Christopher Bush wrote:

hmmm....dare i ask....

please define photographic skill

Composition, color, focus, and intent/result.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Yet another thread for the photographic culture divide.

yeah, but we like that when it's raining outside

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Advertising genius... Though definitely stealing somebody else's playbook, and not quite as effectively as the original.

true, no points for originality, but my eyes are always drawn to their ads (and they tend to linger there for a while)

James Jackson wrote:
Composition, color, focus, and intent/result.

i'm with you on the last one, but the others to me are more variables to be played with to produce the intent (or "vision"). 

but then it was meant to be a pretty open question, and somewhat silly anyway.

Christopher Bush wrote:

i'm with you on the last one, but the others to me are more variables to be played with to produce the intent (or "vision"). 

but then it was meant to be a pretty open question, and somewhat silly anyway.

well the intent/result one qualifies the rest.  If your composition is a bit different from the "rule" do you have a reason for it to be?  If your colors are completely incorrect, why?  If you are out of focus or blurred, or focused on something other than the main subject, do you have a reason behind that?

So I'm supposing we're on the same page but expressing it differently.

Stacy Leigh wrote:
*Please don't anybody pick on me for my opinion
Stacy Leigh

You're stupid, dumb, ridiculous and I hate you! [from what i've read you might be the only one that understands that was sarcasm...nobody would ever pick on you]

James Jackson wrote:

well the intent/result one qualifies the rest.  If your composition is a bit different from the "rule" do you have a reason for it to be?  If your colors are completely incorrect, why?  If you are out of focus or blurred, or focused on something other than the main subject, do you have a reason behind that?

So I'm supposing we're on the same page but expressing it differently.

right. 

i would then suggest that dov from aa or terry richardson are getting exactly what they want.  whether the rest of us like or dislike it is a matter of taste.

Michael Raveney wrote:
Terry is one of a kind, a true artist! one of my favs!!!!

yeah... a true scam artist... a one of a kind huckster... right up there with good ole P.T.

Christopher Bush wrote:

right. 

i would then suggest that dov from aa or terry richardson are getting exactly what they want.  whether the rest of us like or dislike it is a matter of taste.

Doesn't taste level come in to the equation though?  Even though they're "getting exactly what they want", shouldn't we be pushing them to get better?

James Jackson wrote:

Doesn't taste level come in to the equation though?  Even though they're "getting exactly what they want", shouldn't we be pushing them to get better?

but i like what they get!  there is no objective "better", in my mind.  if it works, it works.  i think aa ads work, as does terry's stuff.

James Jackson wrote:

yeah... a true scam artist... a one of a kind huckster... right up there with good ole P.T.

not sure where you get the scamming from, the images speak for themselves!

Michael Raveney wrote:

not sure where you get the scamming from, the images speak for themselves!

You're right... they speak of hucksterism.

Christopher Bush wrote:

but i like what they get!  there is no objective "better", in my mind.  if it works, it works.  i think aa ads work, as does terry's stuff.

oh come on... be realistic here.  180 years of photographic art and science and you think the culmination of that can be best expressed by what Terry Richardson produces?

That's fucked.

James Jackson wrote:

oh come on... be realistic here.  180 years of photographic art and science and you think the culmination of that can be best expressed by what Terry Richardson produces?

That's fucked.

i really don't look at it that way

Christopher Bush wrote:
i really don't look at it that way

How else can it be looked at?  Either the work one does advances the industry and the art of photography or it is schlock and shouldn't be praised.

James Jackson wrote:

How else can it be looked at?  Either the work one does advances the industry and the art of photography or it is schlock and shouldn't be praised.

then i vote for the former!

Christopher Bush wrote:
then i vote for the former!

you mean to say that somehow Terry Richardson's wanna be 1970's Kodachrome shots are advancing the industry in some way??

Terry is good at one thing, and one thing only... making a photo shot in a modern camera look like it came from technology designed 30 years ago.

If you like nostalgia, then yes...terry is a god...

KM von Seidl wrote:
I'm still not sure what this is debate over...the skill/vision of the photographer who took these shots (and the inevitable debate on TR) or the effectiveness of the particular approach of AA vis-a-vis the overall marketing strategy in general, ad campaign/gallery looks in particular?

