Avedon

[Pieter]

I know there are those in this forum who don't particularly like Richard Avedon's work, but there is an interesting article in today's NY Times, some of which deals with the difference he found shooting 8x10 vs the Rolleiflex he had been using. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/arts/design/richard-avedon-group-portraits.html?action=click&module=Features&pgtype=Homepage

[Tin Can]

While I subscribe to NYT, I don't read a lot of it

Thanks for posting this story, it fills

I was there 1968, almost beside Vivian Maier

just saw the new movie

a lot of famous people i am glad, i never got too close...

if i had used a camera then...i'd be dead

[Bob Salomon]

When I was with Rollei of America I made some visits to him when he was having a flare problem his assistant couldn’t solve. Turned out one of the background lights was slightly angled and was creating the flare.

[Thom Bennett]

Huge fan of Avedon and will read anything about him. Thanks for posting this.

[Dugan]

When I was with Rollei of America I made some visits to him when he was having a flare problem his assistant couldn’t solve. Turned out one of the background lights was slightly angled and was creating the flare.

Wow. An assistant couldn't figure out where flare was coming from?
I would hope it was a very unusual, hard to trace source of flare, like the sun reflecting off of a car windshield two blocks away, or some such...but background lights?..Walking papers!

[Bob Salomon]

Wow. An assistant couldn't figure out where flare was coming from?
I would hope it was a very unusual, hard to trace source of flare, like the sun reflecting off of a car windshield two blocks away, or some such...but background lights?..Walking papers!

No, it was very easy. The assistant was shooting withm his Mamyia TLR with them75mm lenses but Avedon used the the Rollei 2.8 f with the 80mm Planar.
Enough stray light came off the high key background to cause flare with he 75mm Mamiya lens but not enough for the longer Rollei lenses.

[LabRat]

Wow. An assistant couldn't figure out where flare was coming from?
I would hope it was a very unusual, hard to trace source of flare, like the sun reflecting off of a car windshield two blocks away, or some such...but background lights?..Walking papers!

In the studio, I would re-purpose the front element as a mirror to look for highlights reflecting off of it to determine if there was a flare danger...

The bright ones were lights...

Steve K

[reddesert]

Good article,
it's interesting to think of someone as top of their game as Avedon (whether we like him or not) still striving for acceptance or to make a break into a new kind of work.

Something that has struck me a little about the group portrait of the Chicago 7 is the perspective. People have said Avedon didn't use movements on the 8x10, though it looks to me he must have used a high camera position, with the camera at least head height and looking down. Their faces look close to straight on while their feet are pointed as seen from well above. It foreshortens their bodies, which IMO makes them look a little vulnerable. Jerry Rubin (striped shirt) looks sort of like a kid, if a kid had a beard. The Mission Council group photo later in the article is a bit like this but not as extreme.

The torso-length individual portraits of Jerry, Abbie, Dave Dellinger hung on the wall in the lead photo of this article don't have this effect, they're more confrontationally straight on. In later work like "In the American West," that's the form he uses, the camera is about head height but the portraits are torso length, without this foreshortening.

[Roberto Nania]

Thank you for posting.

Avedon was a kind of an obsession to me and it's always good to see some new articles and to speak about him and his amazing work.
After "Avedon at Work", I started reading "Avedon, Something Personal" by his studio manager; it opens a gate on understanding the way photography was seen in the 70s and 80s in the art world and how Avedon was fundamental on pulling it to stand among every other Art.
What blows my mind every time is the amount of sheets of film he was used to shot for every single portrait or project. He didn't care a thing about the economic side of shooting in 8x10 (while he was very alert when speaking about his wage).

[Tin Can]

October 2020 Vanity Fair has Avedon's early years, with interesting connections

https://archive.vanityfair.com/issue/20201001

[Jeroen]

I know there are those in this forum who don't particularly like Richard Avedon's work...
You can't be serious?!? One of THE most important photographers, EVER. Saw his exhibition in FoAm, Amsterdam 2009, gave me goose skin. That never happened to me before, or after. OK, taste is subjective...

[interneg]

There's a pretty big error of fact in that article: Avedon had been using a Deardorff since the early 1950's - he later acquired a Sinar Norma (with the shutter etc) for studio work, but it may have been that he acquired a new Deardorff about that time in the late 60's - I recall reading somewhere about him having a rather opulent case (Louis Vuitton?) made for it or the Rolleiflexes. Earl Steinbicker's recollections of assisting/ studio managing for Avedon cover quite a chunk of 1952-65 - and he recounts the Deardorff as having been there from when he started - https://lifeslittleadventures.typepad.com/lifes_little_adventures/2006/06/first_months_on.html

Further edited to add: https://lifeslittleadventures.typepad.com/lifes_little_adventures/2007/11/the-avedon-ye-2.html which covers most of the cameras used up to 1965.

