Diversity In Fashion Photography

[Urban Stylin]

Several steps have been made in the industry in terms of diversity and inclusiveness be it modeling, photography, fashion , styling etc. Nowadays when you flip through a major publication its not surprising to see a cover shot by a photographer from a minority group something that was not common just a few years ago due to the structures put in place by the industry.
As good as it is that there's more diversity in fashion print photography, most times the results haven't impressed us. Actually more than half of the content created by the new wave of fashion photographers haven't been impressive at all especially on this forum. Why haven't we seen a Meisel or Avedon as yet, yet there are photographers of colour thathave been working for decades and perfected their craft. Is the industry being lazy as far as finding photographers from minority groups only focusing on those that do a particular candid style that appeals to the insta gen? Are they trying to box them in a particular style? Or will it take time for the new wave of photographers to develop their craft and perfect it as the greats did? As a person of colour who is also a creative I feel like the industry isn't showing how varied we are. Why haven't we seen photographers with a different perspective like Oye Diran who shot these doing bigger projects?

pics cnn/lensculture

 

[Lola701]

It’s an interesting topic but I think photographers from minorities have the same problems that others photographers tbh. They were raised in fashion photography. The problem ultimately is that nothing can be invented anymore...So some photographers decided to mimic one editorial of Meisel as their aesthetic....

Black photographers somehow have decided that their blackness will be an aesthetic. But it can’t because portraying a certain idea of blackness can be relevant in the western world for a small niche but in the new markets of fashion, it won’t stand out.

We won’t find new Meisel and Avedon because photographers are too conscious about their brands and aren’t willing to experiment.

I remember I think it was @Benn98 who asked in a thread why Tyler, who shot for Vogue and can be considered as a high profile photographer today, does not have big brands coming to him. I think that it’s because people don’t see in his work the potential to try something else and his portfolio does not inspire « risks ». I would love to see Tyler for Versace but you don’t imagine sexiness in his language of style.

After all these years, who is still the most important black photographer? Malick Sidibe! And he wasn’t even a fashion photographer...
He is the Meisel and the Avedon.
And I feel like black photographers haven’t explored something else outside of that.

I went to see Oye Diran. It’s beautiful, it has an IG appeal but does this add something special to the equation? No? Is it really a new perspective?

In fashion nowadays we believe that the new perspective is the representation because we are in this very western world bubble but the perspective is in the style of photography. And it’s the same for clothing.
That’s something that I like for example in Rafael Pavarotti. He is one of the numerous heir of Sidibe but he took it further. Now he can experiment and move on from his very portraits, almost choreographed photos.

 

[THD96]

I think connection is also an important aspect of why we haven't seen anyone is on the same levels as Avedon or Meisel. What I read in the Avedon biography is talents aside he is really have a good even close with a lot of people at high levels in the industry. People that trust him and willing to spend big budget for him to do what he wants. For example his studio director Norma is the wife of Martin, worldwide creative director of Revlon who convinced him to spend all the budget Avedon requested. A normal photographer will never have that opportunity. Same can said about his assistant Hiro, he didn't become the first Asian photographer to shoot for Vogue Italia because people at VI wanted to support photographer of colors they choose him because Avedon recommended Hiro for them. Nowadays photographer of colors can have the support on social media but it's all come down to the decisions of the suits. If they don't have a good relationship with the people that have the power to hire them, we will never have another Avedon or Meisel. We always complaint about why Tyler or Collier keep getting jobs but because they have good relationship with people willing give them jobs. The peole who is more qualified for the jobs are somewhere working in the industry.

Another disadvantage of photographer in general is the power of magazines is fading fast. Sadly people just didn't have the interest in magazines like they used to. A Vogue Us cover maybe a huge achievement maybe for people inside the industry but for general public it's just a magazine cover. Magazine these won't have a budget for extravaganza shoot so photographer creativity is being limited within the budgets of the magazine

 

[Lola701]

I think connection is also an important aspect of why we haven't seen anyone is on the same levels as Avedon or Meisel. What I read in the Avedon biography is talents aside he is really have a good even close with a lot of people at high levels in the industry. People that trust him and willing to spend big budget for him to do what he wants. For example his studio director Norma is the wife of Martin, worldwide creative director of Revlon who convinced him to spend all the budget Avedon requested. A normal photographer will never have that opportunity. Same can said about his assistant Hiro, he didn't become the first Asian photographer to shoot for Vogue Italia because people at VI wanted to support photographer of colors they choose him because Avedon recommended Hiro for them. Nowadays photographer of colors can have the support on social media but it's all come down to the decisions of the suits. If they don't have a good relationship with the people that have the power to hire them, we will never have another Avedon or Meisel. We always complaint about why Tyler or Collier keep getting jobs but because they have good relationship with people willing give them jobs. The peole who is more qualified for the jobs are somewhere working in the industry.

