SuperModel, copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer
On another thread, the following question is asked:
Ever notice we get very few comments on the fashion threads?
It's an interesting question. My take on it is that fashion photography is not, in general, people photography, it's product photography. That is not to say that good fashion photography does not transcend its origins. Ellen von Unwerth comes to mind. John Kantor's work posted here sometimes moves beyond the realm of pure fashion and allows more of the person to come through. But, as I said before, it's not usually about the people.
I don't want anyone to think I am demeaning fashion photography in any way. I get Vogue sometimes just to look at the pix. There's some great stuff in there. But I rarely think about the models as people.
-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 01, 2000
"...I rarely think about the models as people"
Which is the point. Instead you are to see them as images that you
wish to identify with.
As I've argued before, catalog photography is product photography;
fashion photography is advertising. It's purpose is to create an
image that people will come to identify with a brand.
And it's all about idealized images of people - not the people
themselves. When I'm shooting a model, I'm very aware that I'm not
shooting the person. And that to me is one of the aspects I find so
interesting about this kind of photography. It's very difficult to
have both the rapport with the individual that's necessary to make
them a partner in the creation of the image, and yet be objective
enough to not lose sight of what you are ultimately trying to create.
As I've mentioned to models, I like doing fashion because I get to
create my ideal image - not of them, but through them.
"Celebrity" portraiture (defined as not just pictures of celebrities,
but pictures designed to create the image of a celebrity) is
somewhere in between fashion and "true" portraiture. My picture of
Vick, while informed by his personality, philosophy, and sense of
style in a number of ways that fashion isn't, is still a created
image and not a portrait as this board usually defines it. (Of
course, personally, I don't really think that "true" portraiture can
exist anyway.)
To tie this in with my views on celebrity (don't forget to read the
new posts in You've got to have a gimmick!) the ultimate in fashion
photography (as indeed with any other kind) goes one step beyound
merely creating an identifiable image for the brand (as defined by
some faceless art director), but capitalizes on the celebrity of the
photographer just as it does on the celebrity of the model. The brand
image becomes a confluence of the created image with that of the
photographer, model, and the publication that carries it.
Rather obviously (and exceedingly ironically), the problem with
celebrities is that they often misrecognize the image that others
have of them as being "real."
As to why there are few comments on fashion, I think it's a
combination of factors, but the main reason is the lack of context
(which is a problem with almost any photo post). Unless you
understand the purpose of the shot, you can't really make any
suggestions except purely technical ones - which may or may not be
relevant. Tom's suggestions about my photograph of Vick (in Not quite
a portrait) were valid ones - if I had been attempting to create a
standard portrait. It was really only when I explained both the
purpose of the shot as image and showed its use as graphical element
that there was enough context to critique it meaningfully.
I'm still working on basic techniques (and slowly since I can shoot
so seldom), but I think that I actually have an advantage coming to
photography so late. I think I have already have a good eye along
with my own sense of style that I have developed over the last 20
years. Both of these I can start to build on immediately. Technique
is the easy part. (And I'm finding that shooting weddings is helping
a lot with some of that.)
-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), December 01, 2000.