So why do trendy fashion photographers take crappy shots?

Why do they take those shots and produce the stuff like that

http://derekhenderson.net/

He took pictures of Barbara Palvin and so he is no amateur. So why?

its inconsistent but there are some interesting shots

a trendy fashion photographer might get tired of taking trendy fashion pictures and point the camera somewhere else for a change

theres a plainspokenness to a lot of them, unhyped, unpretentious, that’s appealing

its inconsistent but there are some interesting shots

 

a trendy fashion photographer might get tired of taking trendy fashion pictures and point the camera somewhere else for a change

 

theres a plainspokenness to a lot of them, unhyped, unpretentious, that’s appealing

Gary, maybe photography is heading to what was a Black square by Malevich in paintig 100 years ago, is it? Maybe that's the neo primitivism... For instance, Julie Pike from Norway takes alike photos but she takes them for commercial purposes.

Why do they take those shots and produce the stuff like that

Nothing much to write without specific examples, reasons for thinking crappy etc. On the other hand, thanks for posting link to a good portfolio. Haven’t gone through all of them, but like what I see. Desolate rural landscapes, carefree living, non valuable everyday objects photographed with careful dedication, all are close to heart. I think his pictures work well as a series, like taking a stroll through a rural community or being out into an airy landscape, showing the theme(s) from multiple viewpoints, rather than trying to be clever or impress the viewer.

It’s interesting, in the slaughterhouse series, the photographer does not show any actual slaughter which would be dramatic, may be in an expected way. Rather, he focuses on the employees and photographs them with suggestive blood splatters, showing the somewhat gory underbelly of our food industry.

I wouldn’t dismiss the work as “crap”, it takes commitment and hard work to create a body of work, and I respect that. But the work isn’t particularly noteworthy either. It’s the kind of work that draws heavily and was popularised by contemporary fine art documentary photographers like Stephen Shore and Alec Soth (two photographers whose work is noteworthy). I see it as work that is equivalent in terms of significance when it comes to a personal style to that of a landscape photographer doing Ansel Adams type work or work that resembles what popular gallery type fine art work is "supposed to look like". It's work that checks off all the contemporary portrait / documentary fine art boxes in that sense. But that doesn’t mean there’s no skill or dedication involved.

 

Related question: why do armchair critics give such crappy critiques?

 

Your premise is also wrong. Why would photographing some model give you any more significance as a fashion photographer, so much so for it to mean that the photographer must therefore also be great in all other genres?

I see the first part of your response but don't understand the second. You sound offensive.

I was learning photography by Rodney Smith's, Brassai's, Peter Lindbergh's, Avedon's, Robert Doisneau's, Horst P. Horst's and Erwitt's works. I asked and received some positive critique from Rodney Smith in 2011 and I was published in National Geographic top dozen in 2012.

Let's get back to our sheep. As I can see, even starter, with no experience or a background, even a newbie to photography can shoot people like he does. It is difficult to replicate Avedon, Steve McCurry and R.Smith. As for Ansel Adams, he was a pioneer and worked so and so many years ago. (Analogy with ballet - then back in the days prima ballerinas didn't have modern technique, stretching, leap and instep curve as common Russian ballet dancers have now). So did photographers. But I do respect Adams and what he did.

A top notch photographer must be at least good if not top class at other genres. And photographing a top model of the world (from top 5) means a priori that the photographer is good. So we could distinct his works from newbies' ones.

And my last point: I don't see primitive works by modern photographers who work for Vogue or... Hasper's... there is certain stylization to primitivism but portraits are always good at least. Have a look at Leibovitz's works and you will see my point.

As for fashion, Derek Henderson is OK there and even more than OK.

Barbara Palvin Goes 'Super Natural' By Derek Henderson For Vogue Australia June 2015

All photographed and portrayed in that signature deadpan style (of an Alec Soth, who is the real deal). Today you'll find hundreds of identical portraits done by contemporary fine art / documentary / portrait photographers who seem to think that that's the style you're supposed to work in because they have seen it before hung on a gallery wall with just the right amount of irony and wit. But it's not clever anymore when it becomes just another copy of another copy. It's predictable and transparent no matter how sophisticated it appears to look. I'm not saying that it doesn't take work, skill, and commitment to do it, but it sure doesn't take any artistic vision.

