Herb Ritts
Chuck Goodwin
Let's get some more discussion going:
Herb Ritts has a huge retrospective going up in Bean town (Boston, MA,
for our international readers)
Does he really deserve several LARGE (and I mean LARGE) rooms in a
prominent museum?
Fire away.
-- Chuck G.
Joel Bard
I live near Boston and went the Herb Ritts exhibition last Saturday. I
must say that I was blown away. To start with, the techniques is great.
Seeing really good, really BIG prints is exciting. That being said, I
don't think he did the printing. Re subject matter: The nudes are nice,
some interesting ideas including nudes carrying tumbleweeds (sounds wierd
but you have to see it), and some nice pictures of veiled nudes. The best
pictures, IMO, were the portraits of celebrities. He must be very good
with people to get such dynamic and honest portraits. Aside from some very
funny Holywood pictures (e.g. Cindy Crawford about to make out with K.D.
Lang) there are two heartbreakers: Kurt Cobain's young daughter and
Cristopher Reeves taken in wheelchair.
Is it Great Art? Probably not. If the celebrity pictures were of people
we didn't recognize they certainly wouldn't be as interesting (though not
completely uninteresting). Still, it's fine photography and I had a good
time looking at it. I think there is room for this stuff in museums,
especially for a brief show. I don't think there should be a room in the
permanent collection devoted to it. By analogy, there is room in the
concert hall for Johann Strauss as well as for Beethoven.
Interestingly, at the same time, in a smaller space, there was an exhibit
of Alfred Stieglitz and friends. It was a very interesting comparison.
The Stieglitz certainly requires more thought and time for each image. The
exhibit also contained several Adams' prints which were spectacular, one of
posters on a corrogated metal wall and one of flowers against a burnt tree
trunk as well as the famous "Face of the Monolith".
To draw the musical analogy further: Ritts is something like
Rimsky-Korsakov, anyone can enjoy it, it's well executed, but more profound
things can be done with the medium. Stieglitz is like Bartok, it's
somewhat abstract, very rich in content but requires a more experienced
listener/viewer whose own involvement with the medium informs his/her
appreciation. Adams is (dare I say it) of almost Beethovenian importance.
His work can be truely moving to someone with no knowledge or preparation
but has enough depth (whatever that is) to satisfy all the sensibilities of
the expert.
Chuck Goodwin <cz...@sprynet.com> wrote in article
<32CB8D...@sprynet.com>...
nob...@nowhere.umd.edu
In article <199701020...@pgup.execpc.com>,
pet...@execpc.com (Peter Ray) wrote:
>
>> Herb Ritts has a huge retrospective going up in Bean town (Boston, MA,
>> for our international readers)
>>
>> Does he really deserve several LARGE (and I mean LARGE) rooms in a
>> prominent museum?
>
>
>their work as art because of commercial motivations. It used to be that
>only a few art photographers even rose to middle class income level, but
>now if you make the break to the point of museum/auction and thus
>collectable status, you can make a whole lot of money. That in turn
>drives and maintains their advertising/commercial value in that
>marketplace. I've heard him talk on a couple of TV shows about his
>greatness. I bet if you pinned him down and argued composition,
>aesthetic quality, etc., his end argument would be "yeah, but I made
>alot of money."
>
HR is not a "bad" photographer. The fact that he has done a lot of work for
commercial clients doesn't make him less of a photographer in my eyes - hey,
everybody's favorite art photographer, Ansel Adams, did commercial work. I
know a lot of artists and few would choose to be unpopular. The urge to create
seems to go hand in hand with the need to be seen. If the quality of
photography as shown in the recent winners of several "rising star" awards is
any indication, HR is well above average in scope and execution.
>I also think his celebrity status and friends is a powerful driving
>force for the curators and administrators at the museums.
>
Without a doubt. First you have large prints in various stars homes, then
somebody, probably the wife of some star who works part-time in a gallery,
says,"you must have a show!" Then, Hollywood being the media/commerce center
of the Universe, there is a show and a book. So what! Personal connectios
have always been very important in getting work shown.
>Another great example of a decent commercial photog who is milking the
>art thing to make money is Annie Leibowitz.
>
I'll go out on a limb and say that I don't much like HR's recent "art" work
any where as much as his earlier "commercial" work. I'll also say I see a
decline, steady and pronounced, in the quality of AL's work since her big
coffe-table book came out a few years ago.
>All of it is harmful to true creative artists.
This is a bit much. You don't have to starve to be an artist.
