|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Explain fashion or die..
Ok.. I asked a retired professional fashion photographer to explain fashion to me... He contemplated the question gravely.. Pointed at something over my left shoulder.. And fled screaming into the night never to return.. So, I put it to MM in general.. I don't get fashion.. What makes one fashion shot better than another. What is the history that led to where fashion is today.. How do you rate the merits of these images? I'm dead serious. I don't read magazines (and death to MM and photography in general for the fact that I found myself looking at the lighting of Gwyneth Paltrow in a vogue cover in the grocery checkout line tonight..) Art I get the concept (if not the execution).. Commercial... I see the light.. Photojournalism.. Sure.. Fashion is like greek transcribed into brail and I have no fingers.. Please translate.. Aug 22 06 12:49 am Link It's like poetry. If you don't read a ton of it all the time, you'll never understand any of it. Ok, so you might think you understand an overquoted Robert Frost or two, but ifyou really study it, you'll come to learn that you've misinterpreted it the entire time. Aug 22 06 12:53 am Link Oh, so it's go to school.. Stop thinking freely and learn to regurgitate what others think. 'Splains why I'm rebellin'.. Aug 22 06 12:57 am Link W.G. Rowland wrote: Praise you for this profound unintentional empathy. Aug 22 06 01:00 am Link Lets see... Fashion... Buy my Garments... Its just a title phrase for a market. Technicals aside, its a poo poo shoo shoo world. Aug 22 06 01:00 am Link W.G. Rowland wrote: No, school is notoriously at least 23 years behind the times. In fashion, you have to be 6 months ahead of the times, or you're outdated. Aug 22 06 01:03 am Link W.G. Rowland wrote: But seriously, you can't really rebel without knowing against what you're rebelling. Aug 22 06 01:04 am Link Fashion is a lie or social agreement imposed on us by dictators on 7th avenue hoping to capitalize on our naitivity. Fashion photography is about creating the illusion of a lifestyle that we all want to belong to. Mediocrity carries a hefty price tag. Don't conform, be naked.. Aug 22 06 01:08 am Link Brian Diaz wrote: I'm not a rebel.. I just know how easy it is to set off those who've gotten deeper debts than I have.. Aug 22 06 01:08 am Link The thing is, as far as I can tell, the fashion industry respects photographers--and photography--more than any other industry. Aug 22 06 01:15 am Link Aug 22 06 01:16 am Link I know.. And while I sit here mocking from my roach infested apartment.. There are amazing photographers doing this work.. But I don't understand the aestheic.. At all.. Aug 22 06 01:18 am Link W.G. Rowland wrote: lol, bill. i've been busy defending the honor of rapists and murderers! Aug 22 06 01:18 am Link oldguysrule wrote: Wow.. Aug 22 06 01:21 am Link Oh.. And before that sounds too flip and dismissive.. Let me boil that down through my alcohol augmented filter and see if my translation holds up.. Basically, it's alchemy. Aug 22 06 01:24 am Link W.G. Rowland wrote: Well I think fashion photography works something like this in America Aug 22 06 01:25 am Link Brian Diaz wrote: Fashion is the patron saint of photography. Fashion allows the means for some photographers to survive, while not totaly conforming to that ugly monster called commerce. Aug 22 06 01:25 am Link W.G. Rowland wrote: I don't understand bondage...at all...but I know there are some amazing photographers doing it. Aug 22 06 01:28 am Link now to the blank expression... models wear the garments, they don't define them. this is part of the reason for encouraging the blank stare. also makeup, hair accessories need to grab focus. eyes become jewels... each body part is in fact part of the design. it is like focusing on the shape of the body in nudes... you don't focus on the face. in addition the facial void leaves many potential interpretations. i have lots of issues with this, as i'm essentially a portrait photographer at heart. the human element is critical for me. particularly in editorial - but then i do few editorials on 'the color yellow' or other literal translations of fashion topics. there are many who do not dehumanize. there are many who do. different schools of thought on the subject. this is a good thing, i think. i'll try to add more here as i'm inspired to do. Aug 22 06 01:29 am Link Fashion is all about "it," and "it" is a lot like Schrodinger's Cat. You can't pin "it" down. "It" defies logic and reason and when you think you