As a follow up to the recent post on the inventors of fashion photography (here), I thought it would be best to give proper props to the two guys I view as the inventors of modern fashion photography as we know it, Guy Bourdin (pronounced Gee) and Helmut Newton.
(You may ask, but what about Avedon and Penn, especially given my proclivity of admiration for their works? My response would be that I consider them more the fathers of modern portraiture, not fashion; Avedon is a portrait photographer first and foremost…certainly up for discussion though.)
If you know fashion, then I don’t need to belabor the influence these guys had and have on it. I will say that I’ve always been a fan of Newton’s aesthetic. His works from day one appealed to my personal taste and a interest in black and white; both things I think would be obvious if you looked at my portfolio. He was a phenomenal photographer and opened up a lot of doors. But Bourdin, well, Bourdin is often referred to in casual conversation as a genius, and though I’m hesitant to use that term lightly, I wouldn’t disagree in this case. I prefer Newtons look, sure, but I think Bourdin did more as an artist. His work is incredibly refined, has a rare dedication to a vision, and seems like something he HAD to do. I’d sum it up like this, I imagine Newton probably had a blast on all levels with his work, and probably could have had fun doing a lot of other things in life. While Bourdin, I imagine, on some levels, was very tortured by his work, but he was meant to do it: there was no other route.
But this is all speculation, imagined scenarios and personalities; really, I’ve no idea about either of them beyond what I gather from reviewing the photographs.
These are the guys that invented fashion photography; pre-WWII consciously or not they created a whole new genre and became the shoulders Avedon and Penn and the rest would later stand on. Absolutely remarkable. If you don’t know them, study up, b/c they’ve a great deal to teach.
I’m sure many of you have heard, but I thought it worth mentioning here that Yves Saint Laurent died. He was considered one of the greatest designers of the 20th century, not only b/c of his clothes, but also for his use of Fashion (with a capital F) as a vehicle of transformation of womens’ function in society. He was at the forefront of inventing the modern women in mass culture.
A Visual Society has a nice little summary of some of his ad imagery here, one of which being Helmut Newtons’ deservedly famous take on Yves’ tuxedo suit:
Some finals from the beauty story shot two weekends ago (Polaroids here). These three girls are with Ford NYC. If I recall their names correctly, Catlin, Matta, and Leane. Respectively.
She’s tremendous, and I can’t iterate enough the affect a girl who moves like that and works that hard has on the final images. Models can make or break a shoot.
Down to brass tax, I want to photograph her.
Speaking of Sims and Natasa, here’s a peek of there up coming spread in V #52 (March, ‘08). Styling by Karl Templer. And that (wicked) hair by Guido.
My respect for Steven Meisel (w/ Art and Commerce) and the consistent work he has produced and continues to produce can’t be overstated. And this video does nothing to dissuade that opinion. If anything, it reinforces it.
Now insert ear to ear grin here b/c I honestly can’t tell if this was done in earnest or not. But regardless, and as absurd as the video is, a shot from a great editorial Meisel did recently shows that he, in fact, knows very well what he’s doing:
This is an update to this recent post. It’s possible you’ve already seen these as I also put them up on my portfolio page. Right now I’m waiting for the final edit from the creative director, but during this wait I’ll begin working casually on a few of the images that interested me immediately. I’ll play with different options for final prints, let them sit, digest, rework them, repeat. So by the time I do get the final edit I have a clear direction as to how I plan on interpreting the negative and can get it out to them quickly.
Some snaps Covet’s creative director, Tara took whilst we shot her spring ‘08 line. It was hard not to feel a sadness there at Coney Island; neglect was apparent, and you could see that it’s long life was coming to an end. There was also a mood of bitterness, nostalgia and heartbreak amongst the proprietors, people who’ve lived and worked there their entire lives, and who were now watching the boardwalk fall into disrepair.
On another note: Tara did a great job on this season, some great pieces to photograph!
Location: Coney Island, NY.
Hair: Sarah Potempa w/ Wall Group.
Make-Up: Kehla.
Assistant: Aaron Modico.
And a big big thanks to J.T. at Cha Cha’s on the boardwalk for staging the shoot.
I wish to continue the theme of August and giving mention to photographers doing work I’m impressed with. Richard Burbridge (w/ Art and Commerce) is another name I get excited to see in the by-line. Mainly b/c the guy can light, and lighting that is both creative and proficient seems a bit rare these days. This spread is from Another Magazine.
(On a complete tangent, you can see by the watermark that I pulled the jpegs from Art and Commerce’s website. I’m always surprised when big reps have shitty scans covered with watermarks on their sites (A and C, Jed Root…). What am I missing? Why not get quality scans up?)
Mert and Marcus (w/ Art Partner) rarely produce anything but noteworthy and well realized fashion stories. They dabble in some celebrity portraits, but I liken them more to Meisel and those few others who are thoroughbred fashion shooters, photographing clothes really really well w/o the all too common pretensions of fine art or books or gallery shows. This seemingly, but all but so, simple concentration is something I admire. The photos here, from Mert and Marcus’ “Into the Woods” story in W (Aug 07), are an example of this exemplary work.
For me, these are the sort of photographs that exude an uncompromising method; you can see the effort on all fronts that went into making them this good.
Man Ray was ahead of his time, indeed, way way ahead of his time. He’s the kind of photographer that will always inspire and scare other photographers - forever - b/c he did things first and best that will continue to come and go from fashion. What does this mean? Well, it means after I use solarization in my next story, later whilst I’m loafing around Cafe Gitane pontificating on the trends I’m setting, I’ll have eating away in my conscious the fact that Man Ray already hit that nail on the head nearly 100 years ago. (This goes even for artsy lesbian pornography, which I’m not shooting yet, but which Man Ray already did.) I really have noticed solarization is trying right now in fashion photography. It’s hard to gather enthusiasm about it in it’s modern Photoshop-filter form, at least compared to Man Ray’s pieces…just look at this pic and how timeless it is:
Nick Knight has a really gorgeous spread w/ Naomi in this months Visionaire magazine (#47). You can see more pics from the story here. Mainly it impresses me b/c it’s one of those ideas that so so easily could have been a disaster. I believe the reason it isn’t is b/c Nick’s work has refinement, and it also concentrates on reductionism. It is a strong idea, parred down to it’s fundamentals and done with great skill. Really killer fashion work, Nick.
Busy again, and I will be away for a week, so it’ll be sleepy here, but I wanted to leave you with some pictures by a photographer that a wonderful stylist, Deborah Afshani, just turned me on to. The photographer’s name is Lillian Bassman (here too). You’ll know right away her taste is straight up my alley.
On a side note, looking at Bassman’s work makes me think of women photographers’ work in general, and that there is a honesty of emotion that comes through clearly in their aesthetics (think Sarah Moon and Sally Mann also for instance). Whereas mens’ work often has a technicalism to it that affects the images in a different way. For example, take the picture directly above, it could almost be a Penn photo but somehow is still very far from being a Penn photo. It lacks a certain technical refinement I think Penn would have consciously employed, but in it’s place it has an etherealism and fiction to it that would not exist had Bassman not approached it in this, how should I say, impressionistic manner. Just a generalization that crossed my mind.
Of course, there are always exceptions to such ideas, and maybe in this case we don’t have to look any further than Bassman’s husband, Paul Himmel…