[Drew Wiley]

Jeroen - I am proudly one of those who finds Avedon generally pretentious, and often downright goofy in the sense of being overtly predictable 60's era in an especially obnoxious manner. There, I've said it, just so you know people like me truly exist, and really are sick of seeing Avedon's images plastered everywhere over and over again. Now I'll step out of the picture, so those of you who sincerely like his work can proceed with your own discussion. But in parting, lest you think some nobody like me is the only type of person holding such an opinion, just recall what Kertesz said about him : "A Zero". Apparently, New Yorkers can be really outspoken about one another when they need to be. And Kertesz's highly poetic photography, itself no-nonsense, that I do admire, especially as the output of someone who wasn't either chasing money or scheming to achieve fame, because he already had so much, that he really didn't need more, and it was left out of the equation when he took pictures.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

Avedon was pretentious, indeed.
For me, his art is overrated.

[r_a_feldman]

The NYT also has a review of an Avedon biography, “What Becomes a Legend Most,” by Philip Gefter: Richard Avedon, a Photographer Who Wanted to Outrun the Glitz Factor
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/books/review-richard-avedon-biography-what-becomes-legend-most-philip-gefter.html

[David Lindquist]

The NYT also has a review of an Avedon biography, “What Becomes a Legend Most,” by Philip Gefter: Richard Avedon, a Photographer Who Wanted to Outrun the Glitz Factor
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/books/review-richard-avedon-biography-what-becomes-legend-most-philip-gefter.html

Thank you for this, I just read it this morning and as thinking I should add it to this thread.

David

[Sam L]

I happened to be at the 2002 interview he did at the Met. My boss' wife couldn't go and he offered me the ticket at the last minute. At the time, I was interested in photography but didn't know who he was or that he was important. I was only told that it was very rare for him to speak publicly.

I remember him showing other images from the Warhol factory shoot. As I recall, he showed photos taken immediately before and after the ones he selected and talked about why he picked the ones he did and why he composed them as he did. Though the other fames were very similar, the ones he selected were somehow better and the compositions are really special.

Also fun to imagine shooting 91 8x10 frames in one afternoon. Must have been quite a stack of film holders.

[Drew Wiley]

One more reason not to be impressed by him. A machine-gunner, hoping that one shot out of 91 will actually hit the target. That's also quite a stack of money to burn on a single session. I realize that some of those sessions involved multiple models, sequentially posed against white sheets, like bugs in a row pinned to a white-lined insect collection box. Whatever. Leaves me cold. Worse still was when he'd tie up famous sitters in such a long session that it would deliberately wear them out with exhaustion until it made them look haggard, and then he'd press the shutter when they were off guard, and then claim it was revealing their real hidden soul, or whatever. Gimmicks, always gimmicks.

[Bob Salomon]

One more reason not to be impressed by him. A machine-gunner, hoping that one shot out of 91 will actually hit the target. That's also quite a stack of money to burn on a single session. I realize that some of those sessions involved multiple models, sequentially posed against white sheets, like bugs in a row pinned to a white-lined insect collection box. Whatever. Leaves me cold. Worse still was when he'd tie up famous sitters in such a long session that it would deliberately wear them out with exhaustion until it made them look haggard, and then he'd press the shutter when they were off guard, and then claim it was revealing their real hidden soul, or whatever. Gimmicks, always gimmicks.

Not a white sheet in his studio it was a giant white cycloramic wall illuminated on each side by floor to ceiling banks of strobe heads and with a huge white umbrella suspended over the subjects head. By huge I mean several feet in diameter. I watched a couple of these high key shoots and they were rather complex.

[Pieter]

One more reason not to be impressed by him. A machine-gunner, hoping that one shot out of 91 will actually hit the target. That's also quite a stack of money to burn on a single session. I realize that some of those sessions involved multiple models, sequentially posed against white sheets, like bugs in a row pinned to a white-lined insect collection box. Whatever. Leaves me cold. Worse still was when he'd tie up famous sitters in such a long session that it would deliberately wear them out with exhaustion until it made them look haggard, and then he'd press the shutter when they were off guard, and then claim it was revealing their real hidden soul, or whatever. Gimmicks, always gimmicks.

No one is "machine-gunning" with an 8x10, even with all the resources and assistants Avedon had. You may dislike Avedon, his style or technique, but when you cannot see through the camera, you can only guess if the subject's eyes are open or what the exact expression is. Then factor in multiple subjects. If he or his client can afford it and because of his fame and reputation, subjects would put up with it, more power to him. Remember, they can always get up and leave. By the way, I don't believe he ever said he was capturing the real person--he always said he could never photograph anything but the surface.

[Jody_S]

One more reason not to be impressed by him. A machine-gunner, ...

Of all the reasons to dismiss Avedon, that has to be the weakest.