Another disadvantage of photographer in general is the power of magazines is fading fast. Sadly people just didn't have the interest in magazines like they used to. A Vogue Us cover maybe a huge achievement maybe for people inside the industry but for general public it's just a magazine cover. Magazine these won't have a budget for extravaganza shoot so photographer creativity is being limited within the budgets of the magazine

What you are saying about Avedon is true but at the same time, black photographers can also benefit from the same opportunities if some of the people claiming « buy black » and stuff were willing to support them.
Fashion has always been about connections and talents. Some have both, some have one over the other and the goal is to make it. Michael Roberts was a renowned and famous photographer. He wasn’t maybe exceptional but he was important enough to become a big personality in the industry.

And the problem in fashion is that when we think about diversity, it’s always about a black & white paradigm and this desire to be accepted in circles instead of breaking in! The irony is that those who have made it and who are remembered are those who broke in.

Who today, is willing to give the same opportunity to a young black photographer as for Avedon. Nobody! Not your favorite black celebrity, activist or even socialite. Unfortunately, nobody is inspired by the journey. Only by the success.

You talk about Hiro and it got me thinking about Tyen. A flamboyant personality and someone who worked for Dior for years. A makeup artist photographer who managed to stand out and who through his connections stayed in the industry for a longtime.

The frivolous aspect of fashion has created careers. John Galliano became bankable in 1997. His breakthrough collection happened because somehow people believed in the Idea of frivolity. Can political statements turn into something just for the love of frivolity? Of beauty?

Magazines are dead but print is not dead. IG is fabulous but it’s not enough.
Vogue still has a value. Nobody knows about Meisel outside of people who cares about fashion. But people knows about Dior, Vuitton, Versace...etc. When a creative director decides to work with a photographer for his brand, he usually goes through magazines. And the cachet of the seal of approval of Vogue, Bazaar or even a designer mean something.

 

[Urban Stylin]

It’s an interesting topic but I think photographers from minorities have the same problems that others photographers tbh. They were raised in fashion photography. The problem ultimately is that nothing can be invented anymore...So some photographers decided to mimic one editorial of Meisel as their aesthetic....

Black photographers somehow have decided that their blackness will be an aesthetic. But it can’t because portraying a certain idea of blackness can be relevant in the western world for a small niche but in the new markets of fashion, it won’t stand out.

We won’t find new Meisel and Avedon because photographers are too conscious about their brands and aren’t willing to experiment.

I remember I think it was @Benn98 who asked in a thread why Tyler, who shot for Vogue and can be considered as a high profile photographer today, does not have big brands coming to him. I think that it’s because people don’t see in his work the potential to try something else and his portfolio does not inspire « risks ». I would love to see Tyler for Versace but you don’t imagine sexiness in his language of style.

After all these years, who is still the most important black photographer? Malick Sidibe! And he wasn’t even a fashion photographer...
He is the Meisel and the Avedon.
And I feel like black photographers haven’t explored something else outside of that.

I went to see Oye Diran. It’s beautiful, it has an IG appeal but does this add something special to the equation? No? Is it really a new perspective?

In fashion nowadays we believe that the new perspective is the representation because we are in this very western world bubble but the perspective is in the style of photography. And it’s the same for clothing.
That’s something that I like for example in Rafael Pavarotti. He is one of the numerous heir of Sidibe but he took it further. Now he can experiment and move on from his very portraits, almost choreographed photos.

Thats true but there are also legendary black fashion photographers like KWAMI BRATHWAITE with a very strong aesthetic. Even among the new breed of photographers who are mostly inspired by blackness and have let it define them, theres a very wide spectrum to blackness that they can tap into and I love how photographers like Nadine Ijewere are taking that aesthetic to the next level even bringing it to high fashion campaigns. After all even Malik Sidibe made it because of him embracing that very African aspect of his aesthetic.

