|
Forums >
General Industry >
GWC.... Or Photographic Genius?
Garald Todd wrote: There's a shower/wet t-shirt set? Where's that link again... Oct 17 06 11:36 am Link 42 Oct 17 06 11:38 am Link CLT wrote: Don't act like a GWC, you're better than that. Oct 17 06 11:41 am Link e-string wrote: Just out of interest, have you or any model you know ever tried to have sex with any photographers you've worked with, or does that only apply to male photographers? I'm assuming you're not sanctionning predatory female photographers, or indeed models? Oct 17 06 11:45 am Link Suzan Aktug wrote: Neither, the man's a pioneer and sucessful. Oct 17 06 11:46 am Link CLT wrote: LMAO! Oct 17 06 11:47 am Link Thomas Gilder wrote: I'm not sanctioning predatory anything, unless the other party is completely willing to go along with it. And in my case, if the photographer is a woman, there's a good chance I'd be willing to go along with it. Oct 17 06 11:51 am Link Let's not say "art is easy, artlessness is hard"--that would be positively Orwellian; however, looking at the photographs in question, not the photography, and there's an enormous difference there, they look like snaps of average and comfortable people wearing average, comfortable stuff. Perhaps it's fashion for the I'm-not-into-fashion market segment (a kick in the "softer side of Sears" pants on its way out the door). Oct 17 06 11:51 am Link Suzan Aktug wrote: I am not going to repost my GWC definition right now, but the quality of a photo or professional/amateur status or the camera gear being used is NOT something that defines a GWC, it's the intention of getting laid, using the camera. Oct 17 06 11:51 am Link hahahahahaha... AHEM.... GWC Oct 17 06 11:56 am Link UdoR wrote: The MM definition does say "amateur" though... or are you referring to your own personal definition? Oct 17 06 11:56 am Link Do not dig them. The Lauren W. set, the shot with what appears to the photographers thumb on the models chin . . . stuff like that. No thanks. I've never really agreed that just because a campaign generates talk or it makes money, that it's valid. Simply appealing to the lowest common denominator is not that impressive to me. There have to be some better reasons than just it lights up an internet chat board. Just the shock to get people talking about the line. . . The talk is generally perceived as a success. I think there's a ton of ways to do it and some are better than others. I don't dig this approach. It's just a few notches removed than "Jackass" or Girls Gone Wild. What I'm saying is I don't dig these simplistic approaches to bombard our senses despite all the supposed intent behind it. No, I'm not in their target audience and even when I was, I felt the same way. Guess I didn't comment on the GWC topic but oh well. Oct 17 06 12:02 pm Link Garald Todd wrote: Ok, melissa's set is pretty meaningless, even in terms of advertising. I was an international business major back in college days so any business/marketing related stuff interests me and I take it with an open mind. But yeah... don't get some of the stuff on there. Oct 17 06 12:02 pm Link steve_bevacqua wrote: Larry Flynt has better taste then that IMHO....and it's just more commercial garbage thrust at teenagers! Myspace angles indeed...but it's a paycheck. Oct 17 06 12:04 pm Link The way I see it. It's GWC Style and it's another version of the Calvin Klein heroin chique. (which i really hated on so many levels) This one is a take off on the "ook at me and friends on myspace" look but properly exposed and sharp. Still a cheap bash light type of shot. I am not impressed but it works for the people it targets, I figure. So photography crap. But if it sells the colths briliant. Oct 17 06 12:04 pm Link Advertising...like art (photography) is subjective. That's the beauty of it. Oct 17 06 12:07 pm Link UdoR wrote: e-string wrote: That's right. MM FAQ definition does not cover professionals who use their prefessions to see "nekkid" women that they would otherwise never see. Oct 17 06 12:07 pm Link Yeah I am not really digging his work... Oct 17 06 12:15 pm Link Christopher Bush wrote: You're kidding, right? Oct 17 06 12:46 pm Link Advertising genius... Though definitely stealing somebody else's playbook, and not quite as effectively as the original. Oct 17 06 01:22 pm Link Christopher Bush wrote: This is something they'll never understand here. While most here are busily creating imagery that makes them look "professional," professionals are busily creating