[Alan Klein]

Jeroen - I am proudly one of those who finds Avedon generally pretentious, and often downright goofy in the sense of being overtly predictable 60's era in an especially obnoxious manner. There, I've said it, just so you know people like me truly exist, and really are sick of seeing Avedon's images plastered everywhere over and over again. Now I'll step out of the picture, so those of you who sincerely like his work can proceed with your own discussion. But in parting, lest you think some nobody like me is the only type of person holding such an opinion, just recall what Kertesz said about him : "A Zero". Apparently, New Yorkers can be really outspoken about one another when they need to be. And Kertesz's highly poetic photography, itself no-nonsense, that I do admire, especially as the output of someone who wasn't either chasing money or scheming to achieve fame, because he already had so much, that he really didn't need more, and it was left out of the equation when he took pictures.

That's how I shoot. I don't let money or fame get in the way. :rolleyes:

[Roberto Nania]

No one is "machine-gunning" with an 8x10, even with all the resources and assistants Avedon had. You may dislike Avedon, his style or technique, but when you cannot see through the camera, you can only guess if the subject's eyes are open or what the exact expression is. Then factor in multiple subjects. If he or his client can afford it and because of his fame and reputation, subjects would put up with it, more power to him. Remember, they can always get up and leave. By the way, I don't believe he ever said he was capturing the real person--he always said he could never photograph anything but the surface.

That's my opinion too Pieter.
I had an idea of Avedon and his work when I first saw it (only through books, unfortunately not in an exhibition). That idea changed after reading "Avedon at Work, In The American West" and changed again during the reading of "Something Personal" (more the idea of him than of his work).
I would suggest to read "Avedon at Work" by Lura Wilson to have a bare idea of what is behind those one hundred and something pictures.
He was a true artist and, of course, he was also very smart as a business man of him self. His influence was, and still is, huge.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

That's how I shoot. I don't let money or fame get in the way. :rolleyes:

:D :cool:

[Tin Can]

RICHARD AVEDON: Picturing Models In Motion (https://blog.samys.com/richard-avedon-picturing-models-motion/)

He is as described in that story, the basis for the photographer in Funny Face (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050419/), one of my favorite movies

I prefer photographing women but very hard to find models right now

My best work was done handheld with strobes, subject constantly moving

A 2 shot slider LF camera misses a lot

[Drew Wiley]

My opinion is that Avedon never was in the American West. He was inside a portable New York tent concocting stereotypes and catchy myths. A few interesting shots in that book, but a lot of corny gimmicks too; neurotic, over the top, just for effect. The dude with the bees....C'mon. It does tell a lot about his own brash personality and calculated edgy marketing persona. Conspicuously artsy in a predictable dated manner. But the real subjects got little respect; just specimens to him, to be posed as marketable myth. He should have just frozen them in position with a can of freon and saved a few hundred sheets of film.

[Pieter]

My opinion is that Avedon never was in the American West. He was inside a portable New York tent concocting stereotypes and catchy myths. A few interesting shots in that book, but a lot of corny gimmicks too; neurotic, over the top, just for effect. The dude with the bees....C'mon. It does tell a lot about his own brash personality and calculated edgy marketing persona. Conspicuously artsy in a predictable dated manner. But the real subjects got little respect; just specimens to him, to be posed as marketable myth. He should have just frozen them in position with a can of freon and saved a few hundred sheets of film.

You certainly don't like Avedon. For my edification, could you cite someone as an example of an equally prolific people photographer that you would like? And by the way, Avedon did not not work inside a tent--that was Irving Penn. Whose lighting was often more dramatic, but whose portraits sometimes fell short and who also relied on gimmicks such as the corner he assembled or the carpeting over (I'm guessing) apple boxes.

[bob carnie]

My opinion is that Avedon never was in the American West. He was inside a portable New York tent concocting stereotypes and catchy myths. A few interesting shots in that book, but a lot of corny gimmicks too; neurotic, over the top, just for effect. The dude with the bees....C'mon. It does tell a lot about his own brash personality and calculated edgy marketing persona. Conspicuously artsy in a predictable dated manner. But the real subjects got little respect; just specimens to him, to be posed as marketable myth. He should have just frozen them in position with a can of freon and saved a few hundred sheets of film.

Drew - 17000 8 x10 negatives over a five year period,, 130 final prints for the exhibit.. this project will go down in history as one of the greatest photo projects ever.... When he was near death he was asked if he had any regrets, his answer was that he wished he had continued on The American West.

This work is brilliant IMHO.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I own his books EVIDENCE THE SIXTIES PORTRAITS

I enjoy reviewing them periodically.

I like the Charlie Rose interviews back in the day and watched them in the last couple of days, I think they hold up.

[lenicolas]

That's also quite a stack of money to burn on a single session. I realize that some of those sessions involved multiple models, sequentially posed against white sheets, like bugs in a row pinned to a white-lined insect collection box. Whatever. Leaves me cold. [...] Gimmicks, always gimmicks.

