"'Sheer nepotism': Brooklyn Beckham Burberry shoot angers photographers" - Guardian

[Jayst84]

Whether or not it devalues photography depends on his interest in photography. If he has a real long-term interest, with aspirations of making a career out of it, and the family fortune has been used to give him a boost in learning the art, then it might be unfair but not devaluing to photography. If it turns out it to be just another 'celebrity with a camera' for whom 'photography is the novelty of the week', and Burberry end up using some poor photographs, then it's devaluing to photography.

I don't see how that's the case. As everyone's already said, and as was blindingly obvious in the first place - photography has very little to do with it. It's a marketing campaign that happens to involve some photos. There are millions of them going on all over the world every day without involving high-end fashion photographers. Besides that, I don't see what someone's interest in making a future career out of photography has to do with the value of the medium.

Taken from the article linked to in the first post:

Jon Gorrigan, a photographer who has worked with Esquire, Grazia and the Observer and with models such as Alexa Chung, said he expected Burberry would have the entire setup ready so that all Brooklyn had to do was click the button.

"“He’s obviously not going to be doing the lighting, he’ll have no clue of the programmes, the cameras or Photoshop,” Gorrigan said. “It’s going to be so well managed – he’ll have the best hair and makeup, the best models, the very best equipment, so that the chance of any risk is greatly reduced."

I thought that was quite funny too. Photographer complains about devaluing of photography by implying it's all about the cameras you use and the make up artists you have on hand.
Of course Jon always shoots with a Trip 35, and does his own make up on the studio cleaning lady (who stands in as a model if she's free for these big campaigns) using whatever lipstick he could find in the £1-or-less bin at ASDA.

 

[treeman]

Only just heard about this, very smart move Burberry.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Whether or not it devalues photography depends on his interest in photography. If he has a real long-term interest, with aspirations of making a career out of it, and the family fortune has been used to give him a boost in learning the art, then it might be unfair but not devaluing to photography. If it turns out it to be just another 'celebrity with a camera' for whom 'photography is the novelty of the week', and Burberry end up using some poor photographs, then it's devaluing to photography.

There is nothing new in this. I remember when an unknown and arguably totally useless photographer, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, married Princess Margaret and instantly became the "must have" photographer - there was outrage among talented and skilled photographers, but it was all a lot of fuss about nothing. Either someone is good enough to make it or they're not, and ultimately the market will decide that.

I'm not going to say anything libellous, but there were stories around, which may or may not be true, that the actual photography was done by others, and that Armstrong-Jones just fronted it. This is what happens in the real world.

 

[studioworks]

Only just heard about this, very smart move Burberry.

Exactly this, its not about the photos he produces its about having his name associated with them and the media hype it will cause, thats just business and smart business at that.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Who gives a flying ****.