understand "it" then that is when you are the furthest from understanding "it" at all. Fashion magazines don't show you fashion, they show you what it was 5 days ago, or in most cases 2 months ago. Depending how far you are from the epicenters of fashion, you may be able to convince your peers that you are in tune with fashion, and that's what it is all about for most people. To a few people, trendsetters, fashion is a state of being. To them, fashion is in the moment gut feelings of what is good, what is bad, what is exciting, and what is drab. Aug 22 06 01:29 am Link W.G. Rowland wrote: And we appreciate it... Aug 22 06 01:30 am Link W.G. Rowland wrote: may i quote you? Aug 22 06 01:31 am Link Garry k wrote: Sorry, but I have to disagree about the part of David La Chapelle. In my (humble) opinion La Chapelle has merely applied another coat of rouge (with some gloss!) to a tired old whore (fashion). It's all smoke, mirrors and photoshop. Underneath the surface there is nothing that substantial or innovative about La Chapelle or Meisel for that matter. Aug 22 06 01:31 am Link oldguysrule wrote: Only if you keep adding to your definition.. This is fascinating stuff.. Aug 22 06 01:33 am Link Good fashion tells a story. The story is romantic, special, an individual who is exhalted by all because of the garment, the scent, the mysterious nothing-ness of glamour and intrigue. Stop looking at it and try to smell it. Breathe fashion, but listen with a half-cocked ear. There is awed laughter in the back ground. Buy a few mags, Elle, Vogue, Madamoselle etc. Some of the best shooters in the world are in fashion. Education is not bad, it gives a basis to accept or reject. You must have the basics of the language to communicate. But you must also play. The man at the circus juggling bowling pins and Raggedy Ann dolls while spinning plates on a stick on his head makes it look easy. He is not thinking or everything will fall. Aug 22 06 01:37 am Link Michael L. wrote: Great fashion asks a question. Aug 22 06 01:43 am Link Ched wrote: Yeah, but does it realize that to the great unwashed masses.. That question is, "WTF?" Aug 22 06 01:44 am Link the photographers at the top do not get to define fashion or fashion photography. they develop their own unique voices from which clients may choose to help them express their meaning. it is the clients that get to define what fashion and fashion photography are in making those choices. now and then a photographer with a whole new vocabulary or very twisted accent/dialect will arrive and their voice stand out and when understood and adopted by others expand the vocabulary of all. rare. we can almost count the number in history on one hand. as to meisel... mert & marcus are far more influential than steven meisel despite meisel's acknowledged ownership of the position of darling of the mainstream fashionista. vogue is unfortunately run by the devil and so has lost its ability to speak truth without accident. ... wearing down and wearing thin... thanks, Mr. Rowland, for starting this thread. Aug 22 06 01:45 am Link Capturing beautiful people in great clothes doing stupid shit in places they shouldn't be doing stupid shit. For the photographer, being paid absurds amounts of money to:... Capture beautiful people in great clothes doing stupid shit in places they shouldn't be doing stupid shit. Live the dream, dream the fantasy Now, GTFO Aug 22 06 01:45 am Link W.G. Rowland wrote: Yeah. Ever see the David LaChapelle "shoe story" with the black body builder in the diving helmet? That's fashion. Aug 22 06 01:49 am Link Michael L. wrote: I think your romanticizing the first part a bit. About keeping the spinning plates in balance I totaly agree... one must keep the illusion alive at all cost. Aug 22 06 01:50 am Link Ched wrote: En Ingles: Aug 22 06 01:51 am Link Fashion is not something to define but an attitude one wears. As for images in magazines...they were shot 3 months prior to publication and are most likely not in fashion by the time of publication. Designers are a different breed. Some are for couture and others just work for outlets like Wal-Mart and only lend their name to make a buck. In my experience as a fashion shooter in NYC with a studio, I continually contemplated this very definition. It always seemed to be more of a group of designers, mostly gay, who played with the ideal concept of the perfect woman...and why they do not design their original pieces on woman who do not fit the mold of a 5'10" Goddess. It's a great way to make a lot of money as an artist and most "straight" men