Bill
Marcus J. Ranum
Eugene Goodale
Martin Fouts wrote:
>
> Ritts bothers me. His craft is impeccable. His images are often very
> good, but more often boring. I've never been able to bring myself to
> buy any of his monographs. I could think of a long list of
> photographers I would put up in Boston before Ritts, but I guess his
> work is worth looking at.
>
> Someone who is near Boston should go and report back on the show.
I've seen the show twice and while I find some of his images
interesting, the whole thing comes off like an oversized copy
of Vogue magazine. His portrait of Christopher Reeve was
insulting.
The small Steiglitz exhibit running concurrently was more
interesting and worthy of attention. The MFA put on "the
Ritts" for the bucks.
Gene Goodale
cpt...@ici.net
Russ Campbell
I also have recently seen both the Stieglitz and Ritts show at the MFA
in Boston and basically agree with Joel though I would compare Ritts
more with John Williams, formerly of the Boston Pops.
Of note: included in the Stieglitz exhibit are notes made when some of
his photographs were originally submitted to the museum, with demands
that the matting remain as submitted and not changed to suit the
museum's specifications. His impassioned rationale was that the matting
was integral part of the whole piece.
In contrast, on venturing upstairs to the Ritts exhibit, I was greeted
by the large print of the summersaulting man (sort of the show's
trademark) and without trying very hard I noticed that the mounting job
was less than museum quality - the print was bubbling off in places!
Russ
--
Russ Campbell Photography| assignment/documentary/fine art photography
Chestnut Hill, MA |
617.965.8162 |
ru...@rcphoto.tiac.net | what's gonna set you free?
DKenn473
sounds rather self-serving to me. perhaps a bit of envy????
TMamatas
Every one of Herb Ritts' photos can used in some form of
advertisement, even his "artistic" ones, because they are lifeless,
insipid, and generic, and have no identity of their own that would assert
themselves to any viewer.
Adam
"Joel Bard" <ba...@fas.harvard.edu> writes: > I live near Boston and went the Herb Ritts exhibition last Saturday. I
I am starting to think more and more that the ability of an example of art work
to be understood by the average person is a good thing rather than a bad one. It
seems like the deeper and more abstract symbolism often fades into a sort of "emporers
new clothes" smoke screen for mediocre artist. No one is brave enough to say they
don't understand what an artist is getting at because they don't want to seem ignorant.
It is easy to think that a work of art is better for being able to confuse the ruck
of humanity, but I think in the end that art is supposed to be symbolic communication,
and that making yourself easily understood is by and large a virtue
Adam
Terry A. Smith
Peter Ray wrote:
>
> > Herb Ritts has a huge retrospective going up in Bean town (Boston, MA,
> > for our international readers)
> >
> > Does he really deserve several LARGE (and I mean LARGE) rooms in a
> > prominent museum?
>
> IMO, Ritts is a leading example of commercial photographers selling
> their work as art because of commercial motivations. It used to be that
> only a few art photographers even rose to middle class income level, but
> now if you make the break to the point of museum/auction and thus
> collectable status, you can make a whole lot of money. That in turn
> drives and maintains their advertising/commercial value in that
> marketplace. I've heard him talk on a couple of TV shows about his
> greatness. I bet if you pinned him down and argued composition,
> aesthetic quality, etc., his end argument would be "yeah, but I made
> alot of money."
>
> force for the curators and administrators at the museums.
>
> art thing to make money is Annie Leibowitz.
>
Welcome to the "art" world. This is no different than any other art
form. Painters have the same road to travel. They sell one painting
which hangs in a prominent persons room, someone else sees it, and
suddenly you're the nest Dali. It's all a popularity contest. It has
always been that way.
DKenn473
Is this what you feel is a requirement for "ad" photos? There is some
great photography bing done in the ad work. Look at Penn.
TMamatas
I like Penn's work (those platinum prints are GREAT), but he is an
exception to the rule; Penn happens to be an artist as well. His subject
matter is often fscinating. Not at all like Ritts, whose photos all seem
exactly the same to me. Besides, there is no comparing the two.
Vincent Chan
Eugene Goodale <cpt...@ici.net> wrote:
<snip>
>The small Steiglitz exhibit running concurrently was more
>interesting and worthy of attention. The MFA put on "the
>Ritts" for the bucks.
I was in Boston for a Conference in November and was supprised to see
all the advertisements for the Ritts exhibit. (banners all down
Boyston street) Obviously, the MFA was using the Ritts exhibit as a
main draw. When I was at the MFA, few people were at the Steiglitz
exhibit, while the Ritts exhibit was crowded.