In the last 150 years, so many different styles and poses have been tried in human portraiture, that theres a fair chance of your photo resembling someone else's style (unless you are highly and even deliberately unconventional). Although originality is definitely a factor, I don't asses the merit of a portrait just based on that. I also question whether I can emotionally connect with the photo, and that is often based on how appropriately the style chosen by the photographer does justice to the subject. In this case, the entire slaughterhouse series was shot with subjects facing the camera standing straight, and I think that worked for this series. He uses different styles to represent people in his other folders, not just this style. Also, the poses are far from 'deadpan'! Many of them are tilting their heads, some are smiling, or showing signs of, so they are not really expressionless. It seems to me, that he just let them pose whichever way they liked. These are regular human beings who happen to be employed in the job of slaughtering animals and are an important part of our society.

ah but there is disputing taste. a good way to learn to see better is to have people dispute your taste, have those people give good reasons. if your open to listening and seeing differently, voila, your own taste changes and develops - all because it was disputed.

taste is too often used as an excuse to remain comfortable, familiar, stagnant and hold fast to the past. a good taste dispute can move someone forward, change us, open new horizons.

i’m Thankful to different artists and friends who’ve challenged my taste over the years. they didn’t view my taste as something i owned. it was sometimes something i was stuck in and needed to be shaken out of.

No one develops taste in the creative process. You either have it or you don't. The ones that are so good that they show they have taste took thousands of stinkers and culled through the best to present to the pubic. They act as their own curator (a very valuable skill). Some photographers are their own worst curator and they show it in what they present to the public in their galleries which may look like crap but that doesn't mean they don't have a unique vision going by what didn't make the cut sitting on their hard drive hidden from public view.

A couple of weeks ago I browsed a LuLa off topic thread on "Show Us Your Best Photo" and all I could surmise from what was posted by even seasoned pro's pretty much supports my point they were all their own worst curator. There was no way those images were their best.

The OP should write Anna Wintour immediately with their concerns about the crap dripping from the Vogue September issue pages.

I have several US Vogue magazines and I haven't seen any so much crappy stuff there. First of all the topic is about maori teens portrait series. They just don't work for me.

part of creativity is taking the risk to reject or defy current good tastes

Then that creative person is just spit balling it leaving that person's decision making and intent unclear on what form of good taste is being defied. The finished work registers that message or it doesn't. When it doesn't, taste doesn't matter and neither does the creator. There has to be some intelligence conveyed in a created piece of work even if it defies intelligent thought and intent.

Can someone smartly create something stupid? Comedians and satirists make a good living doing just that.

I believe the OP is trying to express an opinion about the photographer's work in question as "Polished Mediocrity". He just might be having a hard time finding the right words to express it.

part of creativity is taking the risk to reject or defy current good tastes

Yes, yes and yes.

I like to see some stuff at the contest of Italian Vogue for amateurs. I like the amount of humour the most photos were taken with.

PhotoVogue - Vogue

I wouldn’t dismiss the work as “crap”, it takes commitment and hard work to create a body of work, and I respect that. But the work isn’t particularly noteworthy either. It’s the kind of work that draws heavily and was popularised by contemporary fine art documentary photographers like Stephen Shore and Alec Soth (two photographers whose work is noteworthy).

I agree. But I think there’s another differentiating factor in this comparison. Even Shore’s simplest work oozes the highest level of technical excellence, which I don’t feel when I look at Henderson’s non-fashion portfolio. I get that “wow!” feeling from people like Adams and Nick Nichols too - their excellence is “greater than the sum of its parts” . Sure, the numbers are right for all fine photographers. But they add up differently for some than for most.

Some of our great and more famous photographers - Adams, Weston, Shore, Eggleston, Bresson - set high technical or artistic standards. I don’t expect other photographers to meet those standards. That way I appreciate different people at all levels of photography. If I judged everyone against Brassai or Steichen or Stieglitz, it would be hard to enjoy a lot of lesser-known photographers doing interesting work. I don’t judge photos by universal standards.

No question about it - but that high level of excellence can make those photos stand out from otherwise similar work that lacks it. While artistic excellence and wonderful composition of a poignant visual statement can transcend some technical compromise, technical perfection can’t make the good great.

Having said that, I favor content over technical perfection for my own enjoyment when the two are out of balance. But I can’t understand why some excellent photographers don’t pursue technical improvement if they’re satisfied with their art. Those who don’t want to or can’t do it themselves might consider getting help with editing, printing etc. Great art is beautiful, but great art well executed is even more so to me.