Should Magnum do fashion?

I am a big fan of Lise Sarfati period. Also, she still shoots slides with a Leica in 2008. That's cool :)

Comment posted by Davin Ellicson on October 21, 2008

Yes Magnum should photograph fashion. But not as a brand-name to sell. But as social documentary... as a document of society and life... of life and times of the present. If the photos are not made to sell the labels, maybe we will see more and better and from a wider viewpoint, from different cultures. And if we see this, we will see people and how they live. That is fashion that would be of interest to me.

Comment posted by Tony on October 21, 2008

I think, Magnum shouldn't do fasion shoots, except for cases mentioned by Tony (as a social documentary). We are surrounded by hundreds and hundreds of photos, and lots of them are from glamour magazines, and people think that THIS is the real art, the point of photography, but its not. For those who are surfeited with posed images, Magnum is like a breath of fresh air, I swear. Fashoin is not documentary, Magnum is.

Comment posted by Alexandra Stukkey on October 21, 2008

I have always like the fashion pictures Magnum has produced from Paolo Pellegrin's great pics from a fashion week to the Fashion magazine. Mainly because it comes from a different angle from the typical fashion photography of Vogue, Homme + etc. Keep producing fashion but with your own views.

Fashion includes street photography and is on a base level about people and how they project themselves. Magnum has always photographed people and most of those have been wearing cloths so I don't see why there should be a reluctance to do 'fashion'. Just don't get sucked into the advertising huge budget side.

Comment posted by Peter Cleghorn on October 21, 2008

Fashion? Magnum?

No way.

That said, there could be exceptions and that´s the most important matter.

What´s an exception?

Comment posted by Oscar on October 21, 2008

Magnum does not need to do fashion.
Because Magnum is the real fashion.

scworks.bullog.cn

Comment posted by 商朝基因 on October 21, 2008

The vanity of human culture is a great subject to cover in greater detail. I believe that documenting fashion is no different than any other photo journalistic opportunity. It may not be the cause of large scale genocide yet it does effect everyone's life in one manner or another. We segregate much of society based upon the fashion they embrace. Much prejudgment starts based on the fashion which someone is wearing or is believed they should wear. Taking a deeper look at what constitutes fashion could really help in understanding why we dress the way we do. If Magnum were to start doing fashion photography I am sure they would hold the photographs to the highest level of quality.

Comment posted by e3 on October 21, 2008

It's a human activity, right? Then Magnum ought to explore it from time to time should a photographer wish to.

http://www.photohumourist.com

Comment posted by Paul Treacy on October 21, 2008

As a follow-up, who should do the next Fashion Magazine?

Maybe some X-rated fashion by Antoine D'Agata? Or something a little sweeter by Elliott Erwitt?

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 21, 2008

Yes, absolutely, Magnum should indulge in every genre of photography. How else will we see the emergence of new standards and counterviews? In fashion especially, general audiences as well as industry is beginning to accept tired notions of what that photography should look like. Or, as Sarfati says, "circumscribing a practice in advance".

Comment posted by Mahesh Shantaram on October 21, 2008

Count me out.

I thought all three magazines I saw until now were quite boring (haven't seen Lise's yet). And I felt uneasy with them. In fact it felt more as if I was looking at advertisements. Very clever (insidious?) advertisements, however interesting the pictures may be (they really are)...

Maybe it is the concept of the magazine which disturbs me, because I absolutely don't have the same feeling towards Paolo's or Chris' recent work on fashion. The objects (the magazines) seem like just a slick and trendy lollypop and quite shallow to me.

Comment posted by John Vink on October 21, 2008

Hi Alec,

I don't see anything wrong in Magnum photographers doing fashion work. As you've show there are many examples of it out there already. For me it comes down to exactly the same principles that I apply to every genre of photography: if its done well, that is, if the work is stimulating and doesn't fall back on the tired cliches we all now and hate, then it can be seen as a creative and I suppose, worthy piece of work. For me Sarah Moon and Tim walker spring to mind.

Having said that, I recently went to a talk about fashion photography at the Photographers Gallery, here in London. I couldn't help but wonder at the panel as they very seriously discussed the importance of fashion photography. One of them, a photographer, mentioned how he had done a shoot in africa, and felt that by having some indigenous people in the shoot he was some how addressing or adding to the debate on post colonialism etc. in the third world, or something along those lines. At this point the debate struck me as being rather ridiculous. Why? Because when its all said and done those images are always (and only) there to sell garments and accessories. Having a few 'natives' in the pictures doesn't really equate to a socially conscious body of work. That this is done for often very large and wealthy companies, who like every other company are only interested in profit - not to mention the fact that to many of the images in fashion photography help perpetuate unhealthy and ultimately unattainable body images for woman and men. With this in mind I think we start to see why 'serious' photographers may shy away from to close an association with the fashion world.

But, as I said before, there are certainly individual fashion images and fashion photographers that I like a great deal. Sarah Moon and Tim Walker I have already mentioned. I like yours' and Bruce Gilden's fashion Magazines very much and of course Alex Majoli has produced really nice fashion work too. I think Tony (above) is onto something - perhaps there is a way to give fashion photography a brain. Why not use it to engage in social issues, or make it ethical? Some clothes manufacturers are now looking to produce 'ethical' clothes, i.e. not made with cheap labour, using non toxic dye and fare trade raw materials, etc.
It may help to bring home important messages to people who otherwise ignore wider social issues.

I really don't see anything wrong with photographers moving from one genre to another - writers and musicians do it all the time, why not photographers? If so many 'concerned' photographers find the fashion world so distasteful, shallow etc., they may consider turning their attention to it. Perhaps a new language in fashion photography may help bring about change in the fashion world.

Jason.

oh, I 'd like to see Alex Majoli, Antione D'agata, Jim Goldberg and Trent Parke do a Fashion Magazine.

Comment posted by Jason Hobbs on October 21, 2008

I'd rather see a serious photograph of a trivial subject than a trivial photograph of a serious subject.

Comment posted by Jimmy P on October 21, 2008

Next Fashion Magazine? Maybe Sobol?

Comment posted by Rafal Pruszynski on October 21, 2008

Not shooting fashion assumes that photojournalism shows us reality whereas fashion photos are constructions, the product of the fashion machine.
But what is the difference between taking a photo of men in makeup wearing stylist suits (models) and men in camouflage face paint wearing fatigues (soldiers)?
Neither model nor soldier gets to chose their clothes or where they work.

Also the argument against taking fashion photos is predicated on photojournalism being a worthy activity that ignores the fact that it is consumed in the same way as other less worthy photography.