 

[THD96]

What you are saying about Avedon is true but at the same time, black photographers can also benefit from the same opportunities if some of the people claiming « buy black » and stuff were willing to support them.
Fashion has always been about connections and talents. Some have both, some have one over the other and the goal is to make it. Michael Roberts was a renowned and famous photographer. He wasn’t maybe exceptional but he was important enough to become a big personality in the industry.

And the problem in fashion is that when we think about diversity, it’s always about a black & white paradigm and this desire to be accepted in circles instead of breaking in! The irony is that those who have made it and who are remembered are those who broke in.

Who today, is willing to give the same opportunity to a young black photographer as for Avedon. Nobody! Not your favorite black celebrity, activist or even socialite. Unfortunately, nobody is inspired by the journey. Only by the success.

You talk about Hiro and it got me thinking about Tyen. A flamboyant personality and someone who worked for Dior for years. A makeup artist photographer who managed to stand out and who through his connections stayed in the industry for a longtime.

The frivolous aspect of fashion has created careers. John Galliano became bankable in 1997. His breakthrough collection happened because somehow people believed in the Idea of frivolity. Can political statements turn into something just for the love of frivolity? Of beauty?

Magazines are dead but print is not dead. IG is fabulous but it’s not enough.
Vogue still has a value. Nobody knows about Meisel outside of people who cares about fashion. But people knows about Dior, Vuitton, Versace...etc. When a creative director decides to work with a photographer for his brand, he usually goes through magazines. And the cachet of the seal of approval of Vogue, Bazaar or even a designer mean something.

I know it's not what you mean but I don't like the mentality of people of colors have to help newbies to success because it's put pressure on POC have to help them or they will be criticize. That why I found the "amlify or uplifting POC" movement sometimes artificial because it's not only the minority job to help but it's the entire society. It's great that they help but ultimately everybody should be successful by their own talent. I'm never criticize ALT when he didn't help to discover any black photographer when he has the chance. I criticize the way he said that he is the pioneer for POC at Vogue when in fact he's not.

Another thing about give opportunity to POC movement is they usually on the same level. It's help but will not create any impact on the industry. We need people like Bernard Arnault to believes in designers like Cushnie or Peter Do instead of Fenty or Virgil. That is when the real chance happen. Or Anna the way she believes in Tyler Mitchell.

PS: I really like your analyse, remind me of Ms. Robin Gahvin when she still writing about fashion.

 

[Urban Stylin]

Alot of the time these photographers do much better work with less prominent clients and publications which brings to question the issue of control. Do the Anna Wintours of the industry give them very little wiggle room due to the fact that they are working with a prestigious publication especially as newbies? Is there also a financial aspect to it? Many of the creatives of colour didnt necessarily get the opportunities or finances to invest in the tools and skills that it takes to be legendary coz as we know photography is a very expensive career. Many of them are self taught photographers that had to start from the bottom with barely anything and everything working against them like bank loans, commercial gigs and prestigious photography schools.

Look at these covers by Ramona Rosales, they are better than alot of the covers we have seen on Vogue issues of late.


pics satisfashionug/fashiongraphy

 

[XavierRaphael]

I think it really goes to the TOP and to those who are in control, they really need to start introducing and working with different ethnic groups. Perhaps in working alongside them you'll be able to push their aesthetic and create something truly magical. It's hard to break into an industry when the opportunity isn't there and all the odds are stacked against you. Sure, there have been plenty changes but there is still LOTS of change to be made.

 

[Urban Stylin]

Very true, the people at the top of the food chain making the major decisions are still very lacking in diversity.

 

[fakeawake]

That's because this diversity is for you, the middle class. The elite class invented all this stuff to keep you from coming for their coins. But baby, it's not the 1800s anymore and we will be coming for those coinz.

There was more diversity in the 90s. I mean there were multiple black tv shows depicting 'wholesome' families. Now in the age of woke there is only one tv show depicting a wholesome black family. How does that work sway?

Oh that's right, this is just a ploy from the elite to keep you on the treadmill. That's right, just step off the treadmill and take your power bacc.


Imagine thinking Goldman Sachs really cares about racism, how stupid do you have to be?

Black Americans are a distinct group from other forms of African descended people and Black Americans need to become and remain an exclusive protected group free from the other POC.

 

[fakeawake]

Look at these covers by Ramona Rosales, they are better than alot of the covers we have seen on Vogue issues of late.

jounralhotels.com

this is ramona rosales. POC where? This look slike a white lady. Im sorry but white people speak spanish too. This lady looks like a conquistadors wife. this lady looks like khloe kardashian who is a fully white woman (armenian is white).

they tricked you with the poc thing to let white people back into the places of power. but now these white people are 'minority' and can say you are racist. isn't that going on though? theyre saying black people are racist to asians now, which is hilarious since asians are viciously racist. i mean you can't even be famous in china without western surgery.