This is interesting because to me this is what is so interesting about Avedon.
He photographed people like we collect insects. Separated from context, all brought into an identical (thus democratic) white void. At this point of photography history who else had done that? Originally only the rich and famous had their portraits taken. And when August Sander photographed ordinary people he made sure to get them in the context of their profession. He didn’t photograph John Doe the brick layer, just a stereotypical bricklayer.

And Avedon assumed the role of the editor. The people who ended up in Avedon’s American West aren’t there because of their money or their birthright, or even their profession. They are there because he as an Artist saw something in their face or their demeanour or their story.

That’s why looking at Avedon’s work has taught so many photographers so much about the medium.
There’s a material for reflection here that many of us have noticed. You included since you picked up on the «bug in a box» feeling of his work.

Btw, I have to disagree with your dismissal of the work as riddled with gimmicks.
Avedon’s subjects -like bugs in a box- are presented in a way to encourage the viewer to study them. Propped against a seamless backdrop and under very neutral light. They are cut out from context and any editorial decision.
The only two things to analyse are the surface of the photographs and the editorial decision of Avedon to have them here.
To compare to another immense portrait maker, I find the work of Arnold Newman infinitely more gimmicky. For example Newman is going through great lengths to record his -jusified- disgust at nazi industrialist Alfred Krupp (https://leemorleyncscreative.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/alfred-krupp-by-arnold-newman/) but that to me is the epitome of a gimmicky portrait. «Nazis are evil and ugly» is a necessary message but hardly groundbreaking. A neutral Avedon portrait of Krupp would have asked «Nazis are evil, but are they ugly?» and that’s a bit more interesting.

[Drew Wiley]

Who do I like? Well, I'm admittedly not a people photographer myself very often. But in terms of an apples to apples comparison of those who could get into people's face, wanted or not, I'd rate the obnoxious images of Avedon far far below our best known local example, Dorothea Lange, who could put empathy, context, and composition all in a frame, and who was expected to get the job done on about 1% of Avedon's budget. If it took 17,000 negatives to complete that one 130 image pretentious project, that's gotta be the worst track record I've ever heard of. That less than a 1% success rate.
And I'll repeat, Avedon never was in the West, at least psychologically, because he didn't seem to see a damn thing. He was just bringing marketable NYC stereotypes of the West with him. Should have stayed in NYC and kept taking pictures of corny models wearing suits made from recycled tin cans.
I'm not numb to how some of his strategies were quite creative in their day, but now it's like Starbucks, one on every corner, and I'm sick of it. Two people I go out of my way to avoid seeing over and over and over again are Avedon and Warhol. I doubt either one could even spell the word, "nuanced". Like a pie in your face every time.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

Like those Annie Leibovitz landscapes. She used a helicopter, did not put her feet in the mud and dust.

[Drew Wiley]

To elaborate a tiny bit : both Avedon and Warhol made it their career objective to become mass-distributed visual commodities; and that's exactly what happened. If others find that kind of endpoint admirable, that's fine with me; I'm just not one of them.

[Bob Salomon]

To elaborate a tiny bit : both Avedon and Warhol made it their career objective to become mass-distributed visual commodities; and that's exactly what happened. If others find that kind of endpoint admirable, that's fine with me; I'm just not one of them.

And they both made very good livings from that. You may as well include Bert Stern, Gowland, And almost every other successful pro in the list.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, they were commercially successful, very much so. But if getting rich at it is your yardstick of a great photographer, then you're going to have to scratch an awful lot of them off your list. But you missed my main point, Bob. Making a living is one thing, concocting a commodity as an art form is another. That pertains more to Warhol. But both men make me think of the 60's as the Dark Ages of American Art. Wish it would just go away; stale, over-stale, overtly stale.

[Bob Salomon]

Yes, they were commercially successful, very much so. But if getting rich at it is your yardstick of a great photographer, then you're going to have to scratch an awful lot of them off your list. But you missed my main point, Bob. Making a living is one thing, concocting a commodity as an art form is another. That pertains more to Warhol. But both men make me think of the 60's as the Dark Ages of American Art. Wish it would just go away; stale, over-stale, overtly stale.
And now, Peter Lik.