Comment posted by tim darach on October 21, 2008

PHotography wrestles with one thing and one thing only: the articulation of this surrounding life and the way in which we, the living and the dead, negotiate the world around be that documentary, landscape, still life, nude, abstraction even commercial photography (ostensibly what "fashion" photography is an adjunct to). for in truth, all photography, in one form or another, simply (or some might argue ambiguously) speaks upon what it means to experience (visually, emotionally, experientially) this passing life. How does one distinquinsh one "lesser" content from another in terms of photogaphy?....maybe subject can be argued over (fall of the house of giverncy vs. fall of the house of usher) for it's importance, but the same (for good and ill) mechanism that drive our need for fashion lay at the question of what drives our life's meaning....and often, as photography, they make for damn interesting viewing....

is sarah moon a fashion photographer or an existentialist of the same rarefied understanding as sarfait?....is avedon and penn fashionistas or portraiturist of the highest order?....photography is still very much about images and for those who decide that images somehow contain something morally more important given content (totall bullshit), than this divide shall continue to exist. this isnt to say that Vietnam, Inc. isn't more important or more essential to our collective understanding of the horror we continue to perpetrate (it is at least for me) than the latest edition of Elle or that Vink's magnificent Quest for Land work isn't more important or NECESSARY than the latest Italian Vogue conceptional shot int he desert (it damn well is for me) or that Acta Este doesnt play a bigger place in my psyche and orientation toward post-collapse russian than the Austin shoot (it does for sure and Russia has a special and personal place in my life as a person and a photographer), but that surely those who still consider this division as an almost "moral" one are deluded by both the "importance" of the image in a moral and epistemological sense (sorry, i dont know what the fuck was put in my coffee this morning) and the superiority of "magnum" over joe-blow commerical photog.

It's imagery folk. How this imagery serves or is swallowed or is used makes all the difference in the world. sarah moon again speaks to me in a way that few documentary photographers speak just as vink and jpg and bendikssen and nachtwey and anderson and bleasdale speak to me in a way that chapelle will never ever broach....it's about what lay inside the heart of the work being done, at least for me.....

Dave Harvey once told me that Martin Parr had once been referred to by my hero JPG as "Magnum Lite"...of course this is total nonsense (Parr whose sui generis contribution to photography is till, i think, often underappreciated), but it speaks of how we confuse so much the heart of the matter.....

if Magnum photographers want to shoot Fashion (by the way, i dig Chris' recent contribution too and i enjoyed Alec's alot as well) go for it, make it speak of what drives them....is Crewdson's work less important, less challenging, less "content important" because the images are constructed?...and Jeff Wall's dying russian soldiers less important about the nature of death and war?....

I love ALL PHOTOGAPHY THAT CHALLENGES ME as a viewer and as a photographer myself. Yes, fashion isn't the same as coverate of "nam or Iraq or congo or famine or imprisonment or addiction or death or all the other horrors and sadness that fall upon our world, but given the right photographer with the right vision it can still speak to us about things that are part and parcel of who we are as human beings....

and what else drives the fuse that lights each of our cameras, if not for that:

to speak upon those things which pass and to provide for others a vision and imagery by whihc we can at least try, if not answer, to negotiate our way through the thick thicket of the language of the living....

It this western decadence, superfluity ?......

triviality comes not necessarily from content but from our use or reaction or thoughtlessness about it....i've seen fucking posters of dying children from Biafra in a record store in toronto....and i wonder how blind we've become...

I love when any photographer and any viewer contents themselves with challenge....

How about Magnum shooting itself in the style of a fashion shoot? ;))))))....

remember Parr's series of Self-portraits....brilliant, funny, and spot on :))))

bring it on ))))) I say....

funny how much "fashion" photography is a dirty world and yet "war" photography receives the accolades....

I'll take whatever photography challenges and filters light :))))

cheers
bob

Comment posted by Bob Black on October 21, 2008

I find it interesting that you did not mention Fernando Scianna and his work with Marpessa and Dolce & Gabbana in the 1980s.

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2TYRYDM2BTJB

I was drawn into his work via this fashion work. I like to see photographers stretch, so I have no problem with Lise Sarfati doing fashion, or anyone else. Now, if someone from Magnum got a contract with Vogue to regularly produce fashion work, that is something different than producing Magnum Fashion Magazine.

Comment posted by Tom Leininger on October 21, 2008

p.s. sorry, in my overly long comment, "jpg" should have been typed as PJG .(jones griffith)....i guess i've got scanning negs on the brain...sorry y'all :)))

Comment posted by Bob Black on October 21, 2008

As for the question of who next, I'd love to see Eli Reed's take on Fashion Magazine, given that the time for Black America is almost here. Alessandra Sanguinetti has to do the job at some point. And I can almost imagine Jonas Bendiksen's spin on the whole thing.

Comment posted by Mahesh Shantaram on October 21, 2008

since magnum are branching out into fashion, why stop there? I'd like to see magnum do 'weddings' . i'm serious. I would love to see a magnum photographer's wedding shoot, right down to the style of album/book and layout they choose.

imagine a martin parr wedding shoot!

come on alec post some wedding shots for us? and not the girl sat outside her motel room!

Comment posted by richard on October 21, 2008

Wait, what are documentary principals? I thought Riff Randall and the Ramones took care of principals once and for all?

Comment posted by Julio on October 21, 2008

Fashion? Why not? But,not only. HCB did fashion for Harpers Bazaar, when he was in Paris, soon after the war and that led to a very important connection which helped send him across the US for the Bazaar and non-fashion. Bob Capa was friends with top models and covered "Openings".
Bruce Davidson in his early years did fashion for a short while for Vogue. These are the ones I remember. It so happened that in those after war years and on, the Art Director at Harpers' Bazaar, Alexey Brodovitch, as well as Carmel Snow,the editor, were well in advance visually, as well as Alexander Liberman of Vogue, were visually well in advavce of other editors and art directors in the U.S. Why not fashion if some of the stuff we see is near pornography? It is the quality of the work that matters.
Best, Inge Bondi

Comment posted by inge bondi on October 21, 2008

magum shoot fashion, vogue smiles.

Comment posted by lancelot23@gmail.com on October 21, 2008

Why stop at stupid fashion? Magnum Porn will sell like freaking hotcakes!

Comment posted by Stupid Photographer on October 21, 2008

I can see both sides of the argument, however it probably doesn't make any sense to argue about it either way. If you can shoot it and create a story out of it, it's worth a try.

Is the argument really whether the photos should appear in a magazine or in a book?

-={ ( .)_(. ) }=-

Comment posted by Karim Sharif on October 21, 2008

It would be interesting to see Magnum photographers take on "street fashion" à la Sartorialist or Facehunter; a genre which encompasses both fashion and social documentary.

Comment posted by Jessica on October 21, 2008

I thought the premise behind Fashion Magazine was that all photography, but for the caption, is fashion.