All this was funded by the billionaire bankers who want to ensure you keep running on the wheel.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Careful how you dismiss an entire people as viciously racist.

Asians, like ME people, are more conservative and prefer to keep to their own, in general. And that would be a fair assessment if you were to say that. Asians aren’t attacking Black individuals unprovoked in the good ol’ US of A-- teh supposed most woke of all nations... That’s a huge difference to what you’re insinuating. I’m sure if Chinese migrant workers were to be located in African countries, the native citizens there wouldn’t treat them with the utmost respect, nor with open arms. So let’s keep these sorts of accusations of how racist the Chinese are to some Blacks working/living in China with some level of perspective and context. And both Chinese and Black migrant workers in the ME wouldn’t be treated like they were at a University open house tour, let me assure you that. However, having worked in the ME in a more professional and creative environment, I felt most welcomed as an Asian. And yes, I know I wouldn’t be as warmly accepted as I had been if I were a lowly migrant worker.

Anyway, to stay on topic: Let’s be frank— none of the Black/Asian/Brown photographers that are shooting for the high profile fashion publications will ever be the next Avedon/Meisel/Lindbergh. Of course there are talented photographers that are POC: Creative and skilled storytellers with technical experience etc (unfortunately none of them are the chosen hyped ones that are being pushed by all teh fashion rags), but they are simply not anywhere near the talent of the level of the Greats. Just as there are very talented designers that are POC, but they are not the level of the Greats. One can be a fan/loyal customer of Derek Lam and Grace Wales Bonner for example— or one can be a fan of Ramona Rosales (taste is absolutely subject so I find her very art school student subpar), but they simply do not possess the creative vision of McQueen/Ghesquiere/Philo and Avedon/Meisel/Lindbergh. And there’s nothing wrong with that nor am I dismissive of them: They are simply not on the level of the Greats. The industry can keep pushing and hyping Tyler and Nadine all they’d like, but that doesn’t make them any more talented nor ever going to be able to reach the great heights of the Greats.

(And yes, I absolutely agree that these multi-billion conglomerates/empires are manipulating the masses with the profitable, progressive-liberal narrative to pit one side against another, one people against the other to keep them busily divided instead of united, fighting over scraps, while they maintain their status quo. Just watch news for dummies CNN is enough to prove this point.)

 

[MulletProof]

They are simply not on the level of the Greats.

What does it take to get there? (serious question)

Judging from the way you insist on a 'level', it sounds virtually impossible to ever reach it, not just for anyone coming from a minority but.. everyone really. Do you assign any role to context, or conditioning? is it related to the state of the industry, or are you specifically talking about people of color and you do see potential in others who may not classify as such?

I don't know much about this topic because honestly, in all the years I've followed fashion photography, and I followed it obsessively for several years, I can only put a face on a few names.. I don't know what most people look like so I wouldn't know if it's diverse or not (I just assume it's not). I also know the 'greats' is a loose and subjective term... I have my favorites and never associate high demand with what I enjoy in photography, so if someone thinks Meisel is the messiah of fashion photography, good for them, but his photography is meaningless to me, as opposed to Koto Bolofo's, whose work was just.. something else, and completely superior to the work of most photographers of his time, and he happens to be black.

There are disadvantages clearly, you don't wake up one day and decide 'I'm going to be a great fashion photographer!'... such choice suggests a more advantageous life and the means to afford that profession, which is an expensive one and requires at least a handful of years working for peanuts. Who can opt for that? people with a solid background/family that is able to support them even when they're well into their 20s or even 30s. Or people living in places where you can live with limited means but under a system that does not let any of its citizens rot in misery.. like Denmark, I guess.

On top of that, you need connections.. and with connections, comes some stigma. Skepticism exists if you have a different way of working or approaching the subject (fashion in this case), so it can only increase if the person behind the camera looks different, too.