[Drew Wiley]

MY Gosh, Bob .... Avedon obviously isn't my favorite photographer, but he has firmly and deservedly earned a recognized niche. Peter Lik just makes gaudy oversized kitchy postcards; he's more in the lineage of Kinkade : lowbrow, not highbrow. Neither Kinkade or Lik get even an atom of respect from the Haute Art hierarchy, once in awhile a crude joke or belly laugh, that's about it. I accidentally cracked up the first time I walked into a Kinkade Gallery, I couldn't help it; and I nearly threw up the first time I walked into a Lik Gallery (I'm not exaggerating); the two worst colorists I've ever seen. But I'll probably get a few more people pissed off with that comment.
I had someone cuss me out at an opening once. He couldn't figure out what the image was; the complexity of the image planes really messed with his head. I didn't mind. Actually, I was fascinated by his reaction. The curator obviously like the print; otherwise, it wouldn't have been there. But all of that kind of thing is about personal esthetic response, just like my opinion of Avedon. It doesn't mean I'd necessarily dislike him as a person if I met him. He was probably a very interesting person.
In the case of Kinkade or Lik, there are ethical questions, involving slippery marketing, which in the long run collapsed Kinkade's little empire, especially once he was facing fraud charges. People eating at Jack in the Box might have liked what they tasted (yecch), but selling kangaroo meat as beef happens to be illegal. Calling a fancy mass-produced poster an original painting is also illegal. Kincade typically put a dot or two of real paint on those personally in order to squeak past the laws. But people of that state of mind are on a slippery slope, and he eventually got indicted for franchise fraud. Lik is more likely to get in hot water over too-good-to-be-true snake-oil investment sales pitches. So until the fat lady sings, don't assume such people are successful just because they've moved a lot of commodity.

[Peter Lewin]

Came to this thread late, but it seems to concentrate on Avedon's American West and similarly minimalist portraits. But he was a fashion photographer for much of his career (rather like Annie Leibovitz) and his famous "Dovima with Elephants" is certainly not a minimalist portrait. I think his work was a lot more wide-ranging than we seem to be giving him credit for. Part of the problem is that the style of well-known photographers like Avedon gets popularized, and over time becomes something of a cliche; we have to realize that when Avedon started, his style was more "his" than it seems now.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I don't read into his white sheet backdrops a "democratization" of his subjects at all. That's more an art critic's retro assessment, I suspect. At a certain point he found it to be an effective graphic tool, and then kinda became a stuck record with it. For example, note his cookie cutter individual cutouts of steelworkers, welders, etc, splayed like steamed crabs against white backdrops. That was indeed interesting as a graphic novelty at first, but doesn't do much for something allegedly in the West, where it's like looking at zoo animals in artificial cages devoid of any native context, which Avedon would probably have been incapable of appreciating anyway. Maybe some people like that he was an outsider, but it leaves me cold.

[Alan Klein]

It helped Avedon to be already famous to sell stuff that others might consider, meh. I think ex-president Bush gets thousands for his oil paintings. Lik's photos look a lot better in person than on the web, at his galleries being shown by really hot sales women who hypnotize you and who you'd like to frame and take home rather than his pictures. Kinkade was a drunk who I think got caught evading taxes. At least he didn't chop off his ear like Van Gogh and made a living from his work also unlike Van Gogh. I'm more like Van Gogh. Not the ear.

[Drew Wiley]

Lik's prints look utterly abominable in his galleries, downright amateurish, just big, overpriced, and ridiculously PS fake colorized. Quite a bit of other blatant manipulation too. But both Lik and Kinkade employed high-pressure sales people using whatever verbal bait or costume seemed to work. That can occur in all kinds of shady galleries; but since those were either franchises or directly run, it was policy.

[Pieter]

Lik's prints look utterly abominable in his galleries, downright amateurish, just big, overpriced, and ridiculously PS fake colorized. Quite a bit of other blatant manipulation too. But both Lik and Kinkade employed high-pressure sales people using whatever verbal bait or costume seemed to work. That can occur in all kinds of shady galleries; but since those were either franchises or directly run, it was policy.

Thanks, guys. I had never heard of Lik nor seen any of his work. Unfortunately, I did a search and now I need to page through a Friedlander or Weston book to cleanse my visual cortex.

[Alan Klein]

Lik's prints look utterly abominable in his galleries, downright amateurish, just big, overpriced, and ridiculously PS fake colorized. Quite a bit of other blatant manipulation too. But both Lik and Kinkade employed high-pressure sales people using whatever verbal bait or costume seemed to work. That can occur in all kinds of shady galleries; but since those were either franchises or directly run, it was policy.

Kinkade has been dead for years. People still buy his originals and copies and greetings cards, and posters,, etc. They want his work. It makes them happy. It's their taste not yours. Be happy for them. There's no high pressure sales goings on. Lik helps drive the price of photography up so other photographers can make a better living. Be happy for yourself.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

Kinkade has been dead for years. People still buy his originals and copies and greetings cards, and posters,, etc. They want his work. It makes them happy...

My mother, at 86, loves Kincade :) Copies of his originals still sell very well in Brazil.

What could I say? ... makes her happy. But I'm happy too, since she doesn't hang them; she only hangs my father's paintings;)

[Bernice Loui]

Much about cultivating an audience. Avedon busted the art tradition mould by creating images in high key, hard hitting and simply different. There are similarities between Avedon and Andy Warhol as that was part of the 60's tradition busting at a time when the world wanted change and a different look.