Bob... Martin Parr underappreciated? Does he need his own reality tv show or something?

Comment posted by mike on October 21, 2008

Hi Mike :))))...

glad to see you (will write u later in the week :)))...hellos from Marina too...

anyway, what i meant about Martin is though while his work is like mr. ubiquitous, and there are admirers, he's never really gotten his due...in other words, i hear people bash him, his contribution all the time, and i've heard (and read) like hard-core doco's dismiss him as only "satricial" or "light" (PJG called him Magnum-lite), which was a real shame...i dont think he needs his own reality show, but i'd love to see him as a judge on So You think He Can Dance ;)))))....

what i meant is that people love (or hate) Martin's work (i love it) but i also think the value of his work hasn't always been given the appreciation, especially in the documentary world, that it deserves....you're a far-seeing photog, i've heard lots of disparaging drivel about the work, which is a real shame....

hugs bro
bob

Comment posted by Bob black on October 21, 2008

'should..'
ouch.. such a semantically unhygienic word..

if it helps to pay the rent i cannot see it diminishing the agencies status to allow fashions hold on contemporary culture to filter into it... whatever our collected opinions may be.

one question is - would this enable in 10 years or so the inclusion of 'fashion' photographers on the agency roster.. 2018s teller.. le chappell.. personally i hope not..
seeing a talented editor of reality and moment catcher play with the non-genre of fashion could be fun.. seeing a fashion photo constructor playing with real life, or conceptualizing as some choose to do, would bore me and have questionable ethics, within an agency such as this.

'should' pop-stars dabble in politics?
ouch.. there it is again.. i have succumbed,..

pea's
david
ps - is everyone from harveys blog going to chill here from now on?
that would be one way of making a good blog.. although.. it is terribly quiet over there now...

Comment posted by david bowen on October 21, 2008

to me parr kind of bridges the gap in any case.. you know..
i adore his work.. and since some of it is arranged.. conceptualized.. is he not already branching into some kind of fashion-caught-in-reality by pointing his camera as he does?

i think it was a genius appointment to bring him into the chocolate ice creams fold.

hey bob.. hows your news?

Comment posted by david bowen on October 21, 2008

I'd give it a pass. Fashion photography is a business tool...aimed at increasing the value of a particular product....boosting image and sales, not only of clothes -in fact in the haute couture business, it's the accessories which bring in the big bucks. I don't know what Lise's Sarfati's work is about but I have noticed a lot of pale, unsmiling and skinny young women who stare into the distant yonder as if they have just returned from the battlefield.

Comment posted by peter on October 21, 2008

I didn't read all the comments, so I apologize.

All I have to say is if people are wearing clothing, isn't it fashion?

Comment posted by Ronald on October 21, 2008

/\ unless they sport corduroy jackets with elbow patches..
then it's style.

Comment posted by david bowen on October 21, 2008

Why not? Some people will enjoy it (I do) and some people will not. I think creating rules like "should do this" and "shouldn't do that" is limiting. Besides there is a rich history in fashion photography, much of it is as provocative as anything else, and much of it is simply enjoyable to look at.

Comment posted by Timothy Petersen on October 21, 2008

Reading this made me curious to know the definition of "fashion photography." According to Wikipedia---hardly an expert, I know!--

"Fashion photography is a genre of photography devoted to displaying clothing and other fashion items. Fashion photography is most often conducted for advertisements or fashion magazines such as Vogue, Vanity Fair, or Allure. Over time, fashion photography has developed its own aesthetic in which the clothes and fashions are enhanced by exotic locations and story lines."

Keeping this definition in mind, I'd say that Magnum the co-op agency--NOT individual Magnum photographers--getting into Fashion Photography in a serious way is rather like Barack Obama showing up in a Gap ad. Certainly possible, even ethical, but the best use of his talents? Hmmmm

Patricia, yet another DAH "Road Trips" blog member

Comment posted by Patricia Lay-Dorsey on October 21, 2008

I thought you have only one rule, just "bearing witness"....
So, Should Magnum do fashion? or The fashion photography? or fashion documentary photography?

Mr. Soth

I think only magnum members make own standarts. You are absolutely free.
Lise Sarfati's work is amazing. For me it's close to pure art photography than fashion photography.

so maybe this question should be "Should magnum do art photography?"

Comment posted by marcin luczkowski on October 21, 2008

Bob,

I see... but I don't see a problem. There has always been friction between photographic cliques... objective v. subjective, hard-core pj-docos v. academic visual-arts-MFA types, f64 v. pictorialists, The Family of Man v. The Americans, Stones v. Beatles, etc...

In Parr's work, I don't see it sui generis, but with a solid art-world pedigree: Frank to Friedlander through Eggleston to Shore... if his application didn't rankle some at Magnum, I would have been surprised.

I haven't run into much if any disparaging drivel about his work.... mainly it's laudatory drivel. That there may be some benighted corners of the internet that don't share our appreciation of the work doesn't mean much. To me, anyway.

Maybe this is a question we could ask Martin Parr himself? Does he feel he's received sufficient appreciation from the documentary world?

And if he's taking questions, I'd ask him if he sees the photo universe as polarized and if so, along which lines, and are they less distinct than they once were....

Comment posted by mike on October 21, 2008

The only rule is: Sell everything you can.

Comment posted by luzz biteyear on October 21, 2008

From a Q&A with Parr here:

Do you think it's more easy now for a documentary photographer to do fashion pictures?

Parr: Sure, not only fashion, I do advertising, I do anything and everything, the great thing about where photographers are going now is the barriers between the types of photography are going down. They're almost disappearing, so you can do fashion, you can do art, you can do magazine, you can do advertising and your own work and the lines between them are slowly going. It's all disintegrating.

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 21, 2008

Sorry, I've forgotten html, here is the link:

http://users.skynet.be/focrea/magazine/mag7/parr_uk.htm

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 21, 2008

I knew Magnum was in a moribund condition -what with photo-lIteracy at an all-time low; but now I know it's dead. Sad.

Comment posted by james williamson on October 21, 2008

Jonas Bendiksen should do a fashion magazine as should Jacob Aue Sobol.

Comment posted by Davin Ellicson on October 21, 2008

James, why do you think photo-literacy is at an all time low? When I was first getting interested in photography, the only thing I had access to was American Photo and a mish mash of Leibovitz, Geddes and maybe a pawed over Jock Sturges book at the local bookstore.

Now everyone has free access to resources like Conscientious and 5b4. I’d argue that photo literacy is at an all time high.