Like modeling, most if not all of the highly successful photographers from the mid and late 20th century, came from wealthy backgrounds, the sons of business owners, who were joining camera clubs at age 12 and entering the best art schools in their countries. They enjoyed all the time one can possibly have to refine your craft, explore, make mistakes and find your own vocabulary and personality. They also enjoyed a highly exclusive industry, without room for even the upper middle class. You can excel at the one thing you do well and enjoy the most if there's a constant incentive and retribution, and relaxed dynamics and performance demands due to exclusivity. Do we have that now? no, even those in slightly more experimental/art photography have had to comply with fashion demands of 'make EVERYONE happy'.. and that's a lot of (uneducated) people who are after fashion like a dumb and thirsty vulture and on to the next thing as soon as they temporarily satiate that thirst.

While things have become 'easier' or more accepting in terms of diversity in fashion photography, they're joining a field in a shambles. To remotely attribute what's happening in the industry to inferior talent or race, or speak of old times like they arrived from the above, with inexplicable and out of this world talent and magic for us to admire, seems like an infantile and lazy effort in wanting to understand why fashion photography is in a bad place and definitely removes the responsibility of conglomerates, not in whatever speech they're having, but in their business practices, in decimating smaller, independent designers and magazines alike (which were the ones that in recent decades, truly pushed photographers in terms of creativity) so that we're stuck with one voice (Vogue) that obeys to nothing but commercial purposes.

So when you consider all of the factors above and think of someone, let's not even focus on race, of anyone coming from a family of 4 that pays rent and lives paycheck to paycheck.. and add to that the possibility of experiencing racial segregation on some level, of course there will be less representation, and of course it is important to find ways to create and support art programs in disadvantaged communities. Not necessarily photography, but arts in general. Fashion photography, even when it has one aim (sell fashion), has always managed to document our times and bring us closer to perspectives that challenge us and that are fascinating.. so it's a shame we're missing on so many points of view because there is little support and hardly any outlets.. we're stuck with 'this is what people like me look like!' or 'these are the underage girls that really turn me on!' bulls*it photography.. no one needs that, no one's ever going to remember that, it says nothing about our times.


Finally, no, Armenian is not white, white-passing at times, sure, but let's not deny their long history as a dark-skinned minority in places like Russia. And yeah, never heard of this Ramona person but a quick google search stated it well: half-Swedish, half-Spanish. It's all ambiguous anyway.. the classification obsession pushed by the US' own obsession with race is getting out of control.. I've even read here 'as a white man..', no you're positively POC in the US but also, does it matter if your country is at war and you're not in the US? don't think so.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ If you can’t/won’t see the quality of immeasurable creative imagery produced by then likes of Avedon/Meisel/Lindbergh/Newton— and not just on a creative “level”, as cinematic storytellers within the context of fashion presentation, but how they understand the technical aspect of light and texture, as opposed to the new generation of photographers that are POC, then I don’t know how to continue this discussion, Mullet.

Newton, Meisel, Lachappelle to name a few, weren’t brought up in wealth and privilege. Maybe because of the creative times they were fortune enough to come up through gave them immeasurable opportunities. But then again, the privileges of representation and strong industry connections that the likes of Tyler/Nadine/Ibrahim are privy to aren’t exactly showcasing their “talents” that once again— rely predominantly on Black representation and narrative and not an overall creative vision that is universal of the "Greats" leaves makes them rather exclusive than inclusive. And that’s all good because that’s the mood of the masses/general public and not just in the industry, but the zeitgeist.

The thread is asking why isn’t there a "Black" Meisel… And the most straightup, direct and blunt answer is that there hasn’t been a Black photographer of Meisel's caliber. It’s like asking why isn’t their an Iranian Micheal Jordan because I don't see Iranian representation in the NBA, let alone a breakout player; because there simply isn’t an athlete of Jordan’s calibre amongst Iranians. And I suppose to answer your question: That’s the “level” of high standard I’m speaking of.

 

[MulletProof]

And that’s all good because that’s the mood of the masses/general public

Exactly. So you are talking context, after all. You are associating the lack of presence of Black people in fashion photography and the mediocrity of all "hot" photographers right now, to the masses, as it should be. And they respond to the most commercial, mediocre offering and that is pretty much all there is right now.

Pretty sure the thread is not about whether one user (me) can see or not the cinematic capacity of photographers whose heyday was in completely different circumstances in their field and socioeconomic context, so it's okay if that discussion does not continue. But frankly, perhaps equally off-topic, the mystery remains for me, what does it take, for you, to create a Meisel or a Newton in 2021? you expect technical excellence and I imagine, original input (and not similarities to "the Greats") in terms of surroundings and yeah, zeitgeist... what publication has the sufficient resources to encourage that and not in a symbolic way but on a regular basis?

