Kevin Connery wrote:
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.

Quite. As even one of my very dry, academic art history instructors chimed over and over again, "art is not made in a vacuum." It's what fills the vacuum that makes the art, often much more so than the "art" itself, which when all is said and done is just a bunch of lights and shadows and forms on paper or a screen...

Kevin Connery wrote:

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

I apologize for my absolutes... they are a portion of why people typically find it difficult to talk to me perhaps, but they do create conversation... so I suppose my absolutes accomplish the same thing that you're accusing the AA campaign of doing... hrm...

Your point is well taken, yes advertising photography has a purpose, and that purpose is generating income and word of mouth.  Would good photography do the same thing?  Ask Benetton circa 1986.

I think that even a catalog image could be done better than average... look at Anthropologie.

James Jackson wrote:

I apologize for my absolutes... they are a portion of why people typically find it difficult to talk to me perhaps, but they do create conversation... so I suppose my absolutes accomplish the same thing that you're accusing the AA campaign of doing... hrm...

Your point is well taken, yes advertising photography has a purpose, and that purpose is generating income and word of mouth.  Would good photography do the same thing?  Ask Benetton circa 1986.

I think that even a catalog image could be done better than average... look at Anthropologie.

I dare you to do anything compared to him! I know I can't! So I stand in awe at his work, creativity, originality, accomplishments!

Just remember Aesop's fables...I diiiiiiiiiid!!!!!!

Michael Raveney wrote:

I dare you to do anything compared to him! I know I can't! So I stand in awe at his work, creativity, originality, accomplishments!

Just remember Aesop's fables...I diiiiiiiiiid!!!!!!

What?  Why don't you go suck him off if you like him so much?

Geez... will someone get the creepy guy off me, he's starting to freak me out.

James Jackson wrote:

What?  Why don't you go suck him off if you like him so much?

Geez... will someone get the creepy guy off me, he's starting to freak me out.

HA! don't flatter yourself!!

BTW who do you respect?

Michael Raveney wrote:
HA! don't flatter yourself!!

Flatter myself?? It *is* you that's following up all my comments trying to get a rise out of me and trying to dismiss me... as if you could.

Michael Raveney wrote:
BTW who do you respect?

Favorite photographer of all time, or current respectable industry professionals?

All time: Louis Faurer

Current: Several catalog shooters I know, Didier Gault, Jean-Luc Fievet, a few others... and the Art department of Antropologie...  They're pretty much the best of the best right now.

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

I like them. Always have for years. Have bought some of the clothes for my models. Not everybody sees the world the same way. But some like to judge how others see the world.

Jphoto wrote:
But some like to judge how others see the world.

Can I call bullshit on this line of reasoning right here and now.

*Everyone* judges everything they come in contact with... otherwise they would just run headlong in to it.

James Jackson wrote:

Michael Raveney wrote:
HA! don't flatter yourself!!

Flatter myself?? It *is* you that's following up all my comments trying to get a rise out of me and trying to dismiss me... as if you could.


Favorite photographer of all time, or current respectable industry professionals?

All time: Louis Faurer

Current: Several catalog shooters I know, Didier Gault, Jean-Luc Fievet, a few others... and the Art department of Antropologie...  They're pretty much the best of the best right now.

I don't understand the tension, all I know is that we are all in the same pot.....trying to find or display our view on life, surroundings, the world as is…and most of all our own niche, I respect that he found his and is sticking to it and doing what he can with it!

More so, his work stands out, has an edge and has a certain feeling to it! The results are in the sales, so obviously he is hitting a nerve in the market place. Who knows if that is his true love and style….we all have to eat!

Michael Raveney wrote:
I don't understand the tension, all I know is that we are all in the same pot.....trying to find or display our view on life, surroundings, the world as is…and most of all our own niche, I respect that he found his and is sticking to it and doing what he can with it!

More so, his work stands out, has an edge and has a certain feeling to it! The results are in the sales, so obviously he is hitting a nerve in the market place. Who knows if that is his true love and style….we all have to eat!

Here's the reason for the tension.

As a professional photographer *you* and anyone else who aspires to call themselves a professional photographer or even an "artist" should have the ability and reasoning to judge good taste.