Personally, Avedon and Andy Warhol is not that high on the interest list, except that can never apply to others. Avedon, Andy Warhol and countless others have their audience and following, best to let this be, appreciate and understand what their art is about like, dislike, hate, love or what ever.. art is intended to inspire and stimulate an emotional response from those sharing their art expressions. If the art item caused an emotional response, it's done what art should do.


Bernice

[Alan Klein]

Much about cultivating an audience. Avedon busted the art tradition mould by creating images in high key, hard hitting and simply different. There are similarities between Avedon and Andy Warhol as that was part of the 60's tradition busting at a time when the world wanted change and a different look.

Personally, Avedon and Andy Warhol is not that high on the interest list, except that can never apply to others. Avedon, Andy Warhol and countless others have their audience and following, best to let this be, appreciate and understand what their art is about like, dislike, hate, love or what ever.. art is intended to inspire and stimulate an emotional response from those sharing their art expressions. If the art item caused an emotional response, it's done what art should do.


Bernice

I get angry and yell at my photos that I screwed up. Must be good art. Thanks for the advice.

[Tin Can]

Art is evolutionaily inherited from earth's critters. Birds sing and dance for a mate. We humans are definitely critters of earth. It is communication, which has evolved over vast time.

Even the current virus is alive and communicating...everything exists on a Bell curve

DNA editing is happening, we are making makers to our own specs, maybe right and maybe wrong

I argue, the whole damn universe is art

$$$ making may be short term aberrational art, if we ever tune in to a larger cosmic market, or we are just cute squirrels gathering nuts...




Much about cultivating an audience. Avedon busted the art tradition mould by creating images in high key, hard hitting and simply different. There are similarities between Avedon and Andy Warhol as that was part of the 60's tradition busting at a time when the world wanted change and a different look.

Personally, Avedon and Andy Warhol is not that high on the interest list, except that can never apply to others. Avedon, Andy Warhol and countless others have their audience and following, best to let this be, appreciate and understand what their art is about like, dislike, hate, love or what ever.. art is intended to inspire and stimulate an emotional response from those sharing their art expressions. If the art item caused an emotional response, it's done what art should do.


Bernice

[Alan Klein]

Art is evolutionaily inherited from earth's critters. Birds sing and dance for a mate. We humans are definitely critters of earth. It is communication, which has evolved over vast time.

Even the current virus is alive and communicating...everything exists on a Bell curve

DNA editing is happening, we are making makers to our own specs, maybe right and maybe wrong

I argue, the whole damn universe is art

$$$ making may be short term aberrational art, if we ever tune in to a larger cosmic market, or we are just cute squirrels gathering nuts...

I like to think that God has a purpose for us not that we only gather nuts. After all, art per se has no purpose. It just hangs there. But yet it inspires us. We think so highly of it and give it such importance because of this.

[Greg Y]

Drew - 17000 8 x10 negatives over a five year period,, 130 final prints for the exhibit.. this project will go down in history as one of the greatest photo projects ever.... When he was near death he was asked if he had any regrets, his answer was that he wished he had continued on The American West.

This work is brilliant IMHO.

I absolutely agree with you Bob, & yes Laura Wilson's "Avedon at Work: In The American West" is a worthwhile read.

[Serge S]

Well, I don't read into his white sheet backdrops a "democratization" of his subjects at all. That's more an art critic's retro assessment, I suspect. At a certain point he found it to be an effective graphic tool, and then kinda became a stuck record with it. For example, note his cookie cutter individual cutouts of steelworkers, welders, etc, splayed like steamed crabs against white backdrops. That was indeed interesting as a graphic novelty at first, but doesn't do much for something allegedly in the West, where it's like looking at zoo animals in artificial cages devoid of any native context, which Avedon would probably have been incapable of appreciating anyway. Maybe some people like that he was an outsider, but it leaves me cold.

Backdrops do serve a purpose.
Penn used one also, just a more organic feel to his.

[Serge S]

And I'll repeat, Avedon never was in the West, at least psychologically, because he didn't seem to see a damn thing. He was just bringing marketable NYC stereotypes of the West with him. Should have stayed in NYC and kept taking pictures of corny models wearing suits made from recycled tin cans.
.

Sometimes being an outsider looking in allows us to see things we do not see when we are part of it. So it's not always a bad thing:)

[Drew Wiley]

How about the real West as a backdrop instead of a sheet? One can learn more about the actual people of the West from the setting alone, and what they left behind, than they can from person after person taken out of context and put in a zoo. But that takes its own kind of specific cultural sensitivity. Avedon was blind to it and trying to substitute something else he brought with him. That's fine if you're trying to understand Avedon per se. But he was in his own head and never saw the West or really appreciated it. He was out specimen collecting for sake of his own little taxidermy dioramas in NYC mode. Big difference. I'm not saying it's wrong. It just leaves me cold, unsatisfied. And that whole 60's thing might have been a refreshing overturn of a previous art regime at one time, but for several decades now it has become an even worse stuffy regime, a stuck record, long overdue to be in the rear view mirror.

