The decline of fashion, you be the judge...

[jcochran]

Okay heres my .02

I agree with much what she says. We all use the words Fashion, Glamour Potography, and it seems to me the defination of these are constantly changing. Just as fashions change, and what is acceptable to some as fashion is not to others.

Many of the "classic" fashion images hold up today as Art because the are great photographs, and move you or create a feeling, an emotion, with their starkness, and often what seems as their simplicity. They simply are works of art, whether or not they where created with that in mind.

Now we have people whos goal is the creating of art, through fashion photography. I define Fashion Photography as images created to promote or create a desire for a certian style of clothes, garment, or way of life. So all fashion photographs are not art, nor are they required to be, they are simply fashion photographs.

This thread leads to several other good questions.
[ QUOTE ]
idea of glamour is less is more

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps now Glamour is more pin up, but IMHO glamour photography came from the early photographs of hollywood stars and the high fashion images of the 40's and 50's. Now glamour has pulled in pin up, nudes, etc.

As for:
[ QUOTE ]
Fashion and fashion photography reflects the world as we see it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It only reflect how the creators of the fashion and the photographers see it or the way they want you to see it. Although I do agree that often the under current in popular art can reflect some what of a collective mood.

So I can't say it has declined, it has changed, and only time will tell if the images created in todays fashion photography will hold up as "classic" or "art" in 30 years.

[ChipBulgin]

I'm glad I read the thread thus-far before posting, because Robert Sanders pretty much said everything I was going to. Using 28 images to come to the conclusion that fashion photography is in decline would be a bit like looking at 28 bricks of the Pentagon on Sept. 12th, 2001 and proclaiming that there's nothing wrong with the building. It's not like Ms. Lehrman is the curator for photography at The Met, MOMA, the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, or the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

Look at the quality of work produced by Annie Leibovitz, Patrick Demarchelier, Ellen von Unwerth, Ruven Afavador, Craig McDean, Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin and tell me it doesn't hold up to Edward Steichen, Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Helmut Newton, or Herb Ritts.

-Chip

[JasonNJ]

I don't buy into the categories of Glashion or Flamour. It is safe to say that the concept is true, but the terminology I don't agree with. Many styles of photography can and will be influenced by concepts and techniques outside the realm, it is the way it always has and always will be. Genres just like photographers will continue to evolve with the times. Glamour and fashion have always been in the mindset of pop culture and effect each other.

But to say they are become the same or one is more dominant then the other, hard to agree with. What I can agree is the following. Fashion is now showing influences of glamour photography. Glamour is now showing an influence from fashion photography. But in the end, it is still either a Fashion or Glamour style.

If we look at fashion shooting from decades past it matches nothing to the styles of today. Glamour shooting from the past, same deal today's glamour couldn't be put into the same style as glamour shoots of the past. Each have common threads and influences but there differences are what distinguish them from a fashion/glamour shoot today, and a fashion/glamour shoot say 25 years ago.

Today's shooting can be said each carries an influence of the other genre as well as other genres. Wedding photography over the past decade has seen a great presence of glamour, fashion, as well as photojournalistic qualities. Quite different from a wedding album back in the day that had your standard bride and groom standing smiling infront of a wall?

The world changes, and it's style with it. But the constant is that the styles will always remain and be distinguished as there own genre, but carry the influence of other popular forms of photography.

Just my $0.02.


JasonNJ
GPCB

[j4m3z]

Your assumption seems to be that this is a trend, but I think her statement is that it's not. You seem to think that the pendulum will swing back and a return to grand fashion photography is feasable. I think her point is more that we're stuck here. That Fashion photography has fallen into a pit and precious few want to see it come out.

I think she's pointing towards a larger societal shift. That in the 1950's those images we're inspiring to the viewer. The viewer identified with the image by wanting and aspiring to the image's message of class and sophistication. Today those types of images do not resonate with viewers. They're more apt to think "That's not me and will never be me."

So if the goal is no longer to elevate the model and clothing what is the goal? That's the problem. There's no focus (some times quite literally [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ). Without focus there are no limitations, and a lack of limitations leads to waiters taking pictures, which does resonate with readers. Today 15 minutes of fame is more prized than a lifetime of learning.

Basicly, fashion photography won't get better until photo editors collectively adhere to a focus, and that won't happen until the public is tired of looking at drivel which is not in the forseeable future. As Neitzche once said "Compulsory learning lowers the standards of culture." While I think that's a little harsh, the sentiment isn't far off the mark. Letting a capitalist public drive an art form can destroy the art in that form.

[rolandogomez]

Interesting points, now, since you don't believe in flamour and there are others that do, including myself, I want to look at your statement--

[ QUOTE ]
Fashion is now showing influences of glamour photography. Glamour is now showing an influence from fashion photography. But in the end, it is still either a Fashion or Glamour style.

[/ QUOTE ] j

Now define fashion (style), then define glamour (style)? Are they distinct genres? Glamour photography is about the subject, has fashion started to become more about the subject too? I thought fashion was about the trend, or what is in fashion (style), glamour has always been about the subject, to glamorize the subject, whether that involves the subject wearing what's in fashion or not is an after thought.

