Is Annie Leibovitz overrated? Locked

Whatever anyone´s opinion is of anyone or anything is purely their own .... opinion.

My concern is more a question of why anyone wants to criticise another and their work. This is especially so when timing is also of the essence - meaning when the other photographer´s work was done.

I´m afraid that too many proffer opinions - without also accompanying their criticism with images of their own to back up any ability to criticise.

Unfortunately, it seems everyone is a critic - which is fine if the opinions are kept to oneself but human nature being what it is .....

My opinion - for what it´s worth - is those that can - DO ..... those that can´t ....

Having recently visited the Vanity Fair exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery, I'd say no, she's not overrated, at least compared to others whose work was featured.
--
Mustafa

What near deification?
--
Shay son of Che

I detest her work. It's completely the opposite of any photography that's actually art, that actually addresses the human condition, instead of bland portraits made just to glorify and idolatrize a bunch of celebrities.

Glen Barrington wrote:

I'm not saying she is no good. From what I've seen, she does
alright. But in all truth, I just don't see the reasons for this
near deification.

I've always seen her as cranky miserable celebrity bitching about
everything possible. She's a photographer?! I need to be more
miserable I guess...

=========

In my opinion, yes she is overrated. She is very good at what she does whether it is to your taste or not.

But what she is even better at is marketing - I don't know if she is resonsible for this or others under her control or not. Her work gets out there where it gets noticed most. Also she is not afraid to appear in the media. She knows that it is not about how good you are, it is about being a brand.

You could make the same arguement about many people in many fields. For instance, is Damien Hurst a good artist? I know what I think. The main thing is that his work is out there and there is hype.
--
Greg

When you've got a moment, have a look at my newly updated site including my blog:
http://www.wrightphotos.co.uk
also http://www.wrightphotos.co.uk/FromeInFocus

Winner of the South West Rural section of the BBC's Picture of Britain Competition.

refrigerator wrote:

I detest her work. It's completely the opposite of any photography
that's actually art, that actually addresses the human condition,
instead of bland portraits made just to glorify and idolatrize a
bunch of celebrities.

Art does not have to address the human condition. In fact, very little of the art created throughout history did so, and most of it glorified rulers, rich men, and religious figures (saints, God, etc). The idea of art adressing the human condition is relatively recent in art history, and though such works were created before the 20th century, it wasn't until the 20th that the human condition became a widely portrayed subject matter for art. Some art historians say that photography was responsible for that new direction in art. In any case, art can certainly glorify celebrities and still be art, even good art. As far as such art goes, I prefer Richard Avedon over A.L, but that's my opinion.
--
Chris Crawford
Fort Wayne, IN
Fine art photography of the heartland

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/index.htm

http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com

Check out my new project:
http://www.plumpatrin.com

... I was speaking with tongue firmly in cheek.
--
Zone8

The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS

Whether or not one likes her work, she has certainly had an impact. Her early work with Rolling stone, her other commercial/magazine work, then Vanity Fair period. Then with Vanity Fair and other clients, her use of tableaux vivants, for environmental portraiture, rather than how Joel Peter Witkin uses them.

She is in essence, the successor to Richard Averdon, and to a small part Arnold Newman, at least amongst editors, and the general public.

When you have that kind of stylist impact, it kind of clouds the concept of over-rated.

But it is nice to see a change here from the usual thread of this type, i.e. "Is ansel Adams over-rated?"

Hi Glen,

Glen Barrington wrote:

... The question, "Do we see something special in some
photographs because we are TOLD there is something special in there?'

I understand your question as very valid. I'm not going directly into A.Liebovitz's work (which I don't know well, nor am I much interested on).

Usually we "read somewhere", "we hear other people say",... and usually we somehow (must) agree. Like one poster said: "..she covers her photos in popular magazines... what about your photos?" -which should imply, who are you (or me), to judge her work.

My opinion is, many don't realize, that usually there's more about (good) promoting herself/himself than taking "state of the art" photos -one simply can't be recognized as "the" photographer, without promoting. As example: (I assume) nobody will criticize how good/bad photos of the Queen are... important is: "she" took those (btw. I saw that event on TV).

I'm not saying all reputable photographers are bad or good... or whatever. Important is, one must have his/her own opinion about someones work -after studying it.. and trying to learn while doing that. Without your own opinion, you become believer... you'll always see yourself inferior... you won't learn much.

Of course, when saying "you", I don't mean you directly, but speak in general

Just my 2c,
Bogdan
--
My pictures are my memories
http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/

I don't know that she is overrated. She does pretty good portraits, and like others have said, is good at self promotion.

I think one thing that people miss with her (and many other famous photographers) is that there is alot of mimicry of the style afterwards. I think in the context of the times, she was fairly innovative.

that has ever been created. She has the resources to create images that we can't even dream about making. The recent series of Nicole Kidman is just so perfectly crafted it blows my mind...it's just clean clean clean. A lot of it is post production and high budgets instead of lighting and camera skills...but so what....the final images that she is currently creating are something that 99.9% of photographers can't even begin to compete with...

Her early work was probably only popular because of the celebrity factor. But so what? Who cares?. I think people take this stuff a little too seriously sometimes.

I thought you were talking about another person with a
similar name. I have no opinion as to the photographer "Annie Leibovitz".

Sorry.

================