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 21, 2008

patricia..

i have to differ with wiki, and say that fashion is not a genre of photography in itself.. it's an application .. much the way music photography borrows from genres as well... portraiture.. reportage... advertising does the same..

alec

thanks for the parr link.. it's certainly with it's irony that he'll be seeking to 'sell' the trappings of aspirational living into the lives he loves to document - and i'm sure he's well aware of the fact.
who wouldn't? advertising and other marketing genres for photography pay high, enabling other work which pays little or nothing.
less snobs, more photo lovers please.

james w

you know, james... perhaps magnum will increase photo literacy here.. perhaps they will find new direction and unforeseen benefits through opening their doors wide..
....perhaps there is opportunity for us to all do just the same, if we check our preconceptions in at the door and face the new rather than bemoan the loss of the old...

Comment posted by david bowen on October 21, 2008

Alec,
Seriously I have no problem with Magnum doing whatever they want. Both Magnum and others have to forget about it being Magnum "the documentary agency". Sure it should be to a large part but not only.
As for fashion magazine I don't know. It's great work, but I feel it has very little to do with fashion. Shouldn't those pictures interest fashionistas? I don't think they do. Sorry. A single photo from The Sartoralist Blog probably interest them more and as far as my interest in fashion probably me too. So Fashion Magazine is great photography, but has little to do with fashion. More art and photography. I should say that have Bruce Gilden's FM at home and it's great! :) But not as far as fashion goes..

Cheers

Comment posted by Martin Brink on October 21, 2008

The only fashion images that i ever really liked were shoot by Magnum photographers as they tend make the images more about what the photographer feels and sees than the clothes or models, a perfect example

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2TYRYDM2BTJB

Comment posted by Joe Harrison on October 21, 2008

James Williamson:

James,

Magnum, moribund?....really??....

check that....how about People's Perceptions of What Magnum Is/Should Be being the moribund beast?.....any decent appraisal of the photography and the work being done by Magnum members, ESPECIALLY NEW-ER (i dont just want to say YOUNG ;)))) MEMBERS, would reveal that Magnum sure aint what it use to be (and thank god for that too) but a re-appraising and a widening of both it's membership, aesthetic, sensibility and commitment to photography, in particular documentary photography....literacy: are you and i both looking consistantly at the same work done by these folk?..

Im not of the old "magnum is the apotheosis" school, but i sure do love lots of what their guys and gals do:

to wit: 2 weeks ago at Dave Harvey's Workshop fiesta, Alessandra showed a series of brilliant, funny and extraordinary short films....moribund?....those films were just fricking extraordinary: beautiful, tender, real and madly hilarious.....

take a look at Jonas' new book or Jacob's work from Tokyo, alec book for his daughter, peter's work from iraq, Mikhael's show at MOMA (which i saw 2 weeks ago) just fucking kills, Vink's continual projects on Cambodia, Pinkhassov's relenless re-examination of "sight", Chris A's mad-flash brilliance, Paolo's athletes, Alex dead rodent (sorry, i love love this story in Insight!), Harvey's Road Snaps Family Album, Goldberg's young genius, Olivia Arthur's brilliant middle east, Majoli's war, etc etc etc.....moribund...come on really...i aint no magnum apologist...

only complaint from me: magnum still needs to recruit more ladies since there are so many brilliant ones out there...

all the best
bob

Comment posted by Bob Black on October 21, 2008

I'd have to agree with Martin Brink about the non-fashion approach of Lise Sarfati in Magnum's Fashion Magazine. Terrific work but about fashion? Hardly. That's why I like it. It's all about following the thread of work she'd already done with these young women in "The New Life." Just because her subjects are wearing clothes (mostly), does that really place this project in a fashion context? If so, Magnum is obviously all about pushing the envelope. And I say more power to them!

Comment posted by Patricia Lay-Dorsey on October 21, 2008

I think fashoin is possible

Comment posted by webhosting on October 22, 2008

Not that I'm a great fan of Lise Sarfatti's photography, which to me looks rather dead. But I'm all in favour of frivolity - the perfect antidote to the usual overdose of intellectualising and pomposity.

Comment posted by nigel amies on October 22, 2008

These comments sort of remind me of the issues swirling around Roger Ballen’s fashion photographs from a few years back: The Selma Blair Witch Project.

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 22, 2008

please, somebody tell me a reason for shooting fashion, other than for the money.

Comment posted by luzz biteyear on October 22, 2008

"since magnum are branching out into fashion, why stop there? I'd like to see magnum do 'weddings' . i'm serious. I would love to see a magnum photographer's wedding shoot, right down to the style of album/book and layout they choose."

Magnum already did 'wedding' long time ago, like Chien-Chi Chang's book 'I Do I Do I Do'

Comment posted by Kas on October 22, 2008

If a photographer photographs tribes around the world looking at what they wear, their ethnic dress it's seems to count as ethnographic photography or documentary which has merit and 'value' yet photograph what people wear closer to home and it's 'fashion' and for some weird reason seen as frivolous and unimportant.

Also not all fashion photography is advertising.

Comment posted by Peter Cleghorn on October 22, 2008

I personally liked the previous magazines but at first glance am not so sure on this one.
With Magnum involving themselves in fashion I see a real opportunity to present people as how they look in real life, something Magnum photographers do best. It's a chance to turn the traditional ideas of fashion on their head and show the people at their flawed but beautiful best. I know it's a lofty idea but there is a lot of weight to the argument the current fashion imagery really can warp people's minds into what an acceptable body type is.

Comment posted by Peter Hoffman on October 22, 2008

"I want to look at everything, I want to see everything, I want to BE vision itself." -Joseph Koudelka

I burn with this same sentiment. I am not a "War Photographer" (although I have photographed in wars) or a photo-journalist of misery. I am a photographer...ok, perhaps primarily concerned with social documentary, but that doesn't mean I only photograph suffering (I can already see the obvious pun someone will make about suffering for fashion). I want to look at EVERYTHING, I want to see EVERYTHING. And I want to photograph as much of it as I can while I am on this planet.

When I was offered to do the fashion pictures, I only thought, "fantastic, an opportunity to have a window on a world that I did not know and had never photographed."

Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on October 22, 2008

/\ right on chris.

Comment posted by david bowen on October 22, 2008

Well said Chris. It's nice to have the point of view of of another Magnum photographer.

Comment posted by Jason Hobbs on October 22, 2008

Well said Chris. It's nice to have the point of view of another Magnum photographer.

Comment posted by Jason Hobbs on October 22, 2008

I would agree with James that photo literacy is low. Yes, there are many more photo resources available to more photographers. But resource availability is not the only issue.

That is like saying there are many more restaurants in the world today so people must be smarter about food than ever before. In reality, the further you get from the field where the food is grown, the less healthy the product is. Food is more polluted, we have serious health problems because of diet, and yet people are living longer than they have in the past. The issue of health and food is more complicated than simple resource availability.

