Recently, the CBC broadcasted a bio-reportage of the photographer Annie Leibovitz. The bibliographical reportage is interesting for several reasons: it shows there is no theme or obsession about photography, at least at the beginning of her career. It started at Rolling Stone magazine by supporting the articles of a few big writers. I am biased, but the question of what would be durable twenty years from now, the articles or the shots from RS magazine? And the rest is just life and a lot of wasted shots, with some of them brilliantly captured.
Another theme is about experimenting, camera being the "third-eye", registering more than an image but also the history of the situation. Ms. Leibovitz had a camera in hand almost in all unimaginable situations - when people slept, taking their cloth off, arguing or living on the edge. Short lenses were preferred, drugs were permitted in the shot as a hidden personage but mostly I liked the "after-emotional-storm" / "post-exhaustion" shots. People tired of pretending, without masks or hidden reasons, energy depleted; you can see the dominance of their internal/occupational life tracks emerge through their face, eyes, expressions. Inevitable the analogy between a hunter and a photograph; comes to my mind; the long session shots of the famous photographers is not about preparing the scene or thinking about the light and actors' layout and postures but, most importantly, about capturing the raw emotion when it is not filtered out or covered by the pretense and fake interpretations.
Interestingly, later in life, Ms. Leibovitz recognized the importance of directing/staging photography. Costumes, props, effects, people and animals were added like in a game to convey the message of the shot. Vanity Fair is about glamor, celebrities and shocking ideas (see Whoopi Goldberg's photo). Is there more to be added than a sentence to any shot? asks a critique. In my opinion it is, but depends on the emotional rapport created by the photography or by the resonance with your past/experience.
Another question is about the legacy of an artist. Is Ms. Leibovitz's legacy driven by the commercial interest or there is more to that? Can you sense the will and direction or is about the "genial" spur of the moment on a imposed direction (Vanity Fair or Rolling Stone)?
I was disappointed by the anecdotal side of the reportage. I was expecting to see the drive behind the lens and the intent in full swing rather than life events hanged to photos. The second disappointment was the bland format of the image in the reportage vis-a-vis the incredible moments captured in the photos, but someone else was behind the camera and prepared the whole video. Overall it raised a lot of questions for me and stirred my curiosity.
Another theme is about experimenting, camera being the "third-eye", registering more than an image but also the history of the situation. Ms. Leibovitz had a camera in hand almost in all unimaginable situations - when people slept, taking their cloth off, arguing or living on the edge. Short lenses were preferred, drugs were permitted in the shot as a hidden personage but mostly I liked the "after-emotional-storm" / "post-exhaustion" shots. People tired of pretending, without masks or hidden reasons, energy depleted; you can see the dominance of their internal/occupational life tracks emerge through their face, eyes, expressions. Inevitable the analogy between a hunter and a photograph; comes to my mind; the long session shots of the famous photographers is not about preparing the scene or thinking about the light and actors' layout and postures but, most importantly, about capturing the raw emotion when it is not filtered out or covered by the pretense and fake interpretations.
Interestingly, later in life, Ms. Leibovitz recognized the importance of directing/staging photography. Costumes, props, effects, people and animals were added like in a game to convey the message of the shot. Vanity Fair is about glamor, celebrities and shocking ideas (see Whoopi Goldberg's photo). Is there more to be added than a sentence to any shot? asks a critique. In my opinion it is, but depends on the emotional rapport created by the photography or by the resonance with your past/experience.
Another question is about the legacy of an artist. Is Ms. Leibovitz's legacy driven by the commercial interest or there is more to that? Can you sense the will and direction or is about the "genial" spur of the moment on a imposed direction (Vanity Fair or Rolling Stone)?
I was disappointed by the anecdotal side of the reportage. I was expecting to see the drive behind the lens and the intent in full swing rather than life events hanged to photos. The second disappointment was the bland format of the image in the reportage vis-a-vis the incredible moments captured in the photos, but someone else was behind the camera and prepared the whole video. Overall it raised a lot of questions for me and stirred my curiosity.
Comments