hello Massimo!

BUT, since many of the photo greats have come up in this string the question remains should he be held in that regard? Or is he just one-offing himself for a buck. Is he a perverted Bensimon or Demarchelier or should he be discussed along the likes of Avedon & Lebovitz. Although they probably earn as much as Avedon (did) and Lebovitz, I don’t think that you are going to see a retrospective of Patrick or Gilles at MOMA or BAM anytime soon. (In fact, I ask the same question of Teller and Weber for that matter).

My belief is that until he really exposes himself, in an emotional sense, that he will never move beyond the trendy downtown galleries. He certainly has the DNA to do some exploring but I imagine livin’ the high life can be pretty seductive. Avedon and Lebovitz have (had) the life but they are (were) motivated by a fervent desire to do great work and to be relevant artistically.

My only point here is that if the discussion is to include the greats then he should be judged by the same standards that they are.

Hmmm, not too sure about that to be honest…
Can I just hang out with my girlfriend instead :)

‘Cartier-Bresson who begat Robert Frank’

Hmmm, that Frank was one rebellious child.

Niepce and Talbot begat Atget; Atget begat Lartigue who begat Brassai; Brassai begat Cartier-Bresson who begat Robert Frank; Robert Frank begat Arbus, Winogrand, Eggleston, Larry Clark and a slew of others; he also begat Arbus and Helmut who begat Bob (whose son we now debate), who begat Terry in the literal sense AND the figurative sense, although he was also begat from across the pacific by Araki (I can’t believe nobody has mentioned him – he made himself a character in his dirty photos long before Terry) and from Boston by Nan (so he’s kind of like Nan and Araki’s love child – scary thought). Oh yeah and there’s also that book Cindy Sherman and Juergen did, which is basically Terry without all the nasty porny stuff (that’s in Juergen’s other books), so combined they’re kind of like the parents of his mild mannered cousin.

Of course, Terry’s begotten a few photographic love children at this point, so what is the point?

The point is it’s pointless to try to dismiss his work as derivative because EVERYBODY is derivative in some way or another – the guy is a really good photographer in his own right and he’s obviously good at pushing buttons and this whole thread is ridiculous and you are all just bitter that it’s not YOU being profiled by GQ and hanging out with naked teens and trannies.

And if any of you have worked with a celebrity publicist, you’ll see that Rob is SO RIGHT. What happens when a newbie publicist asks to see his website before confirming a shoot? They get smacked back into place by the senior publicist. I mean the guy got approved by Barak’s staff – a friggin presidential candidate.

So that pretty much sums it up… the dude is good at what he does, as perverted as it is.

TR is great, his work may not come across as serious but that makes it MORE POTENT because his viewpoint can seep into your brain in a more subconscious way

to post #1 Leslie B’DA, a lot of times it’s the ones who read too much and put too much of their “knowledge” into their work which comes across as too contrived, trying too hard.
Sometimes it’s good to be a bit dumb and ignorant.
There are many many artists I know who make it a point NOT to go out and see other people’s works, and I actually find that helps to keep you focused and obsessed on your own vision.

What I wondered when reading it — what else is left to expose? How garish can we be? What will the next generation of “shocker” have to do shock us?

Still, I loved how the article discussed Richardson’s concept of “moving energy”, rather than only/solely obsessing about the finished photographs. Also loved the quote about how he disliked the overly retouched photographs that are everywhere nowadays — “It’s not a beautiful woman; it’s someone’s IDEA of a beautiful woman”.

Richardson: two thumbs up.

Originality is a difficult term to use for any creative work–perhaps on the surface something is, or is not, apparently original, but maybe it is in how it came into being or what its meaning to the artist is. Judging work using terms like “original” is inherently fraught with difficulties because of this.

I think the best we can do is to recognize that any art–Warhol, daVinci, Hemmingway, or Richardson–will always be subjective and every artist in influenced by others, and their own experiences. We need to step off judging the work on those subjective terms–like original.

Of course, though, deliberately copying others will never get you into the “big leagues;” but rather by being true to your own creative vision/voice is the best shot you have at it. Again, the more informed you are, the more informed your work will be and the better chance it will be something that at least some people will call “great” or “original.” And if someone says you’re work isn’t original or that they don’t like it, so what–the next person may love it.

I meant unconventional.

Certainly there are a lot of photographers who are supported by team “mom and dad”, but that’s probably nothing new. There were some “great” artists over many generations that were supported by their family. I don’t know whether one’s life has got to be difficult to produce excellent work, but perhaps a natural inquisitiveness is necessary.

Now, when I say “read” I don’t mean technical books about lighting or the like–I mean novels, etc. Non-fiction outside of photography is good too–like biographies and topical issues.

The more you put in your brain, the more you have to put out in your work. That goes for life experiences too. Photographers need to get out there and live–see the world, or at least someplace other than their studio or back yard–to be able to have the input to make great work.