Parr is right in that there are fewer boundaries for photographers these days. Fewer boundaries in every way. Someone can become a "professional, paid" photographer today with just the click of a button at a microstock agency. They may or may not have any education or training in photography. What happens to the photographic culture when we have many professional photographers who feel there is no ethical distinction between a documentary photo and advertising picture? The New York Times now competes with uncredentialed and untrained bloggers for pageviews and advertising. In that kind of marketplace, should the NYT lower their standards?

If Magnum can find a way to do fashion that is tune with the agency, that stays true to it's vision, that is one thing to consider. That path may strengthen the agency. Or it may cheapen and dilute the whole brand. I can see both outcomes. There are options (a separate Fashion brand of some kind) but to mix and match as if photodocumentary is the same thing as advertising....That is very sticky.

Here is a question to consider. Are all photos ultimately just a product that is for sale at a certain price? Then advertising and photojournalism are the same thing.

Comment posted by Agirlphotographer on October 22, 2008

CHRIS ANDERSON :))))

Chris, AMEN BROTHER ! :))))..that's what i was trying to say in my ridiculously long first post ;)))))

keep on keeping on!

ALEC:

alec, love love ballen, have his books...didnt know about the Blair Witch shoot...thanks so much!

running
b

Comment posted by Bob Black on October 22, 2008

And to follow up on Chris' post, I would like to share with y'all one of my photographic heros...who had the SAME philosophy about photography as chris....

Mario Giacomelli:

http://www.mariogiacomelli.it/

He did it all....

and a poet and visionary too...and god damn, are his prints BREATHTAKING

ENJOY

BOB

Comment posted by Bob Black on October 22, 2008

A quick point concerning the original question… what I'm reading from the photographers is not fear of the fashion machine but a reluctance to acknowledge a barrier between their practice and this (or any?) subgenre or photo-sub industry.

What I'm reading from the (some?) readers is an attempt to define Magnum, "Fashion Photography", the barriers between them and whether or not they should be crossed. I realize that was the question... but could it possibly be a leading one? As the link above makes clear, Magnum photographers have been doing fashion from the start.

As the photographers attempt to expand the enterprise… we, as readers, are just as busy trying to pigeonhole it.

So I wonder… how does Fashion Magazine operate... as an exercise in a subgenre or a challenge to our preconceptions?

Comment posted by mike on October 22, 2008

Mike your comment is interesting. Food for thought.

Are you referring to this link?
Link

Comment posted by Agirlphotographer on October 22, 2008

Well said Chris! I have no idea why some people like to pigeon hole themselves.

It's nice to have the views of another Magnum photographer......where are all the rest?

Jason

Comment posted by Jason Hobbs on October 22, 2008

Apologies for the triple posting folks. Seems there was something wrong with my connection.

Comment posted by Jason Hobbs on October 22, 2008

Oh...
talking about fashion... looks like the DAH posse has taken over...

Comment posted by MartnB on October 22, 2008

Sorry for the confusion, Agirlphotographer ... I meant the link in Alec's original post, where he says: "Before you answer, have a look at this."

But the Scianna link is a good one! Thanks.

Comment posted by mike on October 22, 2008

I dont think anything should be off the table. Not really. That's self defeating and small minded.

But there are still issues worth considering here.

Yes, there has always been fashion photography.
Magnum photographers have shot fashion.

We live in a world now where fashion is not just part of the culture, in some places, it stands in for culture itself. This trend toward fashion, style (with celebritafication not far behind) has begun to crowd out real news and real issues. Look at the ascendace of fashion in the culture. And look at the descendance of news, newsmagazines, etc.

This issue is complicated by the advent of the internet but that is not the only issue bearing on the distribution of content.

We dont just pick up fashion magazines and look at them. Product placement and branding have become slick efforts to pierce the unconscious. Feeding the best becomes a feedback loop. The more we talk about it the more we elevate it, the more people are interested in it and so on.
Does that focus diminish us, does it belittle us, does it degrade the overall culture dialogue?

There are many many stories. But there are only so many resources to go around. There are only so many Magnum photographers. Is there a shortage of fashion photographers and fashioin photography? Can Magnum bring fashion to another level, can they explore more fully it's place in the culture, or will they end up wasting scarce resources plowing ground that's already being covered.

I have faith in the group that they can but it's also good to keep perspective on the bigger picture.

Anyway. That's my .20 cents. Sorry for the long posts. Thank for your patience.

Comment posted by Agirlphotographer on October 22, 2008

hey - martinb

hmm..'taking over'.. more like filling in the gaps.. and i'd hardly phrase the DAH mssv as fashionable.. i'm certain most of us wear corduroy.

i think chris has nailed it in terms of being a photographer - taking yourself to be exclusive within a particular field of photography may work in many ways.. to gain commissions.. be on the tip of an editors tongue..
to be the fullest photographer you can be, expressing and undertaking the widest possible base of work, has to be the truest intent for a photographer.. to want to photograph a little of everything at some point in life.

if i had ended up becoming a chef i would not only want to cook roast dinners.. i'd like to think i'd see the charm in making frilly deserts as well..

Comment posted by david bowen on October 22, 2008

a girl photographer..
spot on about fashion becoming culture.. at least in the minority world we live in..
i forget who said,
'we are no longer citizens, we are consumers', as far as the powers that be believe..

and you're right - the psychology of marketing is devastating in it's assalt of our sences during every waking moment..
and so perhaps it COULD be a sad day if magnum focuses more on fashion..
then again..
as someone above has said..
what is fashion magazines goal and readership?

i'm going to have to get a copy of the magazine before commenting more, although i'm heartened by the idea - perhaps there is some knowingly iropnic, satirical narrative.. perhaps there is just interesting photography.. one thing is certain, and that is the fact it will not just be selling clothes.

Comment posted by david bowen on October 22, 2008

A fashion aside, but to your point above... in the news today is a report that says the RNC has spent $150,000 on Sarah Palin's wardrobe for the campaign. If he's reading, I would like to let Joe Sixpack know that that represents one sixpack of Bud per day for over 41 years.

Comment posted by mike on October 22, 2008

Speaking of fashion and politics.

Politically, fashion focus has traditionally been on the first lady, the consorts of the powerful. Whenever a candidate like Edwards with his $400 haircut becomes a story, it is generally viewed as a slipup, i.e. proof that a man of the people is actually an elite.

Offhand, can anyone remember a fashion story on actual national candidates? How big of a deal is fashion for a candidate? Is it more of an issue for women like Hillary or Palin? Is Palin on new ground here, the first "fashionable" power candidate?