Although I view it as a "good thing" that the Ritts exhibit got people
into the doors of the MFA, is it not a sad comentary that only the
popular and heavily advertised subjects get attention? Hopefully, a
few of the attendies took the time to view some of the other excellent
exhibits in the gallery.
Vincent Chan
University of Victoria vhc...@me.uvic.ca
Victoria, B.C., Canada http://www.engr.uvic.ca\~vhchan
HMDELMAN
Art is very personal. What appeals to one person will not appeal to
another. Many people love A. Adams's work and I would agree that his
printing is always excellent (and some of his photos are compositionally
excellent as well). However, he's not on my short list of photographers
who's work I'd like to own. I just am not moved by the work. I do,
however, like Ritts. To each his own. -Mark
David Bindle
In article <01bbf8f0$737c8340$ce6a...@jbard.harvard.edu> "Joel Bard" <ba...@fas.harvard.edu> writes:
>From: "Joel Bard" <ba...@fas.harvard.edu>
>Subject: Re: Herb Ritts
>Date: 2 Jan 1997 20:52:15 GMT
>To draw the musical analogy further: Ritts is something like
>Rimsky-Korsakov, anyone can enjoy it, it's well executed, but more profound
>things can be done with the medium. Stieglitz is like Bartok, it's
>somewhat abstract, very rich in content but requires a more experienced
>listener/viewer whose own involvement with the medium informs his/her
>appreciation. Adams is (dare I say it) of almost Beethovenian importance.
>His work can be truely moving to someone with no knowledge or preparation
>but has enough depth (whatever that is) to satisfy all the sensibilities of
>the expert.
>Joel
>ba...@fas.harvard.edu
To me... Ritts is more like John Williams... contempary classicists ... and
they both know what buttons to push... (but Williams is still way more
talented)
Ritts's real talent lies in marketing himself, and gaining access to celebs.
Yes.. his images are good, but by the year 2010 we'll look back and say...
"Remember the geeky 90's?" and those coffee table books will wind up in
garage sales. That's the way of glitter photography.
I have a book called "Photographs that changed the world". I don't see Herb
sneaking in to the 2nd volume.
I enjoy looking at his work, but it doesn't remain in my long term memory.
D.B.
Charles W Freeland
I went to a lecture given be Herb Ritts while I was in Camden Maine a
few years ago at the Center for Digital Imaging. I must say it was the
most disappointing lecture I've ever attended by a successful
photographer.
There is no questioning his eye for composition, but he actually did
not know what developer his processors used on his film, nor did he know
what paper his printers printed on or anything else about the processing
of his images after the shutter clicks. And considering the majority of
his highly recognizable style is due to the high contrast of his images,
I doubt he is to blame for his continued success.
According to his own account his start in photograpy (his first
published image was a magazine cover of Richard Geere) was a complete
and total accident resulting solely from his friendship with an an up
and coming actor.
But you must at least give him credit for being successful in a
business so many fail in.
Matt Tuley
In article <32D184...@Concentric.net> Charles W Freeland <F...@Concentric.net> writes:
> But you must at least give him credit for being successful in a
>business so many fail in.
Based on his apparently lucky break with Gere and that he apparently has no
idea how his images actually make it to print, it seems we have to give other
people credit for his success.
Matt Tuley
@zeus.jersey.net travglen
Yes, that's all well and good, but did he say how he got all those
supermodels to take off their cloths? Isn't that really the secret of his
success? I read an interview with him about one of his SI swimsuit issues,
and the grist of the conversation seemed to be about how he got Paulina to
take off her top. You do the same and you'll be famous too. Oh, also I
hear he's good to his dog.
Charles W Freeland <F...@Concentric.net> wrote in article
<32D184...@Concentric.net>...
Jeff Spirer
TMamatas wrote:
> about master printer Michael Karman, who printed for the likes of Helmut
> Newton, Nan Goldin, and Irving Penn. He and others like him are the reason
> certain photographers produce anything of value (though we know Penn can
> certainly find his way around a darkroom!)
This newsgroup seems to be becoming a bastion of intellectual fascism
around the concept of "art." Me, I would much rather see a terrible
print of a truly worthwhile (for me) photograph than a great print of a
photograph that I couldn't see any value in.
--
Jeff Spirer
http://www.hyperreal.com/axiom/
Axiom Records/Material Communications
TMamatas
IMHO, Ritts' photographs typify the way entertainment in general is
passed for "art" nowadays. Yes, when you first look at one of his photos,
you are impressed with the "look" of it. Soon, though (within ten seconds,
that is) you find that there doesn't seem to be any depth to it, no reason
to look other than to see the fine job the printer did. By the way, a long
time ago in the (sadly) now defunct Camera & Darkroom there was an article