So what if he found a "niche"?  Does his niche need to exist?  I personally find his niche offensive.  Photographers like him are being held up as this high point in photography because they can get a rise out of people...  That's not what makes good photography...  Getting a rise out of people is part of it, but not at the expense of everything else that photography is about.

It is this type of false adulation for work that is meaningless but has in some way caused a viral buzz about itself that has lead to the stagnation of photography as a whole.  If an art is not critiqued it stagnates.  I'm so sick of all this "everyone is good... everyone has their own voice..." bull shit.  You don't look at a rotten apple and say, "That's good eats."  and you can't sell shit as shine-o-la.

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."

Mac Swift 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.

Dean Solo wrote:
Unless you are privy to some inside information about the shoot that we are not, I think it's insulting to surmise the photographers intent based on the nature of the photos.

It's not inside information that no one else is privy to, but perhaps something you've never read about before... how about you look up the guy's reputation...

James Jackson wrote:

Here's the reason for the tension.

As a professional photographer *you* and anyone else who aspires to call themselves a professional photographer or even an "artist" should have the ability and reasoning to judge good taste.

So what if he found a "niche"?  Does his niche need to exist?  I personally find his niche offensive.  Photographers like him are being held up as this high point in photography because they can get a rise out of people...  That's not what makes good photography...  Getting a rise out of people is part of it, but not at the expense of everything else that photography is about.

It is this type of false adulation for work that is meaningless but has in some way caused a viral buzz about itself that has lead to the stagnation of photography as a whole.  If an art is not critiqued it stagnates.  I'm so sick of all this "everyone is good... everyone has their own voice..." bull shit.  You don't look at a rotten apple and say, "That's good eats."  and you can't sell shit as shine-o-la.

I concur! There are too many that profess to attain an idea or style, yet are just mere copies or fame/sex/self seekers with not much to back them. I for one have walked away on numerous occasions from being a “photographer” and at times have a certain distain about the nomenclature.

Nonetheless as I mention on my page, as artist we use anything to display an idea, a daydream, an image…….I just think he has perfected that visual look that makes it look so “everyday” and “GWC” that in itself it is a talent!

What I respect is the talent in the expression, even though I might not like what is expressed.

Michael Raveney wrote:
Nonetheless as I mention on my page, as artist we use anything to display an idea, a daydream, an image…….I just think he has perfected that visual look that makes it look so “everyday” and “GWC” that in itself it is a talent!

What I respect is the talent in the expression, even though I might not like what is expressed.

well good point, I'll grant you that it looks very everyday and GWC...  I think though that others have done it much better long ago, and with more intent and less accidentally.

In other words, one trick ponies do not impress... neither do those that rehash an old idea in a non-original way over and over and over.

Dean Solo wrote:
I guess I am missing the point or the thread veered in some different direction then the OPs initial query? I don't see how someone keeps insinuating that the photographer, be it the owner or not, is using these photos as a ruse to get laid!?
That's a mighty big thing to surmise based on a handfull of images? Given his past history or not.

Unless you are privy to some inside information about the shoot that we are not, I think it's insulting to surmise the photographers intent based on the outcome of the photos.

The guy keeps getting sued for trying to sleep (sometimes successfully, and sometimes AT work) with his employees/models. That's not proof enough for you?

e-string wrote:
Really? Have you ever seen one shoot? Because I shot with quite a few back when I was a newer model. None of them had professional lighting. The best one had was a shitty light from Home Depot.

The only lights I have are from Home Depot. I think I got a few decent shots out of them.

Dean Solo wrote:
This is the pulse of today's photography.. it's raw, fresh, badly composed and IN YOUR FACE. Although I have my own standards and aesthetic values I respect and even admire a lot of the contemporary work. I like it's brutality, it's immediacy and vulgarity..and most of all it's HONESTY AND LACK OF PRETENSE.

That is just plain false.

There is no "pulse" in "today's photography"... and there are people in photography who do "IN YOUR FACE", "RAW", "HONESTY", and "LACK OF PRETENSE" a heck of a lot better.

You want "IN YOUR FACE", "RAW", "HONESTY", and "LACK OF PRETENSE"?  Hello?  Nan Goldin?  Hi, heard of her?  She did this years ago, and when she did it she had an artistic reasoning behind it and it was good.  This AA campaign is a cheap knockoff of that "IN YOUR FACE", "RAW", "HONESTY", and "LACK OF PRETENSE" that has absolutely none of those qualities.