That would actually be an interesting story. Not Palin in fancy clothes. But a look at whatever forces and people are behind the scenes setting up the photo ops and picking out the clothes and how that resonates throughout the society, from People Magazine on down.

Comment posted by Agirlphotographer on October 22, 2008

MIKE;....damn, now i know what i never liked about Palin...that's a lot of bud.....

AGIRLPHOTOGRAPHER :))))

yes, absolutely, most of the photographic attention has often been on the 1st ladies...: of course, Jackie Kennedy is a photographic icon, not the least of which all the photographic essays about her "fashion", the MET did one themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Jacqueline-Kennedy-Selections-Library-Museum/dp/0821227459

and i seem to recall (when i was a teen) some photo essay on Nancy Regan too...

but as for the candidates themselves, I remember seeing a spread on the difference between Carter and Regan....but god help me, if i can remember the photographer.....

and another essay on the "brothers/sisters/relatives" of candidates...i think i saw it in the NYTimes Magazine...years ago (i rmember a shot of billy carter in overalls and a can of his Billy beer)....

im just brain dead, cant remember....

ok, running away for a few days...

b

Comment posted by Bob Black on October 22, 2008

Palin also charged the state of Alaska for days spent back home in her own house away from the state capital in Juneau and $21,000 in expenses to cover her children's hotel and travel costs even when they were not requested to appear at events. So much for the Republicans being fiscally conservative!

Yesterday in an interview she also said that the job of the VP is to head the senate and to 'get in and make important decisions with senators' which simply is not true. A VP can act as a tie breaker but does not 'lead' the senate. So, Palin does not even know what a VP does and yet she is running for the second highest office in the land.

Comment posted by Davin Ellicson on October 22, 2008

James Williamson....

Moribund??? Magnum has been pronounced by many to be on it's "deathbed" since I can remember. 61 years old and dying the whole time I guess. Yours is a pretty cynical vision of an agency that has opened up its windows to let in "fresh air" all along. For my money, Magnum really would be "dead" if it did not expand it's vision. Surely, few in Magnum will want to shoot fashion, but why limit anyone for any reason? Now, that is moribund.

Comment posted by David Alan Harvey on October 22, 2008

G.O.P. Consultant Reimbursed for Palin Shopping Spree

Comment posted by Davin Ellicson on October 22, 2008

o, SO GLAD DAVID HARVEY IS HERE! :)))))))))..

Magnum comes alive :))))))))))).... that Harvey/Soth/Anderson/Vink magic is gonna bring it all good :)))

as for Harvey's work, like, wait to y'all see the Family Drive Snaps...that book is like gonna sing sing sing...david is still a "young" photographer :)))))))

Is Dave Harvey moribund?...well, not the brother i met 2 weeks ago...nor the pics...check out his last book too by the way :)))

vivre le photo!

running

b

Comment posted by Bob Black on October 22, 2008

By the way, Lise Sarfati has an opening tonight (Thursday) in NYC at Yossi Milo:

http://yossimilogallery.com/

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 22, 2008

The same questions you ask about fashion photography could be raised about any subject or location, such as the beach, the office or the bedroom. From the realm of documentary photography, we don't question those places anymore -- not with Towell's, Parr's or D'Agata's contributions.

Fashion is the same. Ultimately, photographs that reflect on our experience can be taken from anywhere and of anything, as long as the human experience is captured and the aesthetics remains true, whatever that is. The ideas presented in the Magnum Environmental photography post from a few weeks back convey this, I think.

I'm a big fan of Christopher Anderson and his ability to adapt to new situations. His work from New York fashion week 2008 was phenomenal.

Keep on going on with the fashionistas!

Comment posted by Waxy on October 23, 2008

Magnum should do fashion. Magnum should do everything, but in Magnum's own way. And I don't see that in Lise's photographies. To me, it's just regular fashion shots taken with a wider lens. I'd like to see Alessandra Sanguinetti take a try on fashion. Maybe Bruce Gilden as well.

Comment posted by El gato calculista on October 23, 2008

See the difference, guys, when David's ROAD TRIP gang lends a hand to a topic here? 81 posts.

Is this a revolution? No Sir, it's a...Demonstration.

:-)

Comment posted by Herve on October 23, 2008

Forgive me if my twopence repeats anything already said.

I think most magazines tend to define their readers. I say this as someone who has worked on a few - magazines, not readers. The result then is that fashion spreads become this weird display of what the publisher/editor/focus group says is aspirational for what the publisher/editor et al thinks is the ideal readership.

"Fashion Magazine" doesn't do this. Or rather, if it does - what does Magnum think of its readers?

Comment posted by Rob Haynes on October 23, 2008

sometimes , to see its the best thing

Comment posted by deghiaf on October 23, 2008

Whats the big deal? Some photographers see themselves as photographers full stop . Within that framework why not take pictures that (you the photographer) wants to take, they are all documents to a future gaze (sorry if thats a bit sci-fi). We cant all do war photography or social-consciousness work as (i feel) once its been covered thats it.

Comment posted by Craig Whitty on October 23, 2008

And i think that Sarfati's work in fashion magazine is very much a continuation of her earlier work, you can see that its not gratuitous in any way, shape or form.

Comment posted by Craig Whitty on October 23, 2008

Herve,

Well, there is quantity of posts and then there is quality...

I'm not criticizing David’s blog in any way. It's phenomenal. I'm glad to be a very, very marginal part of it... but it's certainly not the place to go if you want to have a considered, thoughtful, adult, informed conversation about topics in contemporary photography. I was hoping that this could be that...

Simply moving the DAH tribe to a different location or recreating his blog here isn’t how I’d measure success… I think there is a lot of potential to grow something completely different, not better than, and not competing with David’s blog.

If the DAH blog is a "workshop" in a blog, why couldn't this grow into a "seminar" in a blog, where we all, DAH-bloggers and everyone else, use our "inside voices", come up with an actual point, think before commenting, edit (!!!!) and keep the drama, histrionics, and puerility to a bare minimum...

Did you read the essay Alec pointed to in the last post? It raised my hopes, if not my expectations:

http://www.kungfugrippe.com/post/48588149/better

By the way, if you know of any Siberia on the internet that is having the type of conversation I'm looking for, let me know, I'd be happy to exile myself there...

Comment posted by mike on October 23, 2008

Hi Mike....

I must say I was a bit disappointed with your comment. Yes, we do have some pretty wild conversations going at times, but if we "edited" then I am not sure what we would have.

One measure of what we have done with our forum is TO PRODUCE WORK...not just "intellectual" conversation . I will stand by all the fine essays that have come out of our blog. Yes, things get a bit crazy at times, but some of those "crazies" have done some real work too.

I think you will see the PROOF of my words above very soon.

