I have been keeping an eye on Annie Liebovitz's work since I like a lot of her early work. Unfortunately, her recent work has been pretty bad - the book Women for example, as well as some things she did for Vanity Fair last year. I glad to say, however, that her newest work in Vanity Fair(in the Hollywood 2000 issue) is quite impressive. If you are interested in portraiture, you should check it out.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), March 22, 2000

Answers

Hi John, I have only seen a few of the images from the "Women..." book and while they seemed pretty mainstream editorial I didn't think any were sub- Leibowitz quality. In fact, they seemed a little less about Annie than most of her stuff, and more about letting the remarkable aspect of her subject speak for itself. Even if I didn't feel I gained any emotional insight, I certainly was informed about what their "special"ness was made of. Sort of like good annual report portraiture as opposed to the fine art approach she used with the Olympic athletes, which featured prominantly the direction of Ms Leibowitz. What is it about this work that doesn't appeal to you? I'll look at the book next time I get in a bookstore, in order to become a more informed foil (better for the parry and thrust, don't cha know). By the way, I know what you mean about her early work. I've seen some great photographs of her family, 35mm b&w, from pre- Rolling Stone days that was very engaging. Very concise content compared to the broad heroic brush applied to her celebrity subjects... t

I have to admit to admiration of a career well built tempered with a desire to see something deeper. Maybe when she gets older...

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 22, 2000.

The current issue of American Photo has a major article on her current, and some earlier, work, and also an interesting commentary by Arnold Newman about some of his portraits, plus a few other good monographs. This is one of the better issues of this publication. I rather like what she did in Women.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), March 22, 2000.

John, I couldn't agree more. Leibovitz's current work is atrocious for someone of her caliber. I too have been a long-term fan of her work, but have recently noticed a trend. That trend is sloppy work. I was floored when I reviewed "Woman" in the book store [where it remained, I would never waste money on that piece of crap!] not only are there obvious continuity/technical/technique problems, but she even includes an accidental portrait of her assistant operating a smoke machine! I mean come-on, if you attain the level that she has, wouldn't you have the gumption to be a better editor of your work than that?

I understand that "things" can happen while shooting on location, and that often the allotted time frame can be critically short, but when you are of the Leibovitz-Ritts-Newton-Penn-Avedon genre, I'd bet my final sheet of 679 that you get special [or at least preferential] treatment beyond a putz like me. There is absolutely no excuse for sloppy work, regardless of who you are. And given the budgets she gets for these projects, Id feel embarrassed to submit those images to a PAYING CLIENT!

Her recent work appears to me to be careless and haphazard at best. For a real treat, check out the lame-ass images she shot for Pirelli's new calendar. YUK! Nothing like pasty, veiny, UGLY nudes. It seems that she is not alone in this campaign of "I don't care, what ever I do is great!", because she continues to get high profile assignments.

It's good to be the Queen; you obviously don't have to try any more!

Sorry for the rant, but I'd be blown out of my market if I submitted anything even close to that "quality". Maybe I should stop wasting my time with site prep and film testing, and see how little I can spend on every shot.

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 23, 2000.

pasty, veiny, ugly nudes

Looks like beautiful woman bodies to me, the light/color palette seems to be quite deliberate and consistent. Sort of anti-glamour colors (odd you mention 679, Robert, that's what they look like to me). I like the presence of veins and wrinkles (most women I know have 'em). There is a deliberate effort not to glamourize these bodies. I understand her reference to "classic" poses and inspiration (in the associated, somewhat overblown text).

Two things I don't understand, the unclassical compositions relative to the frames, it's like she deliberately posed these women classically and then fragmented the mathematics of the form, ignoring classic compositional considerations (I think she's messin' with us). And 2) the choice of background. Again seeming to disrupt the geometry of the form, and occasional geometric devices seemingly irrelevant to the framing of the selected remnants (of that form). I like the color and textures of the backgrounds. And I find the lighting and tonal range of the models intriguing. They are not sexy images (mostly due to the cold, subdued palette), but more epic and romantic, as if lifted from some morality fable. Allegorical for some heroic condition that seems sad, powerful and transient.

I found them at the pirelli.com website after some serious navigational sleuthing... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 24, 2000.

Actually, I like the Pirelli calendar a lot - if you remember that Pirelli isn't really going after a glamour image. (in fact, I haven't found many of their calendars very sexy. They are really more interested in media events.) What's really interesting is that if you read the text you'll see that Annie wanted to do the entire calendar with (unknown) dancers. It was Pirelli's idea to bring in Laetitia Casta and the two other models. (Ironic, too, considering that, obviously, Liebovitz was chosen because of her fame.)

But these are really wonderful examples of color nudes, where the emphasis (at least for the caucasian models) is on the complexity of the skin tones rather than of the musculature or the bone structure.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), March 25, 2000.

"Pirelli isn't really going after a glamour image" -JK

Funny, I have two retrospective books about the history of that project, and somehow I come away thinking that they are interested in nothing BUT glamorous images!

New aesthetic or not, please pass the barf bag on this one, at least in this reviewers opinion.

Back from LA-LA-land and feeling a little testy re: ugliness....

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), April 07, 2000.