James Jackson wrote:

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.

This guy's a blatant Richardson rip-off and an inferior one. He's not a great photographer. Fair, I'd say. But does he understand advertising and his brand's place in the spectrum and where it needs to be and how to get there? You betcha!

James Jackson wrote:

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.

So I guess you know you are a photographer then, in every sense of the word?

I just think you are a little to high minded of yourself for someone who has not had as much to show as others....but that is my opinion!

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
I think so, but just imagine what the 3rd-hand dry academic Terry Richardson rip-off will look like in 5 years. Yikes!!!

Probably something like Andy Warhol

Michael Raveney wrote:

So I guess you know you are a photographer then, in every sense of the word?

I just think you are a little to high minded of yourself for someone who has not had as much to show as others....but that is my opinion!

We all have to start somewhere.

I'm not doing too badly.  Four years in to this profession, no formal education, I own my own studio, have more industry contacts than most, and have worked on national campaigns...  Not to mention I'm back to following my passion that got me in to photography in the first place and I'm following up on projects that actually *say* something... now if I can just find that wheel gun I need for a prop...

James Jackson wrote:
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.

I see your approach as being more divisive than driving the art, in that you're declaring their approach utterly and completely without merit. But you're right; you have the right to be offended, and the right to whip yourself into a frenzy about what another artist is doing because it's not what you like.

James Jackson wrote:

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.

well I guess you know you are a "photographer", wish you had more to show for that is all, might want to give yourself a reality check! but good luck with it!!

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
I think so, but just imagine what the 3rd-hand dry academic Terry Richardson rip-off will look like in 5 years. Yikes!!!

Just imagine what the Terry Richardson photoshop "effects" plugin will look like in 4 years.

Takes your original photo from a $30k Hassy with back, and transforms it into a point and shoot snapshot with skinny naked chicks lounging about.

Michael Raveney wrote:

well I guess you know you are a "photographer", wish you had more to show for that is all, might want to give yourself a reality check! but good luck with it!!

My reality check is that I'm still in an apartment with a roommate and can't afford to replace my laptop screen which is 1/3 dead lines.

Wish I had more to show for it?  What is that supposed to mean... don't beat around the bush, you have a critique come out and say it, don't be an asshole about it.

Christopher Bush wrote:

oh boy.  i thought gwcs all used digital slrs and big softboxes because they want to be like "the pros".  i've never seen a gwc make an engaging snapshot, as it is much harder to do, and actually requires "vision".

i have vision.

the people at the DMV told me so.

Dean Solo wrote:
Terry is kind of a dickhead. Too much to go into. His work deserves some merit, but I am convinced he would not be where he is, if not for his father. I personaly like Jurgen Teller more when it comes to the school of "bad photography".

Jurgen, yes, and Nan Goldin as well, for me.

James Jackson wrote:

My reality check is that I'm still in an apartment with a roommate and can't afford to replace my laptop screen which is 1/3 dead lines.

Wish I had more to show for it?  What is that supposed to mean... don't beat around the bush, you have a critique come out and say it, don't be an asshole about it.

am I?

I can say at time I am in the same boat as far as affording life.

what I am saying is that I have seen others, including myself that have done plenty as far as the biz goes!! I have myself been published internationally numerous times, paid, celebritized, etc, yet what it has taught me is thus: The more I know, the more I know I don't know!

the closer I get to the real pro's the more I am humiliated! ponder that thought....

James Jackson wrote:

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.

KM von Seidl wrote:

Just imagine what the Terry Richardson photoshop "effects" plugin will look like in 4 years.

Takes your original photo from a $30k Hassy with back, and transforms it into a point and shoot snapshot with skinny naked chicks lounging about.

If you buy the deluxe plug-in, it'll even render the skinny naked chicks playing air guitar, or brushing the teeth of some naked guy in the shower.

KM von Seidl wrote:

Just imagine what the Terry Richardson photoshop "effects" plugin will look like in 4 years.

Takes your original photo from a $30k Hassy with back, and transforms it into a point and shoot snapshot with skinny naked chicks lounging about.

oldguysrule wrote:
art?
where does art enter into this?
the brand is trashy. the images are trashy. they do what they set out to do.... = perfect execution

As I said, what makes TR a great advertiser? (And these aren't his pictures, but they're blatant rip-offs of his.) By making his images as trashy as his mall shopping audience wants to be, but with panache and while living the high life, he elevates crappy mall clothes to the level of "fashion" in their minds. Like no other. This is the first serious wave of crappy mall label imitators. Others will follow.

Michael Raveney wrote:
the closer I get to the real pro's the more I am humiliated! ponder that thought....

Then have some backbone man.  You're good at what you do... You are a photographer.  Own it... be it... why beat around the bush, why be humble to the point of hobbling yourself.  I don't need to see your published list and hear of your accomplishments to know that, just as I don't need some credit in a magazine to tell me that I *AM* a good photographer.

Fuck.

It is pure vanity and pure ego to assume that you can in any way ever affect someone with your words, actions, or creations. PURE FUCKING VANITY...  The first time I made my father cry with one of my creations (a poem) I realized that.  I realized that my art... even exercising it at all was so egotistical as to stink to high heaven.  Just own up to it.  I know I am capable of it... you should know by now you are capable of it too.  If you don't that's not my fault, so don't hold it against me that I don't have that problem.

oldguysrule wrote:
art?
where does art enter into this?
the brand is trashy. the images are trashy. they do what they set out to do.... = perfect execution

Entered in to it from the title of the thread... "GWC or Photographic genius?" 