[Bernice Loui]

Richard Avedon:
https://www.avedonfoundation.org/the-work

Andy Warhol:
https://whitney.org/exhibitions/andywarhol


Edward Steichen:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/oct/29/fashion-edward-steichens-trailblazing-vogue-photographs-vanity-fair-in-pictures


Bernice

[Pieter]

How about the real West as a backdrop instead of a sheet? One can learn more about the actual people of the West from the setting alone, and what they left behind, than they can from person after person taken out of context and put in a zoo. But that takes its own kind of specific cultural sensitivity. Avedon was blind to it and trying to substitute something else he brought with him. That's fine if you're trying to understand Avedon per se. But he was in his own head and never saw the West or really appreciated it. He was out specimen collecting for sake of his own little taxidermy dioramas in NYC mode. Big difference. I'm not saying it's wrong. It just leaves me cold, unsatisfied. And that whole 60's thing might have been a refreshing overturn of a previous art regime at one time, but for several decades now it has become an even worse stuffy regime, a stuck record, long overdue to be in the rear view mirror.

The book is titled, "In The American West" for a reason--it is not meant to be a book about the American West but rather what Avedon saw of interest there. His photos are of people, his interest is in photographing people as he saw them, isolated from settings or environment. You may not like that, but that is what art is about--personal expression. His, not yours or what might appeal to you.

[Bernice Loui]

There are artist-photographers that use their subjects (noun) as a device-prop as a means to express. More often than not the innate personality of the prop is of little to no significance to the image maker as it is being used as a prop, essentially imposing the ego of the artist-photographer upon what the artist-photographer is bent on achieving in the work produced.

~Richard Avedon is one of many who practiced this as a photographer.

Alternatively, artist-photographer is much about capturing the personality and expression of the subject (noun) with as little artist-photographer's ego being imposed upon the subject.

~Name a photographer that practiced this method of artistic expression?



Bernice

[Tin Can]

William Mortensen VS Karsh

[Alan Klein]

Richard Avedon:
https://www.avedonfoundation.org/the-work

Andy Warhol:
https://whitney.org/exhibitions/andywarhol


Edward Steichen:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/oct/29/fashion-edward-steichens-trailblazing-vogue-photographs-vanity-fair-in-pictures


Bernice

I like Steichen. He was more upscale and glamorous. The physical prints looked that way too. Those times have apparently passed. Too bad.

[Drew Wiley]

Take a look at the Navajo portraiture of Laura Gilpin. Definitely not ego driven. That would have been a non-starter. Steichen was a giant. I actually most admire his earlier "Pictorialist" portraits, but he really had two distinct phases, just as Edward Weston did. Avedon is interesting. I just find that whole fashionista culture which gave him a good living to be trivial and shallow to the point of being disgusting. And in fact, he often portrayed it with a considerable amount of cynicism, wry wit, and thinly veiled ridicule. That's why he, in his own words, stated he loved the 60's - it was so over the top, and that apparently matched his own personality. If viewers like that, no problem. I prefer nuance to noise.

[Roberto Nania]

I think we missed the point.
I personally don't evaluate a peace of art by my sympathy for the artist, instead a see his work, if it give me an emotion what ever it is; if it add something to me or if it leave me indifferent.
In the American West is probably the biggest photography work ever made. Every photograph in it is simply amazing.
It took 10 or 100 sheets of film to made a single portrait? Who cares if the result is to have that perfect picture.
Is it full of Avedon's ego? Sure and then, who cares?! It is a beautiful work of art.
There are many other cynic photographers out there; about some of them I like the work (Witkin for example or Sally Mann since someone consider her work as cynic) about others I don't (Bruce Gilden or Antoine D'Agatà for example) but it is based on their work, not if they dressing in blue or red.
;)

[Alan Gales]

I'm an Avedon fan but to each their own.

Like Ricky Nelson said, "Ya can't please everyone so you got to please yourself"! :cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th_LYyRhRlE

[Drew Wiley]

Ricky Nelson? My wife was just listening to some of that yesterday. She wasn't even born yet when that came out. Didn't his meteoric career end in the same plane crash as Ritchie Valens and Buddy Holly?
Roberto - I find Avedon's West project just a minor blip on the radar long ago. A couple of memorable images; but I didn't even bother buying the book, and have no regrets in that respect. There are hundreds of other books I'd rather have. I think there's a distinct myopia factor when this is the kind of thing still so repetitiously and monotonously fed to the public that they're unaware of just how bigger things really are than a handful of stunt men doing clever tricks in the 60's. Meteoric like Ricky Nelson, but hardly the only gig in town (Buddy Holly would be a better comparison, more jarring than smooth like Ricky). Even back then there were worthier alternatives. Time for some balance. But museums and similar venues seem addicted to routinely known loud noises as somehow necessary to attract paying attendees.