 

[Phuel]

^^^ I suppose you’re correct then: I’m not disagreeing that at-best-mediocre-times calls for at-best-mediocre-talents… And so with these measly “talents”, how could anyone really believe that there’s going to be an Avedon/Meisel/Lindbergh/take your pick of the “Greats” amongst these lessers?

As for these once legendary fables of Avedon’s shooting budget of north of 1 million for a Vogue story… That was then. Even a nobody like myself has scraped by to build an illusion pf something greater and grander for my clients on a non-existent budge: I’m no Fabien and teh photographers I work with aren’t on the “level” of the Greats— but we put in more effort than these highly-hyped photographers that re shooting for the highest profile rags do. Money has little to do with lavish dreammaking and worldbuilding. Some of my fav fashions stories have been small, intimate shoots that take advantage of natural locals and unique spaces: This is something I’ve learned for my work. It’s the storytelling and the technical understanding of lighting and creating tone and mood that separates the “Greats” from the hyped lessers. One doesn’t need a team/entourage of a couple dozen people and a week in the Indian Ocean Islands/Siberia/Lhasa to come back with a great story; someone’s intimate home can tell a great story worthy of remembrance. But that takes creative vision and effort.

 

[MulletProof]

^ right, like Dutch pretty much every month. When I say resources, I don't necessarily mean in terms of budget, but viably taking a direction that allows a publication the necessary creative freedom to find and nurture true talent, and consistently support it regardless of the individual budget for each story. There were plenty of magazines like that before the crisis in the late 00s, and their experimentation elevated the standard that the commercial ones imitated through watered down versions. It allowed for a type of diversity that was necessary then (first the class one and then the age one, in a time where 80 year olds continued to call the shots via Vogue), you could afford to have young photographers that inspired little faith from those in major publications, or photographers that had previously mostly documented subcultures, but without the Vogue demands. There's no outlet that even comes close to that.. I can think of publications with almost accidental good content every other month, but nothing that is almost under a dogma on how not to be like Vogue.

So yes, I definitely think the mediocrity is not simply a mediocre result. A mediocre, money-starved EIC with a sheep-oriented mediocre magazine that's all about selling will naturally employ malleable 'talents' that can serve both agenda and interests, I don't expect him or her to have the ability to identify extraordinary talent emanating from a familiar face, let alone the kind that comes from a 'different' race, or knowing how to recognize potential at all and nurture it if it smacks them on the face.

 

[Benn98]

I like that the question was asked about what makes a 'great' because sometimes I think that's so subjective. Of course imo what made Avendon and Meisel great wasn't only their work, but also the fact that it was endorsed by many esteemed titles. That's why you see already respected photographers like Nigel Shafran, Jack Davison and Martin Parr shoot for Vogue. Because the association only boosts their already solid profile.

My answer to Urban Stylin's question is simple - because photography as a whole is not as respected as it were when Meisel and Avedon were in their heyday. In contemporary fashion, photography is purely seen as a means to an end - the remaining focus is the subject or what they're wearing. Not who's behind the lens or how much creative control they've had. Meisel and Avedon have a great deal of privilege through the freedom to explore their ideas. They had control over which shots got published, which model to cast, which hair and makeup team to employ in order to reach the vision. And while that level of control doesn't necessarily equate to great work, it does mean that the photographer is confident with whatever is being put out and very often that does contribute to what many would consider as 'great' work.
In today's era, there are too many logistical restrictions thanks to crass commercialism and celebrity culture. Crass commercialism in the sense that there is far too much interference from brands. Who will be shooting, can we see their portfolio, will we have the approval or some input, this collection is quite important to us - can we have someone from our team on set, what other brands will feature etc etc? That's not even factoring in the celebrity shoots that the most independent magazines feature regularly nowadays. XYZ celeb is keen to be photographed by a certain photographer - can you make it happen, can she have her personal stylist do the shoot, she won't do any shoots without her own MUA or hairstylist, can she include some pieces from her own fashion line in the shoot? So they spend more time bartering petty demands that before the photographer takes his first shot, his entire vision for the shoot has been turned upside down.

