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:
Alex just busted his leg in two and needed some metal put into it b/c he drove his 1980-storm-trooper-scooter into a car or some such David vs Goliath tale. What I imagine is that all the while his mind was in outer space dreaming another one of his new paintings, this really radical new work.
I’m once again impressed by this young artist. This kind of technical discipline isn’t something an artist usually develops until they’re approaching they’re 30s. Sized around 40×90″ and corner to corner layered with subtlety, it’s needless to say the web doesn’t do these paintings justice.
This work following his last circle/moon series has taken on a kind of neo-formalism, and I think once Alex takes this and pushes underlying ideas+intent as far as the form the moon and outer space will be the limit for him.
This is a portrait of the French Kicks done for an editorial feature. They ‘re a chill and charming bunch. They’re also becoming a prominent prominent feature on the indie scene…deservedly. Give them a listen and hit up their current tour (dates can be found on their myspace page).
I’d previously mentioned Brandt’s portrait of Francis Bacon here. But I want revisit Brandt, b/c I think he was one of the most visually creative photographers of the 20th century, certainly one of the greats to come out of England. It’s almost impossible for me to fathom how he took the pictures he took and, for lack of better words, got them to work, at least without losing the idea’s effect within the idea’s requisites, and more specifically how he was able to transform the plurals of form and content into a singular. Although, he was Man Ray’s assistant so… As an example and as the picture-to-really-consider-of-the-day:
I’ve mentioned Eggleston before but have never done a post on him, b/c I wouldn’t know where to begin or stop…I mean, I have hordes of awe for his vision and his pursuit of it, b/c you see, in so many ways, he is the father of modern fine-art photography. He brought color to fine art photography, and banality, and irony, and the vernacular, and…and pretty much anything you see in color hanging in Chelsea today. Indeed, he’s one of the handful photographers I’d, without hesitation, call a genius of the medium…not ingenious, but truly genius.
I still don’t plan on saying much here b/c it’d become painfully long-winded, so I only wanted to share this picture from his book William Eggleston 5×7. It caught my eye as being so beautiful. It’s not even particularly Egglestonish; it’s softer and lacks his usual detachment; but it’s for this very reason I’m attracted to it.
Recently I was researching modern Japanese photographers, trying to understand their aesthetic of transforming and expanding simple content (visual haiku?), their use of space (often empty, often black…), and finally what I see as their consistent perturbed and psychologically dislocated conclusions.
Shomei Tomatsu was one who’s work stood out as being important to me.
Dubbed part of the holy trinity of modern Irish lit - alongside Joyce and Beckett - Flann O’Brien’s (born Brian O’Nolan) piece of mastery At Swim-Two-Birds is a must must must (etc) read for one and all. Joyce and Beckett had super smart senses of funny, but O’Brien is of the laugh-your-guts-sore sorts. To the extent that I’d suggest to read him in private. No kidding. Further differences may be generalized as such: I recognize Joyce as one of the acmes of modernism, while Beckett I think is a key to a bridge between modernism and post-modernism, but of the three, O’Brien has his foot the furthest into the post-modern sensibility with his cobbled-meta-fiction and light yet somehow still dark humor that would later become so predominant with the late-post-mod-literature-of-exhaustion satirical writers like Barth,Vonnegut, and suchlike…
So, read O’Brien.
Oh, nearly forgot, the initial inspiration for this post was that when I read At Swim-Two-Birds Joseph Koudelka’s (w/ Magnum) work came to mind, this very special indeed image especially,
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:
I’ve been looking for good fashion editorials like standing at the newsstands is my job, but there’s not much out right now, and indeed I can hardly complain since I haven’t shot any editorial since Dec either… So, instead, I want to send out an appreciatory note to the better than good photographer Bruce Davidson (w/ Magnum and w/ Art Dept), b/c work like his has a great effect on me, b/c work like his matters.
There’s something about Davidson’s work that is aesthetically understated, technically excellent no doubt, but even so it doesn’t have a signature look, a giveaway affect, not like say the harshness of Koudelka or the smoothness of Friedlander or the expose for the highlights school of a lot of the young guys (Majoli, Pellegrin). No, Davidson’s signature is content. Simple, and yet nearly impossible to do. His photographs are about what is taking place within the frame, and he doesn’t allow himself anything to distract from this. B/c he doesn’t need to.
For all the proliferation of the business of art these days it’s a relief and escape this morning to look back to one of the greats of portraiture, August Sander, who taking these portraits during the first half of the last century would have had little to no concern at all with art, but rather his concerns were of a documentation of a scientific sorts, a photographic record of the German people. When I look at these I wonder if he knew how good he was, how original…if he understood even partially the lasting influence he’d have on photographers of the genre to this day. As an aside, in the manners of refinement and dignity (not to mention tonality) they bring to mind Penn for me; a specificity and accuracy is apparent, an intentionality…it’s unlikely, I’d reckon, that there were many happy accident’s in Sander’s making these.
photo: from the series “Man of the Twentieth Century” by August Sander
photo: from the series “Man of the Twentieth Century” by August Sander
photo: from the series “Man of the Twentieth Century” by August Sander