[Pieter]

More grist for the mill:
https://aperture.org/editorial/who-was-richard-avedon/?redirect_log_mongo_id=5f9718e5433de929db386f91&redirect_mongo_id=5f970b967b62d4008956a0ff&sb_referer_host=&utm_campaign=Trackable+Links&utm_medium=Web&utm_source=Springbot

[Bob Salomon]

Ricky Nelson? My wife was just listening to some of that yesterday. She wasn't even born yet when that came out. Didn't his meteoric career end in the same plane crash as Ritchie Valens and Buddy Holly?
Roberto - I find Avedon's West project just a minor blip on the radar long ago. A couple of memorable images; but I didn't even bother buying the book, and have no regrets in that respect. There are hundreds of other books I'd rather have. I think there's a distinct myopia factor when this is the kind of thing still so repetitiously and monotonously fed to the public that they're unaware of just how bigger things really are than a handful of stunt men doing clever tricks in the 60's. Meteoric like Ricky Nelson, but hardly the only gig in town (Buddy Holly would be a better comparison, more jarring than smooth like Ricky). Even back then there were worthier alternatives. Time for some balance. But museums and similar venues seem addicted to routinely known loud noises as somehow necessary to attract paying attendees.

No, he was not with Buddy Holly. Nor was he with any other singer in plane crashes. He did it all by himself.

[Drew Wiley]

Did what by himself? Made some noise? That's due to his extant big media microphone, frumpy society connections, and huge personal budget, not necessarily anything brilliant in itself. I didn't use the term "noise" without a reason. He had all kinds of assistants and props, a team or crew, brought in people as models with paraphernalia wholly unrelated to the given locality, like that pretentious shot of the beekeeper playing a flute.... hardly did it all by himself.
He would have needed an automated film-holder conveyor belt if that had been the case, just like every other machine-gunner who can't reliably anticipate the "decisive moment" - probably too nervous or neurotic, I dunno; maybe just had too much money, so wasted it on a lot of redundant extra shots. Wish there were more of those kinds today - it would boost sheet film sales and maybe lower the price.

[Pieter]

Did what by himself? Made some noise? That's due to his extant big media microphone, frumpy society connections, and huge personal budget, not necessarily anything brilliant in itself. I didn't use the term "noise" without a reason. He had all kinds of assistants and props, a team or crew, brought in people as models with paraphernalia wholly unrelated to the given locality, like that pretentious shot of the beekeeper playing a flute.... hardly did it all by himself.
He would have needed an automated film-holder conveyor belt if that had been the case, just like every other machine-gunner who can't reliably anticipate the "decisive moment" - probably too nervous or neurotic, I dunno; maybe just had too much money, so wasted it on a lot of redundant extra shots. Wish there were more of those kinds today - it would boost sheet film sales and maybe lower the price.

Beekeeper playing a flute? For someone with such strong negative opinions of his work, you most certainly have an in-depth knowledge of Avedon's oeuvre. I have never seen that one.

[Drew Wiley]

Just look in the darn book. It's an infamous over-the-top shot pretty much defeating the notion that he was trying to be objective, and as utterly contrived corny as his Natasha and the Snake poster. I'm not really worked up about any of this. But turning a sacred cow into a hamburger is always an effective way of keeping an interesting conversation going, and appraising how we differently look at such things. No right or wrong here. I have my distinct reasons, and the right to state them; others have their own take on things and an equal right to express that. But this case particularly interests me because it involves someone who was very much a brassy big city interloper or outsider doing things in exactly that manner, versus how someone with actual personal experience and their own deep geographic context might look at things from the inside, sympathetically. Did Avedon even know how to drive? - sincere question.

[Pieter]

Just look in the darn book. It's an infamous over-the-top shot pretty much defeating the notion that he was trying to be objective, and as utterly contrived corny as his Natasha and the Snake poster. I'm not really worked up about any of this. But turning a sacred cow into a hamburger is always an effective way of keeping an interesting conversation going, and appraising how we differently look at such things. No right or wrong here. I have my distinct reasons, and the right to state them; others have their own take on things and an equal right to express that. But this case particularly interests me because it involves someone who was very much a brassy big city interloper or outsider doing things in exactly that manner, versus how someone with actual personal experience and their own deep geographic context might look at things from the inside, sympathetically. Did Avedon even know how to drive? - sincere question.

208938
Flute?

[Drew Wiley]

There's a different one from the same shoot. But I am relying on memory. I haven't seen a copy of the book itself for a long time. Either way, it's all about shock value, using a deliberately imported individual.