Well, I never thought I'd approve of the Pirelli Calendar

[Ed Sutton]

Why is it so f*****g impossible to have a serious discussion about art or art theory on this forum? Without fail any thread on the subject turns up some twunt intent on wrecking it before you reach the end of the first page.

Don't call me a twunt you po-faced git.

Why do some people have to take talking about art so bloomin' seriously? Just because I come across as dismissive doesn't mean I might not have my tongue in my cheek, ya know, sunshine.

n the case of the article, that's a lot of people to pose meaning it would have a lot of preplanning, thought, possible sketches, communication to each person. Then there's the lighting and finally getting the image. Why not reference an old painting for examples, a number of problems and issues have been overcome and resolved by artists before.

I can understand that, but is there any evidence that was the approach used, or is the article supposition? That's where my beef lies, in all this after the fact imposition of some grand scheme of composition.

 

[MickSturbs]

I do wonder what a single mother with child would need to do to be evicted by the council.

Seriously! that's what you managed to take from that post ? My god, I despair about the number of phliistines in this place sometimes, I really do.

 

[juggler]

I can understand that, but is there any evidence that was the approach used, or is the article supposition? That's where my beef lies, in all this after the fact imposition of some grand scheme of composition.

None I know of, other than the fact that the composition happens to coincide with a reasonably well disseminated technique. Some time ago I attempted to engage the author in a discussion about whether it was equally possible to overlay any number of different sets of rectangles & triangles and comply with his rules, but that fizzled out.

I still think it's useful in explaining why the composition works, whether it was after the fact or not.

 

[Ed Sutton]

None I know of, other than the fact that the composition happens to coincide with a reasonably well disseminated technique. Some time ago I attempted to engage the author in a discussion about whether it was equally possible to overlay any number of different sets of rectangles & triangles and comply with his rules, but that fizzled out.

I still think it's useful in explaining why the composition works, whether it was after the fact or not.

My explanation of why that composition works would be that it's essentially a W with a vertical at each end to stop the eye leaving the frame. But I'm no expert!

The question of overlaying other grids over the image is one worth raising. I've overlayed the various 'composition tools' in Lightroom over random photos of mine and it's been surprising how often I can make one fit.

 

[simonblue]

Sorry but for me it doesn't work,the photos are uninteresting and not very well taken,just smell of another celebs stunt (n)

 

[Pookeyhead]

I have too. I'm not convinced that the cropped limbs and wonky horizons are a result of her composition process so much as a stylistic choice.

Obviously. No one thinks these are "mistakes" surely

 

[Jayst84]

I do wonder what a single mother with child would need to do to be evicted by the council.

As a picture I think it works and stands alone without the historical context but as a piece of social commentary I think it's less effective.

Wonder no more. Simply click on the link posted above, to the Tom Hunter website, and read the second sentence describing the series.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Why is it so f*****g impossible to have a serious discussion about art or art theory on this forum? Without fail any thread on the subject turns up some twunt intent on wrecking it before you reach the end of the first page.

Welcome to Talk Argue Photography. The friendliest forum on the net.

Seriously? Because uncreative, talentless camera operators get threatened when people start paying attention to anything that suggests there's more to their hobby than technical stuff - and that something more is something that totally baffles them. Fight or Flight. That's why.

 

[Stumpy]

Wouldn't put it up on any wall I had control of. Bad advertising for Pirelli. Have their standards dropped SO much with everything?

 

[juggler]

Obviously. No one thinks these are "mistakes" surely

I didn't suggest that they were.

 

[Byker28i]

I do wonder what a single mother with child would need to do to be evicted by the council.

They were squatters, living in housing that had been marked for demolishment to make way for nice new housing, tower blocks, flats etc. Together they fought to keep the area as it was, with Hunters work assisting as he also lived in the street.

 

[Byker28i]

I can understand that, but is there any evidence that was the approach used, or is the article supposition? That's where my beef lies, in all this after the fact imposition of some grand scheme of composition.

Approach used for the image, there's no doubt the composition was copied. Was the image taken with complete analysis of the lines as per that article, I doubt it.

 

[Byker28i]

Wouldn't put it up on any wall I had control of. Bad advertising for Pirelli. Have their standards dropped SO much with everything?

Fair enough, but I thought the portraits were personal, intimate and appealing and fitted the brief. Just didn't think the naked ones were required.

 

[The W]

Given the Pirelli calendar as a cultural institution is so fundamentally linked to nudity, but only of models that represent a small fraction of all women, I find the Williams and Schumer photos make a far more powerful statement than the others. It's not as if you're actually seeing any flesh you wouldn't if they were wearing a bikini on the beach,,,

 

[ZoneV]

I like the way the set, lights, etc are involved in the pictures, and the Vogue cover on the floor positioned so Serena can reference it whilst imitating the pose, only this time she's stripped almost naked and it's a very different picture.

Great stuff.

 

[Nicholas Mitchell]

Well, I've read the entire thread and some interesting views expressed indeed.

I'm just going to focus on one photograph. The Patti Smith shot.
I've been a fan of Patti Smith since I was a snotty punk. I've read everything she's written, admire her music, her political and social outlook etc. She's definitely not everyones' cuppa
but she is a fascinating, cerebral and complex individual.
Now, having said all that, does anyone see anything remotely fascinating, cerebral or complex in her representation by Leibowitz ?
I do not.
Compositional theories and queries aside for a moment, what I see is a lazy photograph. I see no effort on the part of the photographer (and what I assume is a crew of hundreds} to represent the subject .

What I see is: "oh hi Patti...yes, stand over here...can you do up your vest please? ok great! Thanks we're done"

I'm not trying to be flippant, but what I am saying is that there appears to be no effort to 'say' anything about Patti Smith. A meaningful photograph always says something about the subject. Whether it's a person,
a building, a landscape or a sporting event. A great photograph should strive to tell a wordless story to the viewer.

This photograph tells me nothing.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Wouldn't put it up on any wall I had control of. Bad advertising for Pirelli. Have their standards dropped SO much with everything?

yeah.. they should go back to tits and ass... it is the 1970s after all right?

 

[Alastair]

What I see is: "oh hi Patti...yes, stand over here...can you do up your vest please? ok great! Thanks we're done"

Different people, different interpretations.. I saw Patti as having been caught about to undo her vest, with a distant look of resignation at the viewers' expectation that she should be unclothed for the project.

The BTS doesn't really throw much light on the ideas behind each shot.