just aren't attracted to create in this medium...of course we have woman designers also and they tend to be a bit more practical in their designs...and then we have Betsy Johnson. Like I stated it's an attitude and the shooters who can "hang" with that attitude and fit into the social environment, tend to be the ambassadors to the public and how they "see" the clothes make the image. What's great about this is the constant changing that offers diversity and just sometimes an excuse to be different. What got me was that so many editorial shooters and friends who did this work always told me that my going into advertising was a stale move. I only got to shoot what an art director laid out and I had no creative control...well I beg to differ since after these fashion shooters finally got a "look" for their client/designers they got stuck in the same lights until they obtained a new client or the designer felt "tired" of the look...if you follow it for some time and buy the European Vogues and the English publication Tattler, you will see this trend in the photographers looks. And because of these "looks" photographers become famous for that "Style"...why do I quote these words...because it is up to interpretation and the business that is generates. I felt that the beauty industry gave me more on a creative level because I had to only work with one concept and offer a different point of view for each image. It's actually a very hard business to get into and maintain. I had the wonderful oppotunities to assist some very famous shooters in NYC during the 80's and found that they didn't really know very much...but that's it...you didn't have to know the technical side, you had to know how to play the game and one that changes like the weather. So unless you hang in the same clubs and gay bars that these people frequent, how the next thing happens will pass by you....now please don't judge on the fact that I am pointing out one group of people, but for the better of this thread, most of the top designers are part of this group. I have been able to see it first hand as an assistant and as a shooter...that's why I choose to leave NYC and move to LA, rather then go to Europe and try my luck there. I felt that in the end it was my art that really made the difference as a photographer and so in this new digital world...Los Angeles is known as the capitol of this new medium...for the sake of the movie industry. Many here on MM tend to shoot more glamour and that realm has a very small market if one was to compare it to the amount of work with advertising and fashion. But the glamour concept is somehow mistaken as for fashion and so many models here feel that they must show more skin to be a model. It's about the allure of the show. Does this make me want to buy it and will I feel like that model when I wear it? That is how it is sold and maybe in the end, the effect it has on the public is really the final say. And think if one has that much control on one's fantasy, then there's alot of money to be made for items that become so un-necessary to our lives. Advertising is selling you something you don't really need and how one can convince you with an image or fantasy is the ticket. So as a photographer, if you can stand out in a way that brings these designers and art directors to your portfolio then you have got them just in the same way the rest of the world is fooled into thinking that they must have you. It's a great dog and pony show.... Remember I am one opinion and I speak from my own experiences. And I hope this post can shed some light to your question. with kindness, Ken...pixelfisher Aug 22 06 01:52 am Link Fashion is my whore and my dominating mistress. Aug 22 06 01:52 am Link Fashion is a style of how one's wear their clothes and the way it was uniquely designed. It is a lifestyle. High fashion is more towards the arts, and comsumer fashion is or dressing a naked body with minimal design. Aug 22 06 01:54 am Link by Tuan wrote: Why? Aug 22 06 01:55 am Link Ched wrote: as instruction, simply pointing to something and saying seeeeeee, doesn't really work. however, that is in fact how 'fashion' is learned. the problem is that you don't point to one story and say 'that's fashion' (fin) you do this at least daily over an extended period of time until all are pointing simultaneously to the same thing announcing seeeeeeeeeee. Aug 22 06 01:56 am Link Ched wrote: "Fashions fade, style is eternal" Aug 22 06 01:59 am Link Dean Solo wrote: Excellent. Aug 22 06 02:00 am Link oldguysrule wrote: F..n A! Aug 22 06 02:02 am Link |