I think it takes more than perfect execution of an advertising campaign to make perfect photography.

TSOJAW wrote:
okay.....what did I miss?  someone's not working and playing well with others......

yeah... that would be James... as usual.

TSOJAW wrote:
there is a terrible disturbance in the force...

Did terry richardson die?

oldguysrule wrote:
just as long as i'm in that picture as well hehe

KM von Seidl wrote:
Just imagine what the Terry Richardson photoshop "effects" plugin will look like in 4 years.

Takes your original photo from a $30k Hassy with back, and transforms it into a point and shoot snapshot with skinny naked chicks lounging about.

Shall you be in man thong or nekkid? 

Dean Solo wrote:
Terry is kind of a dickhead. Too much to go into. His work deserves some merit, but I am convinced he would not be where he is, if not for his father. I personaly like Jurgen Teller more when it comes to the school of "bad photography".


Pic of Terry and Jen his wife taken by me on Lincoln Road.

*Edit* this photo was taken with my Olympus Stylus point and shoot that I carry all the time 24/7/365.

Terry: an idiot and a perv who's also a genius and tapped into our would-be instant celebs psyche. Excellent photographer for the contemporary zeitgeist.

Juergen Teller: fucking brilliant. period.

(my take, anyhoo.)

Oh, and I'd frame that pic of Terry by the by.

TSOJAW wrote:
i mean OldGuysRule and anyone named James is of course, a KING!  Can't we all get along like Rodney?  ; }

I'm no King... I'm just a sinner who is unafraid of his sins.

oldguysrule wrote:
just as long as i'm in that picture as well hehe

KM von Seidl wrote:
Just imagine what the Terry Richardson photoshop "effects" plugin will look like in 4 years.

Takes your original photo from a $30k Hassy with back, and transforms it into a point and shoot snapshot with skinny naked chicks lounging about.

Shall you be in man thong or nekkid? 

James Jackson wrote:

Then have some backbone man.  You're good at what you do... You are a photographer.  Own it... be it... why beat around the bush, why be humble to the point of hobbling yourself.  I don't need to see your published list and hear of your accomplishments to know that, just as I don't need some credit in a magazine to tell me that I *AM* a good photographer.

Fuck.

It is pure vanity and pure ego to assume that you can in any way ever affect someone with your words, actions, or creations. PURE FUCKING VANITY...  The first time I made my father cry with one of my creations (a poem) I realized that.  I realized that my art... even exercising it at all was so egotistical as to stink to high heaven.  Just own up to it.  I know I am capable of it... you should know by now you are capable of it too.  If you don't that's not my fault, so don't hold it against me that I don't have that problem.

More power to you then! Keep working for your goal!

As for me, it is a more visceral search, a total lifestyle!

Michael Raveney wrote:

More power to you then! Keep working for your goal!

As for me, it is a more visceral search, a total lifestyle!

I don't think we're that far apart you and I... and if you do I'm pretty sure it's your ego getting in the way.

James Jackson wrote:
Did terry richardson die?

If you mean as a metaphor like "art is dead" then most certainly. Physicaly, I beleive he is still inhabiting this earthly plain.

His dad Bob Richardson died this year.
If you ever want to do some fascinating research, look into his career. He was praised by the likes of Richard Avedon and yet lived some of the last years of his life in squalor.

TSOJAW wrote:
aren't we all.. but a KING  of mine, of "me" I am...and so are you.  I can tell by your tone and by your words.

Am I?  Am I master of my own domain?  Or is this merely a sham... a mask put on to fool those easily threatened?

James Jackson wrote:

I don't think we're that far apart you and I... and if you do I'm pretty sure it's your ego getting in the way.

I wish! but as I said, the more I know the more I know I don't know, and that makes me want to be better in every sense.

I don't want to say who I am, I want it to show and speak for me, my work, not my words!

Michael Raveney wrote:
I don't want to say who I am, I want it to show and speak for me, my work, not my words!

I'd love that myself... unfortunately I think we both have a long way to go before we get there.  Until then, I think I'll stick to saying what I feel rather than being misunderstood.

James Jackson wrote:

I'd love that myself... unfortunately I think we both have a long way to go before we get there.  Until then, I think I'll stick to saying what I feel rather than being misunderstood.

nice chatting!

Until then, I think I'll stick to SHOWING what I feel rather than being misunderstood.

James Jackson wrote:

Am I?  Am I master of my own domain?  Or is this merely a sham... a mask put on to fool those easily threatened?

"easily" and "threatened" only work on the weak minded.  "masks" only hide those who are lying to themselves.  a "domain" in short is someting that you rule or own.  if you don't rule or own you...then of course, it would explain "this mere sham" that you speak of.

TSOJAW wrote:

"easily" and "threatened" only work on the weak minded.  "masks" only hide those who are lying to themselves.  a "domain" in short is someting that you rule or own.  if you don't rule or own you...then of course, it would explain "this mere sham" that you speak of.

You're catching on, but you're too quick this late at night/early in the morning.