December 24, 2004

6:04 AM

I would like to understand fashion photography better. What should I do? [More]
posted by ar0n to (12 comments total)

A girl I like is accompanying me to a Guy Bourdin exhibition here in Amsterdam. I'm not looking to impress her, but I would like to have more to say about a picture than just "Gee, that's pretty" or "How weird" -- the latter being more applicable to Guy Bourdin, it seems. I guess what I want is to deepen my appreciation or understanding of fashion photography, beyond mere aesthetics. Can you suggest anything for me to read before I go see the exhibition, or some mental approach I need to take when viewing a picture? Thanks.
posted by ar0n at 6:04 AM on December 24, 2004

uncomfortable stuff and not the kind of thing i'd choose for a first date.

site for exhbition is http://www.foam.nl/en/guybourdin.html.

the polaroids don't, as far as i can see, include models and deal with the standard things - texture, light, colour, form, yadda yadda. the fashion shots have a hint of repressed violence.

google turn up loads of info - just read around. when you see a lifeless redhead, you can mention his mother :o/
posted by andrew cooke at 6:30 AM on December 24, 2004

It's not a date -- we just both like photography. Yeah, FOAM is the first place I looked, but I don't find the description terribly helpful. Thanks, though.
posted by ar0n at 6:47 AM on December 24, 2004

I should note that I'm not per se looking for information regarding Guy Bourdin. I'd like to know more about fashion photography in general, too. Just some general tips/viewpoints for approaching the subject would be helpful. This was interesting, but short on the why/how.
posted by ar0n at 6:50 AM on December 24, 2004

well, you can separate it in two. there's photography and there's fashion. photography has a bunch of central problems that you can list with a little thought: traditional "art" problems related to how you use the space; social aspects related to how photography is viewed and used; technical details. these interact with each other - advances in technology put cameras in cell phones which take pictures of indian film stars, using a recent example.

then there's fashion. which, again, is has obvious issues: consumerism (excess, poverty, symbolism); feminism (the female body, power, the male viewer); exploitation (manipulation of the consumer, model, assumptions); etc. again, there are links between these.

art photography that is also fashion protography is going to make links that bridge those two ideas. so what you need to do is look at the photos and see what connections are being made. take the photo apart in one way - as art - and then in another way - as commercial progoganda - and then see what the cross-links are. how is one used to support the other? what contradictions are there? is the photographer aware of, and using, the contradicitions?

so find those connections. that in itself is a fair amount of work. you can then start to think about how they evolve historically - works will have dates, so you can see if there are changes/progressions.

i guess that's all a bit basic, but it's where i'd start. maybe what you're really asking is for someone to give you some basic links as starting points. i think you can pull some out of the web site (also here) - but i'm afraid you know now all that i know. apologies for the "date" assumption.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:12 AM on December 24, 2004

I guess what I want is to deepen my appreciation or understanding of fashion photography, beyond mere aesthetics.

Well, much of fashion photography is purely aesthetic. There's nothing wrong with your reactions to a piece being particularly base and emotive.

Personally, I tend to concentrate on the technical aspects of a piece, simply because I shoot myself. I'm always trying to "figure it out," like an audience with a magician, and occasionally fall into the trap of judging the artist on their proficiency with their tools. Since all photography is basically the control and application of light, you can start there. Where does the photographer place the main lights, what are they emphasizing, what is the overall mood they're trying to convey?

On reflection, Andrew Cooke's explanation is about as good as you're going to get.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:34 AM on December 24, 2004

to be honest, i was thinking someone who does this kind of thing for real would post and show just how amateur and old fashioned i was...
posted by andrew cooke at 8:30 AM on December 24, 2004

I'd start understanding them separately first. Photography and fashion are two different things, each with its own history. Knowing and understanding fashion AND photography on their own will give you a better understanding of fashion photography. Then i'd read (if you have time) Helmut Newton's biography, and also read about Diana Vreeland, and others. There is a clear transition from Newton's first documentation of the Paris collections to the authoral and glamorous fashion shoots which became associated with Vogue and Harpers. This is well documented in Newton's bio and is actually quite interesting to read. You could also mention/discuss Madonna's rip off/hommage of Bourdin's work in a (not so) recent video, and the transition towards today's fashion, including stuff like Terry Richardson and the direction all that is going.
posted by ig at 10:41 AM on December 24, 2004

I'm interested in photography in general and think you can hardly do better than to take a look at someone who seamlessly blended so many styles of photography -- reportage, art, fashion, portrait -- into his work, and for me, that's Richard Avedon. There are some interesting writings at his website, including this, from his foreword to In the American West.

"A portrait is not a likeness. The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion. There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."

I also just began reading a book called Perception & Imaging by Richard D. Zakia, from Focal Press. It's done a good job so far of taking picture-taking out of the technical and into a more philosophical light -- while also considering things figure-ground and positive-negative space and how they affect how we think of pictures. Not far enough into it to recommend it wholeheartedly, but it has me thinking about pictures on a different level, which is a good thing.
posted by mrkinla at 2:20 PM on December 24, 2004

Slate had an interesting piece on the "decline of fashion photography" that I'm pretty sure was linked to the blue a year or more ago.

Other than that, I'd go to your library or bookstore and find books by the 2 most prominent fashion photographers of the 20th century, who would be Irving Penn and Richard Avedon. There were earlier ones, but Penn/Avedon have done the most to influence current fashion photography and they have bodies of work of 50-60 years each.
posted by gen at 4:42 PM on December 24, 2004

and pick up Surface magazine, especially their once a year Avant Guardian issues.
posted by amberglow at 7:58 PM on December 25, 2004

Thanks guys, [this is helpful].
posted by ar0n at 12:07 AM on December 27, 2004