At the same time, surely the Magnum blog will give you the opportunity to speak with many more photographers at our agency. I certainly welcome this and will most certainly be a part of this.

And you, my friend, have certainly been a part of the real life, real time, meetings with some of your colleagues from the forum. You and I would not have met at all were it not for our little "tree house" gatherings.

Your are right, one good thing does not preclude the success of another. But to say that we did not have "adult conversation" about contemporary photography is a bit short sighted on your part I think. You might want to go back through the archives.

Pick up your camera and go out and do some work. Then you might feel more "a part". I would welcome your work or your ideas any time.

I think the potential for what we have done for the last two years will manifest itself soon by the evolution from blog to online magazine and printed annual. "Adult conversation about contemporary photography" is terrific. But if we only produced 10 strong essays in our blog time, then I think we moved many to stop talking and start photographing.

Wishing you well Mike and I look forward to seeing you again soonest.

cheers, David

Comment posted by david alan harvey on October 24, 2008

I'm sure i don't have any right to say what Magnum "should" do. but for me the only expectation that i would have from Magnum in fashion photography is that the work should be informed by the larger picture, viz consumerism, ecology, labor conditions, the global economy, celebrity culture etc.

Looked at positively, fashion as an industry that makes something essential (clothing) which can be made from sustainable resources and which allows creativity in both the designers and the wearers.

The negative side is pretty well known: 1000 dollar garments made by people making pennies per day and sold to people who don't need them and can't really afford them thru advertising.

Between these extremes of what fashion is and what it could be there is quite a lot of scope to both highlight the best and expose the worst aspects, continuing in the Magnum tradition.

Was there a discussion within Magnum about whether to do the magazines? i would be interested in the origin of the series...

Comment posted by Andrew Condon on October 24, 2008

David,

I do want to apologize for making too sharp a point; I should have chosen my words with more care… I also want to make sure you know I have deep respect, the deepest respect, for you personally, your generosity, your unflagging support of emerging photographers, and the work that is coming out of the blog and your workshops. My intention was not to criticize you or your efforts.

But… the tribe can get very dysfunctional and insular at times, and the current thread on the blog is a particularly unpleasant, even vicious example. The sturm and drang and insularity strengthens the group and is probably necessary at some base emotional level, but also, I think, it has a crowding, stifling, claustrophobic effect, not to mention potentially destructive to the effort of getting this blog flying. I was asking, pointedly, of my fellow DAHers; leave the baggage and nonsense at home, and selfishly, that we allow enough room for other voices and ways of thinking to take root and possibly flourish here. That’s what I was trying to say… please forgive my insensitivity in trying to say it.

Comment posted by mike on October 24, 2008

I thought that Magnum Photos had evolved its brand to simply mean quality photography long ago. I thought limiting labels such as 'photography with a social conscience' or 'photography as art' had fallen away for good. Why can't Magnum photography mean simply 'good photography' in all its forms? Of course Magnum should do fashion. Fashion photography could definitely use some new energy. At the same time, I think the photographers who dip in to fashion work and who don't normally do it, might find new ideas and influences from that experience. As Inge Bondi and others have pointed out, fashion photography is not really new to Magnum.

Comment posted by Stuart Alexander on October 24, 2008

In following the various directions of discourse here as well as Magnum's desire to work and function within the various contexts of photography, including documentary, editorial, corporate, advertising and now, fashion, I'm curious about the following:

How do the Magnum photographers, both as a collective and individually, reconcile the "socially-conscious" efforts of, for example, Philip Jones Griffiths (from Vietnam at Peace) or Jonas Bendiksen (from INDIA - Dharavi Slum) examining the conditions in the garment industry with the latest "Fashion Magazine" contributions?

For example, when you search the Magnum site with the keyword "Textile industry", a variety of images appear, from garment factory workers sleeping on the floor between shifts to Lise Sarfati's images from Paris Haute Couture Spring - Summer 2004.

Comment posted by Paul Turounet on October 24, 2008

This blog could do with a dedicated bob black spam filter.

Comment posted by peter on October 25, 2008

If anybody has the curiosity or desire to open the Fashion Magazine AustinTexas I will be happy to communicate about it precisely I want to say if the subject is the content.
lise

Comment posted by lise sarfati on October 26, 2008

Lise, yes... I do have a question. I would say thing all Magnum photographers share is a distinct rhetorical acuity. On some level, a point is always being made, and with eloquence and skill... I think all great photographs take a stance, make an argument, are at some level, advertising. "War photography" could also be defined as "advertisements for peace," for instance.

If you agree, I wonder if you changed your stance, were consciously "arguing" a different point with this work?

Comment posted by mike on October 27, 2008

I do not want to do big theory position about what I do .I have the feeling that nobody has opened the magazine at this stage and see what I did ,which is a whole series from the beginning to the end of the magazine.I just created something very concret which has no matter with theory even if I have concepts.
To find a word to determine all sort of photographic works belongs to critics.
I think we should forget the name Magnum and speak more about specificitites of each work as Magnum share a group of differents individualities so obviously differents constructions of mentalities and goals.

lise

Comment posted by sarfati lise on October 28, 2008

Lise, thanks for commenting on the blog. Of course all of these photographers are distinct individuals. What I'm trying to address is the fact that Magnum is really sinking its teeth into this industry by producing Fashion Magazine. Or are they? I gather from Bajac's text that you are uncomfortable saying that you work as a fashion photographer. So am I. But the fact is that we both produced magazines using clothes, stylists and advertising money from the fashion businesses. I was just wondering about the general perception of Magnum's participation in this industry.

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 28, 2008

should God play the devil?

Comment posted by Benjamin on October 29, 2008

I can't say if they SHOULD do fashion or not but I will tell you that my favorite fashion photography has the "look" of documentary photography. I think fashion and documentary photography make a great partnership....looks-wise.

That being said, it is up to the individual photographer as to whether or not they want to do it...morally, professionally, etc.

Seems I know most of the posters here! :)) Small world.

Comment posted by cathyscholl on October 29, 2008

Wow! I guess I struck a nerve with the use of the word "moribund." And perhaps I exaggerate to make a point. My main concern however (pertaining to "photo-literacy" and "usage" in general) is that, having worked in a learning institution for eight years, I know that there has been a bland leveling-off as to the accurate meaning of photographic subject-matter and content within journalistic and documentary communities throughout the "industry" -especially for young people in this ever-confusing world. This is due to entertainment becoming a bigger priority than the need for solid journalistic story-telling, through the sheer act of "witness," even by some of the most well-meaning photographer-artists. Let's not forget that Magnum was created as a response to World War II, the Holocaust, etc., with the intention of bringing humanitarian issues to the forefront of our collective consciousness. There are many commercial and fashion photographers that I admire as artists and technicians; however, they ply their trade for profit, not journalistic or humanitarian reasons. This should separation remain elementary and clear.