Well I think the title of the thread clearly makes it about  the skill/vision of the photographer/photographers who shoot in this "style"....

The argument about effectiveness of advertising campaigns and marketing strategy is just a weak attempt at justifying the schlock.

Suzan Aktug wrote:
American Apparel Add Campaigns...

I'm very interested in getting an opinion on these adds. We have all this talk about GWC's, and after seeing these adds, they all look like GWC photos to me...

What does everyone else think?

http://www.americanapparel.net/gallery/ … index.html

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Demographic focus. Fashion has never placed its emphasis on "product" because as "product" it's hideously overpriced and its qualities just don't photograph well (such as textural "feel"). Fashion advertising is all about making statements of style and social desirability, particularly within certain lifestyles.

It's that way with lots of "product" actually.

As my dad the ad man used to say, "you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle...."

UdoR 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.

e-string wrote:
The MM definition does say "amateur" though... or are you referring to your own personal definition?

Actually, it's not my OWN definition, it is THE definition... PERIOD!!!

I checked the Info section and see that it's incorrect. So, I advised the powers to be to change it.

The GWC acronym describes a person that owns a camera, but the main objective is not to create photos, which would warrant the term "photographer".

The GWC's ("Guy With Camera") sole objective is to get laid, to get dates or at least to see boobies, by using his camera.

Please make a note of that difference!

The distinction between most professional photographers and many amateur photographers is not the quality of their work, but the source of income... both should be expected to conduct their photoshoots in a "professional" manner.

You can also check Model Mayhem's Frequently Asked Questions at: https://www.modelmayhem.com/faq.php#q16


UdoR
Moderator

Suzan Aktug wrote:
http://www.americanapparel.net/gallery/photocollections/models/index.html

I've dealt with the term "GWC" as understood by MM and you can see the post above.

I don't know how to say this, but... the company ASKED for a certain look in their images and their photographer fit their demands and DELIVERED!

Suzan, I don't know the field you are dealing with, but commercial clients have their OWN ideas and commission a photographer to realize THEIR own vision for THEIR marketing campaign...

For you to insinuate that the images were taken simply to get laid (see the real definition of "GWC" is simply wrong.

Cheers

UdoR

Studio200 wrote:
those shots are definately a step above the typical stuff I see on MM.

wow... that's insulting... to anyone on MM

KM von Seidl wrote:
It's that way with lots of "product" actually.

As my dad the ad man used to say, "you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle...."

True. Car advertising mostly hasn't been about cars for ages. About a year ago my dad was looking at either a new Lexus or Mercedes. He showed me the Lexus catelog. It was all about taking a tour through Napa Valley, and workers hand-stitching leather. In 20 pages, there were maybe 15 car shots (and in about half, they were either motion-blurred or the car was a minor element in a lifestyle photograph), and only 2 really good double-page spreads of the car itself and schematics showing you what you're buying. I'd say close to half the pictures didn't even have the car in it at all (interiors of couples tasting wine, cooking in chic kitchens, etc.) It was all about getting you to buy the Lexus Luxery Living dream.

A friend of mine put it this way concerning car advertising: the idea is if you pitch your car like a consumer reports review, you're going to attract people who pinch the penny and will be the most likely to realize your fuel efficiency and low-maintainance claims are full of crap. Hook people on the idea of the car and get them to the dealerships NOW.

Hell, the best VW ads are all about post-modern/cubist geometry (in a world of boring squares, we offer you a Beetle with CURVES!). Who do they figure is their market? 20-30 something ubanites/suburbanites. What are Ford/Chevy truck commercials about? Being a Ford/Chevy man. Which resonates with their audiences. These are social messages, not product messages.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Thousands of people have looked at a Jackson Pollock painting and said, "My six-year-old could paint that!"

The appropriate response to that is:

"*sigh*

no, he couldn't."

Good point.. truth is Pollock was quite accomplished as a draughtsmen before he came up with the drip paintings. Good or bad he was the first one to do them. Same goes for Terry Richardson.. good or bad, his trademark (style) is the point and shoot look, and for that he get's paid the big bucks.

