Of all the reasons to dismiss Avedon, that has to be the weakest.
Printable View
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.
RICHARD AVEDON: Picturing Models In Motion
He is as described in that story, the basis for the photographer in Funny Face, 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
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.
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 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.
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 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.