Comment posted by james williamson on October 29, 2008

Wow! I guess I struck a nerve with the use of the word "moribund." And perhaps I exaggerate to make a point. My main concern however (pertaining to "photo-literacy" and "usage" in general) is that, having worked in a learning institution for eight years, I know that there has been a bland leveling-off as to the accurate meaning of photographic subject-matter and content within journalistic and documentary communities throughout the "industry" -especially for young people in this ever-confusing world. This is due to entertainment becoming a bigger priority than the need for solid journalistic story-telling, through the sheer act of "witness," even by some of the most well-meaning photographer-artists. Let's not forget that Magnum was created as a response to World War II, the Holocaust, etc., with the intention of bringing humanitarian issues to the forefront of our collective consciousness. There are many commercial and fashion photographers that I admire as artists and technicians; however, they ply their trade for profit, not journalistic or humanitarian reasons. This should separation remain elementary and clear.

Comment posted by james williamson on October 29, 2008

I understand that Magnum is feeling the pressure to stay relevant in a media game that seems less and less concerned with "human stories." After all, the legacies of Reagan and Bush have left us a little stupider, more cynical, and feeling more hopeless. Let's try to remember, however, that making concessions to the art and fashion world (or youth pop culture) is not the way to make our trade valuable again. Only a change in the public's values can do that. Perhaps with the new president and administration, americans might become wiser again and begin to reconsider the more mature uses of our medium, by becoming unafraid to look at some of the hard realities that documentary work and photojournalism are able to provide us as a people trying to survive on a troubled planet.
Magnum was created with the sense of mission and purpose that stressed bringing the human condition to our collective consciences, via the sheer act of witness. It was not created as an entertainment vehicle, or as an art-stock agency, nor as a product catalogue. And, Stuart, "good" photography must be defined by objective criteria -however we define it. Saying it's "good" is not enough. Again, the separation between journalism and commerce should remain clear and elementary. As far as I know, Magnum has never sought to sell a product -which is the sole intention of fashion photography, even though there may be "artistic" or even "photojournalistic" elements built into certain photographers' styles and approaches to it. You should be asking yourselves, "What is Magnum's purpose?" It's true that the likes of HCB and Bruce Davidson did some fashion photography along the way. And why not? One should be able to make a living any way one can in a brutally competitive world. But that is a very different point than thoughtlessly including fashion (or architectural, or for that matter, travel, or wedding, or portrait, or product photography in with Magnum's unique purpose).

Comment posted by james williamson on November 5, 2008

Incidentally, Lise Sarfati is not being sincere when she says, "This is not fashion" -regarding her own work, when she knows that it panders to "fashionistas" and their world.
Also, Paolo's coverage of the fashion world during fashion week in NYC is NOT fashion photography; it is a report on the fashion industry plying it's trade.
Bruce Gilden's fashion work, however, is just that: fashion photography (shot in a journalistic style). And he would tell you this.
What is the problem? And where is the understanding? Things have become very duplicitous and muddled...
What seems to be missing from the dialogue is the relationship between images, language and meaning -hence, honesty, and not mere interpretation.
I hope this dialogue continues, if only in order to stimulate critical thinking about photography, it's real and possible meanings, as well as it's uses, in what has become a very lazy community.
There are so many fashion photographers whose work I admire; but this has no bearing on what should remain clearly a separate pursuit of reporting on the human condition via photo-reportage, as opposed to the posing or propping up of the mannered fictions of fashion. Come on.

Comment posted by james williamson on November 5, 2008

David Alan Harvey: "Fashion" does not consist of a "vision" in the same way that photo-documentary work does. One reveals the "human condition" -hopefully. The other sells a product, or caters to a set of trends or styles. (That's not to say that reporting about fashion cannot be extremely revealing about the human condition. But let's be clear, and honest. One deals with the interpretation of captured and truthfully-rendered perceptions; the other deals with the poses and mannerisms of fictions and fantasies -no matter how realistically or unrealistically portrayed they may be. And the difference can be referred to as taking responsibility for one's images.
The real difference can be accounted for by noticing the glaring of lights on a catwalk vs. the heat and pain of the sweatshop.

Comment posted by james williamson on November 5, 2008

Also, just wondering why Magnum is not spending more time and effort in getting good photo-reportage seen, that is, into the minds and eyes of the public? I recently saw (in October) James Nachtwey's images of TB victims the world over projected onto the faces of various Manhattan buildings (as a way to compete with the larger-than-life (and meaningless) fashion and movie ads towering above us all). Now THAT would be a meaningful way to compete with the cynicism of the fashion and movie industries which consistently render the shallowest interpretations of our humanity in order to make a fast buck -and a good one at that!
Incidentally, where did all the practitioners of photo-reportage go who once used to fight for this as a matter of course?

Comment posted by james williamson on November 5, 2008

I think of Martin Parr as an artist pre-occupied with fashion--perhaps more accurately, with how material culture reflects the notion of fashion and popular taste.

I also think of The New York Times' bicycling eye Bill Cunningham as a photographer who works exquisitely and modestly with the fashion phenomenon, and is a pure street photographer to boot. Did anyone take a good look (and listen) to his post-election assessment of sidewalkers? I think this is both spot news and socio-cultural examination at a high level by an expert.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/08/fashion/20081108-street-feature/index.html

I'd like to see a book or web-folio of Magnum's historic takes on Fashion. Would the edit include pop culture figures, night-clubbing, and other types of clique-ish behavior? Or when we speak of "fashion" are the parameters limited to the outerwear industry? Are there ways of seeing (and by natural extension for Magnum, photographing) that are inherently fashionable? Let's start sifting the archives and see what filters out.

Comment posted by George Slade on November 28, 2008

Fashion photography is spoken about here almost as a pariah to what is considered "authentic" photography. I would like to remind people that some of the greatest image makers of our time were "fashion photographers": Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, William Klein, Martin Munkasci, Helmut Newton, Guy Bourdin. To deride one "kind" of photography in favor of another "kind" is snobbery of a different kind. yes, there are horrible crappy fashion photographs, but there are just as many horrible and crappy documentary photographs, too.

Comment posted by Song Chong on March 19, 2009

Fashion photography is spoken about here almost as a pariah to what is considered "authentic" photography. I would like to remind people that some of the greatest image makers of our time were "fashion photographers": Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, William Klein, Martin Munkasci, Helmut Newton, Guy Bourdin...among so many others. To deride one "kind" of photography in favor of another "kind" is snobbery. yes, there are horrible crappy fashion photographs, but there are just as many horrible and crappy documentary photographs, too.

Comment posted by Song C. on March 19, 2009