I look at fashion photography as to what is in-style (the fashion) and glamour photography as the style of photography that dictates the result. I strongly believe what we are seeing in fashion today (make note, didn't say all encompassing), is a trend of the heavy societal influences of the glamour genre--and I credit that to things like the Internet, Maxim and similar mags, Victoria Secrets, Paris Hilton, Vanity Fair and even magazines like Nylon, Zink, Flaunt, Ocean Drive, etc., and man, "it's hot." In fact, it's not hot, it's on fire.

Isn't it a wonder you even have "glamour models" attending "fashion workshops" when some of these glamour models would never meet the height standard (5'9" as a min) for reputable agencies? Perhaps that's another influence of the fashion trend or just the vendeuse looking to make a buck and realizing they need some glamour in their workshops?

Like Chip states, there are some great fashion photographers out there like "Annie Leibovitz, Patrick Demarchelier, Ellen von Unwerth," etc., and I might add David Lachapelle (how can we forget David?), Mert Alas & Marcus Piggot, Solve Sondsbo, Richard Hume, Javier Vallhonrat, Steve Lyon, Glen Luchford, Paolo Roversi, Richard Burbridge, etc.

I look at these photographers as the upper-third of a four-sided pyramid sitting on the lower two-thirds, aka "followers" --it's magnified exponentially when you see the other three sides of the creative pyramid, side two, tons of magazines that don't pay with politically influenced editors; side three tons of guy's with technology toys (cameras, Photoshop, etc.); and side four, tons of bad editors, art directors, creative directors (there all friggin editors) influenced by attitude in images verses selling the product. By the way, side three is the actual overflow of the front of the pyramid, side one, because with all the toys we have today at our disposal everyone is a designer, editor, photographer, writer, graphic artist, etc.

Helmut Newton stated he did his job (and well I might add) and was never trying to create art--it was a job he states in his book, A Gun for HIre. Newton looked at his work as work, not works of art. He didn't allow his creative desires to be at odds with the creatives who hired him, like editors.

I think it was better said by one of the Vogue fashion editors years ago, "Our needs are simple. We want a photographer to take a dress, make the girl look pretty, give us lots of images to choose from, and not give us any attitude. Photographers - if they are any good - want to create art."--Anna Wintour. Let's not forget Vogue and especially Italian Vogue which tends to set the trends upfront and were most top fashion photographers made their names.

In a nutshell, I blame it more on the creatives that make the decisions on what is (fashion) acceptable today for print. While you'll find professional photographer David Lachepelle books at every major book store, some even going for over $1200, you won't find hardly any of the shooters for those trendy magazines with books on the shelf.

I also blame it on the agencies that pop-up, claiming to be hot, hiring photographers with no real fashion sense to shoot their perspective models along with those same art directors who praise their portfolios filled with grey backgrounds shot with an octabank--now that is fashion. I only wish these same octabank grey and high-key overkillers start looking at the very ones they cite when defending fashion.

That's the main problem, hardly anybody stops to study art of form anymore much less the roots of fashion (which is as old as Haute couture), then the roots of fashion photography, perhaps the question would have been better said, "Where did fashion photography orginate and why?

Wasn't it the glamorizing of celebs by Hollywood glamour photographers like Ruth Harriet Louise, George Hurrell, Irving Lippman, Robert Coburn that showed the world what was in fashion? One could argue, It was their photographic communication of the stars through glamour photography that influeced fashion and the stars still do--remember Jennifer Aniston (Vanity Fair, Sept. 2005), Paris Hilton (Vanity Fair, Oct. 2005) and JLo (Vanity Fair Nov. 2005)?

Who's on the cover of the next Vanity Fair, you'd probably think it's a glamorous celebrity that's in fashion! Oops, correction, the Nov. 2005 issue featured Beyoncé made out to look like Jennifer Lopez and the Dec. 2005 issue snorted on Kate Moss--finally, a fashion model back on the cover of a fashion magazine, but keep in mind, the cover of Moss was about Moss, about the subject, not about selling the dress and accessories she was wearing. Of course, I'm sure Moss would prefer a more glamorous situation to make a cover. I might add, her opening spread she's in lingerie, her final end photo she's nude, breasts and nipples exposed.

Perhaps fashion photography is now coming full circle, now that's hot. Perhaps I should polish this up and make it my editorial piece.

I wish you the best, rg sends!

[rjwarren]

RG

Good topic - two points. I agree with Robert Sanders (the Bobs agree!) about art direction. The article even makes the point about the art director from Vogue (?) that was let go when they showed a "different" look for the magazine. Corporate America these days is just white bread. No risks - no chances. Therefore, less creativity. Throw a layout into the air and blame it on the photographer.

The other point is about some of the photographers shooting out there. I don't think you have to have an art degree to shoot - but it does help. I think of folks like Christian and Chip Willis that have been out there experimenting, seeing and learning to perfect their craft. There's no art school there but lots of careful consideration of the genre - they're not out there snapping away hoping to get better or get discovered. I took the cheap way out - I married an artist and get my critiques at home, free.

Bob

[cArly_eRin]

anything with that pic on it i'd agree with [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]LOL but i think 'fashion', as a proper noun has just taken a break from the iconoclastic practices on a whole. don't worry. it will rear it's ugly head again and the war will continue! LOL [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]