imagery that makes a statement about their brands' style directions. Oct 17 06 01:26 pm Link e-string wrote: Exactly! Ladies BEWARE! (Especially if you look like you're on drugs or look underage.) Oct 17 06 01:27 pm Link Mac Swift wrote: Thousands of people have looked at a Jackson Pollock painting and said, "My six-year-old could paint that!" Oct 17 06 01:37 pm Link not a fan, not a fan at all Oct 17 06 01:40 pm Link Yet another thread for the photographic culture divide. Oct 17 06 01:41 pm Link terrible! there are gwc's with real talent, he's certainly not one! this is a classic example of trying to achieve something, but being way off base. Oct 17 06 01:49 pm Link This is garbage. I bet none of the models wanted an actual print from it. Let alone pay for one. I can care less about the companies bad standings and work ethics. It shows in their work. For most of us who are serious about what we do it shows. Even the GWC aspiring to be pro has more to offer. Oct 17 06 01:56 pm Link saverio wrote: How do you know he's not exactly on base? The imagery does not appeal to me, but then I would never wear their clothing either. The imagery of Zegna, Armani, Guess or D&G do appeal to me and, as it turns out, I do wear their clothing. So maybe the marketing geniuses have us pegged pretty well after all? Oct 17 06 01:57 pm Link saverio wrote: I don't even think they were trying to achieve something other than taking a picture. I've seen better pictures taken on a disposable camera. LOL! Oct 17 06 01:58 pm Link UdoR wrote: you don't think someone behind this camera was trying to get laid????? Oct 17 06 02:00 pm Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: Finally voices of reason... Oct 17 06 02:11 pm Link LOL!!! Threads like this ALWAS crack me up and never cease to amaze me. Men with power and influence trading what they can provide (money, fame, power) to younger (mostly) women who are gladly willing to take what is offered in exchange for sexual liaisons... You people act as if this were somehow new? Like it came about with the invention of the internet or with GWCs????? This is how the world has worked since day one and, while not for everyone, will continue until the extinction of our species... The dynamics may change, roles may reverse, but the essential construct will never leave us - ever... Oct 17 06 02:12 pm Link Jerry Avenaim wrote: Ah yes, the infamous "kiddie porn" campaign. That one sure got people up in arms. And sold the brand. Oct 17 06 02:20 pm Link The owner of this clothing company comes to the office in his underwear. The whole idea of the ad campaign is to resemble "my space" and other sites like it. It is supposed to relate to the market they are targeting. But if you hate this photographer, then you have to hate a lot of other photogs. I personally am not fond of David La Cheplle. But who am I? Oct 17 06 02:29 pm Link Suzan Aktug wrote: Its all great stuff if he got paid for it and the client liked it. Again no one here is better than the next person because any one can take a picture and call it his own style. Oct 17 06 02:29 pm Link Michael Alan wrote: Michael Going was an instructor of mine in art school, and an inspirational one at that. He helped me get over a few mental blocks I was having at the time. I'm glad to hear he's still going. His stuff was great, and he had a certain "unflappable" quality to him (a sort of single-minded determination you could say) that I've long strived to emulate. Oct 17 06 02:31 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: Oh horse shite. Those images have nothing indicating any great level of photographic skill. Please. They are nothing more than snap shots. If that was the intention of the shoot then fine, otherwise those are some piss poor images for any one with some degree of photographic knowledge. Oct 17 06 03:04 pm Link Jerry Avenaim wrote: huge difference between the great campaign you mention, ck and meisel, and this junk! if i were the canadian owner of the american based aa, i would recruit from myspace self shot images and then create a campaign? it would be a lot better! saverio Oct 17 06 03:12 pm Link Christopher Bush wrote: this whole conversation has been done before... Oct 17 06 04:51 pm Link Mac Swift wrote: hmmm....dare i ask.... Oct 17 06 04:54 pm Link |
. It's like, cliche GWC in some cases. There is that one where it has a girl hanging from a basket ball hoop in a swimsuit, you can just imagine the photographer angling in on the crotch shot lol. 