The anti-Vogue magazine is a myth in 2021 and that's not because the awfulness of Vogue spread across fashion like a wildfire, it's because the system has become more profit-focused and more popularity-focused. It's virtually impossible for an anti-Vogue magazine to exist because even if they don't engage in celebrity culture, they'd still need to bow down to get Instagram followers to like and follow which ultimately leads to fashion brands investing in their content. And the only way to do that is by appealing to their tastes instead of the other way around. That's the reason why 032C, 10, Document, Another, i-D etc are as formulaic as Elle was 10 years ago. Because their sole focus is to appeal to certain demographic. I don't think any of them foresaw that this would happen.

@Lola701 I hear your argument about Tyler and at the core I understand the reasoning which just furthers my point that there is a bias. A bias of class, I don't think it has anything to do with creativity. If it was about creativity then why do I still see mediocre photographers like Roe Ethridge and Tim Elkaïm shooting covers, edits and campaigns left right and centre? Tyler's problem is that he is not endorsed by the 'right' people. I've said this before, fashion's true decision-makers are in Paris, not New York.
And the funny part about the reservations you have about Tyler shooting for Versace is that Bruce literally shot a few seasons for them and took the sexiness out of the brand. The only reason that collaboration ended was because of the sexual allegations. Otherwise Versace was quite prepared to take the risk and adopt Weber's visual direction even if it meant losing a bunch of hardcore consumers.

Oh, and I never quite know if Fakeawake is having us on or being serious.....

 

[Phuel]

^^^ With Jessica having passed, it’s always nice to have another member in the spirit of of Lucille Bluth riling up some feathers— cuz god knows the sanctimony-by-numbers around these parts can get a tad insufferable.

It wasn’t/isn’t that Avedon/Meisel/Lindbergh had so much control, as that there were only so many creatives available to do the job; so the photographer served as stylist, AD, casting agent, sitting editor etc. And they honed their craft to such lethal ends where all the various components created a seamless and inspiring whole (rather than the timid mess we see nowadays). When I see someone like Carine crediting a “Creative Consultant” for a pathetic shoot that just has a cast dressed as flight attendants, for an equally pathetic concept as “flying”, it’s the satire equivalent of 15yo doing a “shoot” for some class project. And of all people, she should know better since she was one of the Greats.

^ right, like Dutch pretty much every month. When I say resources, I don't necessarily mean in terms of budget, but viably taking a direction that allows a publication the necessary creative freedom to find and nurture true talent, and consistently support it regardless of the individual budget for each story. There were plenty of magazines like that before the crisis in the late 00s, and their experimentation elevated the standard that the commercial ones imitated through watered down versions. It allowed for a type of diversity that was necessary then (first the class one and then the age one, in a time where 80 year olds continued to call the shots via Vogue), you could afford to have young photographers that inspired little faith from those in major publications, or photographers that had previously mostly documented subcultures, but without the Vogue demands. There's no outlet that even comes close to that.. I can think of publications with almost accidental good content every other month, but nothing that is almost under a dogma on how not to be like Vogue.

So yes, I definitely think the mediocrity is not simply a mediocre result. A mediocre, money-starved EIC with a sheep-oriented mediocre magazine that's all about selling will naturally employ malleable 'talents' that can serve both agenda and interests, I don't expect him or her to have the ability to identify extraordinary talent emanating from a familiar face, let alone the kind that comes from a 'different' race, or knowing how to recognize potential at all and nurture it if it smacks them on the face.

Dutch magazine… Damn, those cleverly, naughty and close-cropped compositions that showed a minimalist composition— but suggested so much more, may have been my first lessons in how I viewed and assimilated to fashion presentation (along with their simplicity of the Helvetica type in graphic design). Their subversive sensibility would likely go over the heads of not just this generation’s creatives, but readers/customers as well since people’s attention span these days is reduced to the scope of their iPhone’s screen real estate. And factor in that this generation is so much more sexually-reserved because apparently feminism and equality means a puritanical sensibility.You’re right: We’re in very basic, and may I add, very corporate and even more creatively-conservative times with such huge commercial demands from these brands. And the creatives reflect this mediocrity. And what better well-tested marketing strategy to mask such blandness than to race-hustle in these politically-manipulative times. Most are too PC and afraid of being called racist/misogynist/homophobic to be critical of the blandness when the gimmick is racial/gender-diversity and racial/gender-inclusivity. Which is more reason to not expect a “Great’ to emerge.

 

[Benn98]

^^^ With Jessica having passed, it’s always nice to have another member in the spirit of of Lucille Bluth riling up some feathers— cuz god knows the sanctimony-by-numbers around these parts can get a tad insufferable.

I see you, LOL!