James Jackson wrote:

well good point, I'll grant you that it looks very everyday and GWC...  I think though that others have done it much better long ago, and with more intent and less accidentally.

In other words, one trick ponies do not impress... neither do those that rehash an old idea in a non-original way over and over and over.

again, I agree, yet it's all about time and place!

but who are we after all?

Nate Boguszewski wrote:

The only lights I have are from Home Depot. I think I got a few decent shots out of them.

Well then you're better than he was.

Michael Raveney wrote:

again, I agree, yet it's all about time and place!

but who are we after all?

Who are we?

My question is always who aren't we?

We are photographers.  At least I claim to be, I think you do too.  If we don't criticize each other who will?

If the painting world hadn't criticized the impressionists when they started do you think they would have created their little club and created one of the most intriguing movements in art history?

James Jackson wrote:
As a professional photographer *you* and anyone else who aspires to call themselves a professional photographer or even an "artist" should have the ability and reasoning to judge good taste.

"Good taste has no place in photography." - David LaChapelle

James Jackson wrote:
That is just plain false.

There is no "pulse" in "today's photography"... and there are people in photography who do "IN YOUR FACE", "RAW", "HONESTY", and "LACK OF PRETENSE" a heck of a lot better.

You want "IN YOUR FACE", "RAW", "HONESTY", and "LACK OF PRETENSE"?  Hello?  Nan Goldin?  Hi, heard of her?  She did this years ago, and when she did it she had an artistic reasoning behind it and it was good.  This AA campaign is a cheap knockoff of that "IN YOUR FACE", "RAW", "HONESTY", and "LACK OF PRETENSE" that has absolutely none of those qualities.

No doubt Beethoven as well as the Sex Pistols were ruled heretics in their time.
Time.. is the only true measure of great art.

"Reasoning" and great artistic endeavors do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

"Good taste has no place in photography." - David LaChapelle

One of the *many* reasons I dislike LaChapelle....

Dean Solo wrote:

No doubt Beethoven as well as the Sex Pistols were ruled heretics in their time.
Time..is the only true measure of great art.

"Reasoning" and great artistic endeavors do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Beethoven was never judged as a poor composer.

The Sex Pistols could be argued about... their "genius" is much the same as what you honor in this AA campaign... taking advantage of a counter culture.


Time is *NOT* a measure of great art... at all... in the least.

Look Dean, you and I are probably polar opposites on this issue... and I'm probably never going to be able to explain my position to your satisfaction, and you sure as hell aren't going to convince me that there is something socially or artistically redeeming about the AA campaigns (at least the Sex Pistols were socially redeemable)...

Like I've said before... this is why they make Jelly in Grape and Strawberry.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
I don't like him either but I agree wholeheartedly with that assertation. Otherwise everything ends up academic and dry as bones.

I suppose you're right about that...  I don't even like the word "taste" as a measure of something other than what I stick in my mouth, but I haven't found a good substitute for describing that almost immeasurable difference between schlock and gold.

James Jackson wrote:

Who are we?

My question is always who aren't we?

We are photographers.  At least I claim to be, I think you do too.  If we don't criticize each other who will?

If the painting world hadn't criticized the impressionists when they started do you think they would have created their little club and created one of the most intriguing movements in art history?

not sure i can really say I am a "photographer" actually, that is the honest truth!!!

I happen to be able to capture stuff, but since I have my opinion of what a photographer is and what I do or have done, i tend to at times think I am a GWC, although 90% of what I shoot is published, it's a personal thing!

James Jackson wrote:
Your point is well taken, yes advertising photography has a purpose, and that purpose is generating income and word of mouth.  Would good photography do the same thing?  Ask Benetton circa 1986.

I think that even a catalog image could be done better than average... look at Anthropologie.

Target audience. Anthropologie has a particular style they're selling, and the subdued country elegance wouldn't be conveyed anywhere near as well were it to use traditional catalog approaches. The same applies to a handful of other 'catalogs', where the images are being used to sell the style as much as the product. (e.g. Abercrombie&Fitch)

Jphoto wrote:
But some like to judge how others see the world.