UdoR wrote:

I've dealt with the term "GWC" as understood by MM and you can see the post above.

I don't know how to say this, but... the company ASKED for a certain look in their images and their photographer fit their demands and DELIVERED!

Suzan, I don't know the field you are dealing with, but commercial clients have their OWN ideas and commission a photographer to realize THEIR own vision for THEIR marketing campaign...

For you to insinuate that the images were taken simply to get laid (see the real definition of "GWC" is simply wrong.

Cheers

UdoR

If the pictures were taken by the company owner (which I think someone said is the case earlier in this thread), then getting laid is very much a goal of his. He doesn't hide that fact.

e-string wrote:
If the pictures were taken by the company owner (which I think someone said is the case earlier in this thread), then getting laid is very much a goal of his. He doesn't hide that fact.

That someone would be me. I made that claim earlier in the thread. If you follow the link and look under the featured model, you'll see Dov Charney being credited as the "artist".

EDIT: Christopher Bush also made the same claim, before I.

CLT wrote:

That someone would be me. I made that claim earlier in the thread. If you follow the link and look under the featured mode, you'll see the Dov Charney being credited as the "artist".

Well there we go. He fits the official MM definition of GWC.

e-string wrote:
Well there we go. He fits the official MM definition of GWC.

Yeah, but "Guy With Corporation".

e-string wrote:

If the pictures were taken by the company owner (which I think someone said is the case earlier in this thread), then getting laid is very much a goal of his. He doesn't hide that fact.

C'mon... I really like you, but get serious!

What about the intention that gives the images a sulthry look?!

I shot on commission models to look hot and sexy and I am uneasy that my name is associated with them!

I don't even want to respond... a GWC is a picture taker on a specific level, even a highly prominent magazine shooter can be a GWC... it is the friggin' intention for the shoot, not if someone is an amateur or not... INTENTION!

UdoR wrote:
C'mon... I really like you, but get serious!

What about the intention that gives the images a sulthry look?!

I shot on commission models to look hot and sexy and I am uneasy that my name is associated with them!

I don't even want to respond... a GWC is a picture taker on a specific level, even a highly prominent magazine shooter can be a GWC... it is the friggin' intention for the shoot, not if someone is an amateur or not... INTENTION!

Yes, and I'm talking about intention good sir.   Don't you know that this guy has sex with his employees? Sometimes at work, if I remember correctly. He keeps getting sued for it. I think that totally qualifies him for "the" definition of GWC.

UdoR wrote:

C'mon... I really like you, but get serious!

What about the intention that gives the images a sulthry look?!

I shot on commission models to look hot and sexy and I am uneasy that my name is associated with them!

I don't even want to respond... a GWC is a picture taker on a specific level, even a highly prominent magazine shooter can be a GWC... it is the friggin' intention for the shoot, not if someone is an amateur or not... INTENTION!

Udo... AA's owner/photographer is continuously getting sued for sexual harassment and lewd conduct because he often propositions the "models" which are all AA employees.  His whole intent by doing the ad campaign himself is to become that "fashion photographer" he dreams of being... he wants to be the guy that the girls all can't resist taking their clothes off in front of.

Studio200 wrote:
those shots are definately a step above the typical stuff I see on MM.

James Jackson wrote:
wow... that's insulting... to anyone on MM

No, it's only saying that the poster feels the TYPICAL stuff on MM isn't as good. Watch your absolutes.

The images under discussion, and the style behind them are accomplishing sales for the company. It's also getting the company discussed very widely.

Would "good" photography as you define it: an image that "advances the industry and the art of photography--be any more successful?

If the answer is no, the images are 'the best possible for that client'.

Even if the answer is yes, it doesn't prove your point. "Good" photography cannot be viewed as being independent of how well it satisfies the intended purpose.  A wonderful catalog photo--perfect for its purpose--rarely makes for anything more than a lousy portrait. A fine art work rarely works as a fashion image. Etc. This guy's work, as ugly as you find it (and about which I do agree) is "good commercial photography" BECAUSE it's satisfying the needs of the client.

In a social, political, and 'artistic' vacuum, I suppose it could be considered 'bad photography', but that's not a useful way to examine it, even were such a thing possible.