I've been on record with my dislike for most of Annie Leibovitz's work, but even I figured it was a good value in the photography market. Her auction record is something like $57,000; today, you can actually buy prints for like $8 grand. But what are you getting? When she got into deep financial trouble, her arrangement with Philips resulted in a "Master Set" of 150 photographs, in an edition of 7; three of the set are broken up for solo sale. So, right: oh, look, a brand new edition! There's World Cup soccer photos in monster editions of 50; photographs, in an edition of 40, and sized 14 by 14 inches, are sold by her gallery. There are so many negatives to start with; but when an artist suddenly introduces a massive portfolio to, well, raise cash, they can seriously erode the value of everything. So far, according to Artnet, only one of the "Master Set" may have been sold. How much worth could that possibly have over time? (Answer: possibly a lot! Total crapshoot.) With all her unbelievable profligacy splayed out for everyone to see, well-you don't buy a public company when it's up to its ears in bad debt, why would you buy a photographer? (Unless: fire sale!) Oh and one more thing about that New York mag piece-wasn't it coy when they talked about how Susan Sontag "hated" the nanny? Huh, how mysterious!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
8
I'd buy a picture of Choire and Balk in a hot tub full of hot chocolate.
If she can make a man with a Flying Nun hairdo "look like James Dean," anything's possible!
I've been waiting since 1996 to find right time, THE PERFECT OCCASION, to use term "sell out". Is this the moment, Choire? It feels right.
Still not as overrated as Meisel.
Disagree with you there. His work for Italian Vogue is great, as were a few of the older spreads in the U.S. edition. He's an artist; she's a hack.
I used to think Meisel was tending towards hack, but he's really done some astonishing things lately, some really great pictures. Those riotously patterned pics for Italian Vogue, that evoked Ballet Russe illustrator Bakst come to mind.
Liebovitz's recent work is Disney dross, sappy stuff. Astronauts looking at the sky!
Sofia listening to Daddy about how not to ruin her career!. Liebovitz excels not at capturing truth about her subjects; she excels at turning them into cartoons, portraying them exactly as you think they are, only X 10. But stars aren't really stars any more, they don't make them like they used to, and Liebovitz's pictorial schtick is indeed tired clichè, repeating itself.
Meisel is capable of some good work (yes, Italian Vogue, and some of his ad campaigns) but frankly, he rips off far too many other photographers. His ck One ads in the early '90s were Avedon rehashes and as recently as the latest Alberta Ferreti campaign he basically re-shot a Miles Aldridge editorial.
There are myriad other examples, but it's late and I'm lazy.
And my god, every photo shoot he did for US Vogue in the 90s was of a model (usually Evangelista) photographed mid-air against a monocoloured screen. I would argue that he is right up there with Leibowitz in terms of hackdom.
Oh, missing REPLY thingy-- how you do vex me!!
@Baroness: Nailed it. (God, you're good!)
@Wookie: Breaking nascent vow to think before writing, like the Baroness clearly does (it's late and I'm lazy, what?), to say that I don't think adverts merit mention here. Also that Meisel is taking up some prime real estate in the Sept. issue (U.S.) and you should take a gander, if only to cleanse your mind of the imagery the 90s left up in there! Even if you don't come away convinced that Meisel is the visionary of the two (and there's at one Leibovitz for comparative purposes-- exactly as the Baroness described here!--that should more than do the trick), feel free to join me afterward for light refreshments and disgust at the outright theft of von Unwerth image by Alas and Piggott.
I can't think of her without hearing Reese Witherspoon from American Psycho "Leibovitz, we'll get Annie Leibovitz... and chocolate truffles, Godiva."