality is antithetical to feminism.  did i miss something?

You and I seem to have missed the same memo;  apparently the victim mentality is essential to feminist theory, not antithetical...Though you and I aren't alone in this confusion:

http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0629 … 45,24.html

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.

It would be nice if we could meet back here with you in 120 years to discuss this, Mel

Don't think I'd say the same for Ms. MacKinnon, though. 

...and does anyone really think that this whole "sexual exploitation" sort of thing thats being quibbled over here doesn't go on in Chinese sweatshops, too?  *sheesh*