James Jackson wrote:
Can I call bullshit on this line of reasoning right here and now.

*Everyone* judges everything they come in contact with... otherwise they would just run headlong in to it.

Your statement is correct, but it doesn't address what Jphoto wrote. Pretty much everyone judges others. Most, however, don't insist that how others see the world the same way they do.

If A believes X is 'better', and B believes Y is 'better', it's possible for both A and B to be right (or wrong! ). Some folks can't accept that someone else could believe that X isn't better. Period. Not that B might be wrong, but that B could actually believe that Y is better.

It's more of an issue when esthetics are involved, but the various Nikon/Canon, Left/Right, Mac/PC, emacs/vi, etc wars demonstrate it clearly happens almost everywhere.

James Jackson wrote:
So what if he found a "niche"?  Does his niche need to exist?  I personally find his niche offensive.  Photographers like him are being held up as this high point in photography because they can get a rise out of people...  That's not what makes good photography...  Getting a rise out of people is part of it, but not at the expense of everything else that photography is about.

e.g. It's not enough that you find it offensive; you declare it invalid.

Even while it continues to do what it's intended to do...

James Jackson wrote:
Beethoven was never judged as a poor composer.

The Sex Pistols could be argued about... their "genius" is much the same as what you honor in this AA campaign... taking advantage of a counter culture.


Time is *NOT* a measure of great art... at all... in the least.

Look Dean, you and I are probably polar opposites on this issue... and I'm probably never going to be able to explain my position to your satisfaction, and you sure as hell aren't going to convince me that there is something socially or artistically redeeming about the AA campaigns (at least the Sex Pistols were socially redeemable)...

Like I've said before... this is why they make Jelly in Grape and Strawberry.

NO I TOTALLY DISAGREE...

That we do agree...on at least one point... I think LaChapelle is a mediocre photographer at best.

Michael Raveney wrote:

not sure i can really say I am a "photographer" actually, that is the honest truth!!!

I happen to be able to capture stuff, but since I have my opinion of what a photographer is and what I do or have done, i tend to at times think I am a GWC, although 90% of what I shoot is published, it's a personal thing!

Well yeah, but then it goes to why do you care what I or anyone else thinks of Dov's photography?  Or richardson's photography for that matter?  If you're not "a photographer" then why would you care if "a photographer" doesn't like what another "photographer" does?

James Jackson wrote:

Well yeah, but then it goes to why do you care what I or anyone else thinks of Dov's photography?  Or richardson's photography for that matter?  If you're not "a photographer" then why would you care if "a photographer" doesn't like what another "photographer" does?

"photographer" is just a word, an nomenclature! I would tend to think you would agree that it is one dimentional, a word used so others can relate or understand a medium.....no?

Kevin Connery wrote:
It's more of an issue when esthetics are involved

...

e.g. It's not enough that you find it offensive; you declare it invalid.

Even while it continues to do what it's intended to do...

You're close.  It's an issue where something is more than esthetics and approaches ethics.

PC/Mac - why the big debate? Why are "Macheads" so dedicated?  Because they feel that their way is ethically and scientifically better.

Nikon/Canon - Nikon didn't ever abandon its customer base and switch mounts.../ Canon has lead the way with innovation and now does it better.

Grape/Strawberry - yes both can exist... but I've always done it *this* way.


My reasons behind my critique of terry, dov, et al. are directly intertwined with my reasons for being an artist and being a photographer.  Why shouldn't I be convicted, dedicated, and offended when someone violates those sensibilities?  Can they do it?  HELL YES!  Will I like it? HELL NO!  Will I raise hell?  Yes.  Will that matter to them? Probably not, but hopefully so... hopefully it will help to drive the art.

Michael Raveney wrote:

"photographer" is just a word, an nomenclature! I would tend to think you would agree that it is one dimentional, a word used so others can relate or understand a medium.....no?

Sure it's just a nomenclature, but just as "elk" doesn't mean much to people who aren't elks, I'm sure calling someone an elk who is not while in the presence of other elks will raise a little ire.

oldguysrule wrote:
ya know... maybe this IS a btter mousetrap?

Better advertising? Maybe yes...

Better art? No way.

Better photography?  Well, then I guess it comes to why do you do photography?

so, back to the title... Photography genius? I say no.