Glamour 1™ is loaded with great photographers and models portfolios, forums, photography tips, workshop info and much more than a typical portfolio site. These valuable services increases traffic and operating costs and those that support our community of models and photographers by upgrading their accounts as a Lifetime Member (pay only once, never pay again) enjoy practically no advertising--upgrade now to increase your viewing pleasure while supporting this community and family of glamour photographers and models.
Don't want to see this message or large ads, register, then upgrade now!
You be the judge, what do you think? I have to agree with a lot of it, and it really struck a chord on the part of, "Today, 30 years into feminism, we have models who look not just weak and unsophisticated, but also dumb and victimized." Remember, this is talking about "fashion photography & models" not glamour.
I might add, I feel very strong fashion is out the window today as we once knew it back then, and has given credence to "Flamour or Glashion" as some put it--past references to the U.S. fashion scene going Eurofashion are BS if you've ever lived in Europe as I have--it's gone glamour especially when you have folks like Jennifer Aniston posing for glamour shots (cover story and spread Vanity Fair August 2005). Even one of Europe's best photographers who has seen this business florish and who's son was recently featured in Fashion Week Daily and W as an up and coming fashion designer, agreed with me--that be European photographer Peter Geller, owner of California Sunbounce who won the World Press Photo award in 1971, shot commercial, advertising and fashion clients plus over 10,000 Harliquen Romance covers.
Bottom line, is fashion out the door as we once knew it? Is it now turning into "flamour" or a mixture of glamour & fashion, a marriage of the two? Look at ALL 28 slides on that show link and READ the statements that accompany them, interesting points! NOTE: You have to put your mouse and click on the arrows immediately after each number from 1 through 28, do not hit the exit link.
Just looking at the slide show and commenting as I see them..
Pic 1. What a terriffic shot.. not bad for the 1950's! True elegance..shows the look very well...easy to understand..
Pic 2. .............WTF??
Pic 3. ......I have to agree... as "someone" stated to me once....."do you really think you can shoot what I shoot?".. This was a direct quote from a "fashion photographer...who later went on to denounce my work as "garbage"...and suggested that I couldn't possibly shoot as good as him, when I look at pic No. 3,.....I reply by saying that I could shoot that crap in my sleep!
Pic 4. ......Oooops....sorry....I accidentally took a picture with my camera facing down... with my on camera flash on... LOL... it looks soooooo artistic... I'll have to submit this to the art director...... Art director sees it... Hmmmm.... this is so "edgy" looking... Ok... we'll publish it, and we'll pay you too. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
Pic 5. Hmmm......interesting....sort of..if it weren't for the off the wall outfit, that second pic would be [censored].
Pic 6. Hmmm....interesting... I like it.. simple.
Pic 7. Hmmm.... I think if I posted a pic like that, I'be hung out to dry.. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Pic 8. Ok.....I've lost interest... Yawn... I think I will do a search on Andy M's username to see if he has some new pics of GLAMOUR photography....it's a lot easier on the eyes than having to sit through that slide show.. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
"Define irony: a bunch of idiots dancing around on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash."
--Steve Buscemi in the movie "ConAir" referring to Sweet Home Alabama
Karen Lehrman in many ways proved the opposite of her argument. In my old college art history class we were taught art was anything you could getaway with. That is what I see here. I think Karen is missing a simple point here. Fashion and fashion photography reflects the world as we see it. We do see the world more chaotic and dark than we did in the fifties. Her lead shot reflects those values. I think instead of a simple message we are seeing more diverse and complex image. So instead of seeing classic glamour as the fashion itself we see it as just one more thread in the fabric of life.
I feel that we have recently gone through a period adjustment with digital tech. I think we are now starting to use the tech to fullest potentional.
I think the institutions were caught off guard. I also think photographers got a little lazy because of the belief that Photoshop could fix anything. But I see that photographers are improving and using the tech and not being used by the tech.
I don't think it's a "decline" by any means. Most all genre's of photography are leaning towards the "glamour" side of things. Even commercial and product photography. It's just this day of age...we (as a majority) want things to look more glamourous and lustful...just my two cents.
I'm having a hard time trying to deliniate and clearly categorize what is Fashion, Glamour, Nude, Erotic Nude, Art Nude, Fine Art, etc. etc. To me Glamour evokes images of the Hollywood Stars as photographed in the 30's, 40's and 50's. However now Glamour seemingly requires the token bare breast and pubis...but is that not Nude? Does a model shot with legs spread wide open wearing nothing but some designer's necklace mean it's a Fashion shot (or Product shot) but do the same with dramatic lighting and suddenly it's an Art Nude. If the model has a dreamy look to her face does this become Erotic and a playful look makes it Glamour? Are we not all just GWCs shooting evocative images and justifying our work as Glamour...or Fashion...or Nudie shots?
[ QUOTE ]
In my old college art history class we were taught art was anything you could getaway with.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting idea and the hypesters have proven this true in all walks of life, especially the fashion world.
To me Fine Art like great music, is what endures over time. Anything else is "Fad".
started when people ceased to dress up to go to town, started wearing jeans as a fashion statement, accepting the dress, body graffiti, and antics of rock stars as fashion leaders and Kate Moss as "photogenic".
she even makes note of it in her own writing but doesn't qualify what she said, this is all in a state of trend, nothing more. Why doesn't she REALLY take on the ongoing, continuing status of fine fashion photography? Instead she eludes to so many interim creatives and temporary [minute] icons, trend seekers at best, that she glazed over the quality work being done by so many great shooters. She also forgets to mention that in the 50s there were maybe a dozen fashion publications, now there is television, the internet, and a new trends in streetwear publication showing up monthly - hundreds, thousands if you include the world. And none of them supporting photographers financially, or with the great respect as they did back in the day.
Our present and more serious situation in photography has little to do with the decline of fashion photography, it has to do with the decline of good photography. Good styling. Good thought processes and provoking ideas. We have too many GWCs running around calling themselves fashion photographers... or glamour photographers... or photographers period. When I see work by Richard Warren, Stephen Eastwood, Christian, and Eric Striffler to name a few, up and coming hard working dedicated craftsmen, this editorial by Karen goes out the window... simple as that.
As a commercial photographer I have not had an art director hand me a layout in over eight years. No conceptual drawings. No thumbnail sketches. No rough comps. Nothing. Now that is a decline in the creative process, not the photography.
"Helmut Newton-inspired psycho-sexual-disability trend of the late '70s and '80s." When she made this statement I got a feeling she was quoting some mindless professor at her alma matter while not stopping to take in the greater [opinion] view that Newton was so much more than just a moment of "trend" photography. What an injustice to us all when you start lobbing stones with ill gotten quotes that are poorly supported at best, at one of the greatest inspirationalists of modern times.
Once the dust of "everyone with a camera is a photographer" settles, we will all be able to get back to understanding what is valuable in our craft... the ability, affordability, the value, and passion of creating great images. Meanwhile, those of us who actually see past the "trend" of out-of-control-art-directors-who-haven't-got-a-clue-what-good-photography-is, the status of amazing creative work survives very nicely.
IP: 66.69.91.212
Linear Mode
