I no longer subscribe to Vanity Fair but when I did, for many decades, I could pick out a Leibovitz spread without even seeing her name attached. Her photography was, and probably still is, breathtaking. And singular.
I didn't know she was looked down on that way. Very disappointing. She deserves to be way up there with so many other remarkable photographers.
Thank you for saying what I've wanted to say for so long. She has been an inspiration to me for my entire career. Her images are iconic and beautiful. There will always be those who have a myopic view of photography and other forms of art. Her work speaks for itself.
As you say, "her work speaks for itself," and there's no escaping that her work does very much denote a commercial aesthetic- that's not being "myopic," it's simply being... honest. You enjoy and aspire to it- fine, others like myself may prefer her previous b&w pj work, in which few could compete with. Her switch to color decades ago also accompanied her change to a much more commercial aesthetic. That's not a judgement, it's simply a statement of fact. And when photographing celebrities, one can often choose to downplay that significance and seek to reveal something else (as often the case of her earlier B&W work), or revel and exalt in it (rather than say something about the cult of celebrity itself). Her color portraits are outright celebrations of celebrity, often tailoring a laundry list of gimmicks to accentuate the particular celebrity status of the individual photographed. That, no doubt, requires a very specific skill set, which is what she is paid for- to make them look good and have their fans pay money. That is what commercial photography is about, and few would say she does not excel at what she does. But to then get defensive about the obvious commerciality of her work is a tad ludicrous.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. My initial reaction was “Who’s getting defensive?!?” Then I reread my title...
I would add on to say it seems to me her commercialism is more frequently used as a cudgel against her in a way it is not for other artists. And that while certainly some (much?) of her work seems purely commercial, maybe even cynically so, much of it is not. And I think it’s easy to see the headline shots and miss the other stuff. Anyway, thanks for reading.
Point taken; it's also curious that it's hard to recall another photographer whose commercial work has so often been displayed and promoted as 'art' photography in galleries, books and general discussion... Helmut Newton!
I worked for Annie in the late-80's and learned valuable lessons for her. She was tough but for a reason. The most valuable thing I learned from watching her work was to come away with the photograph, no excuses, every time. Failure was not an option. She reminded me of seeing a musician live. You like their recorded work but then you see the raw talent, the energy, the charisma, the effortless movement from genre to genre, the improvisation that cannot be captured in a recording. Annie, in the studio or on location, is the real deal. Watching her work, I came away knowing on what level I'd have to work.
Thank you so much for your comment. You have verified what I believed/hoped to be true. That “effortless movement from genre to genre” is incredibly impressive to me.
Annie Leibovitz is still at the top of her art...and female. Those are great reasons for jealousy, evident in snarky criticism. Art criticism can be positive and interesting; it doesn't need to belittle.
Viola Davis is a creative force of nature, and Liebowitz has chosen to portray her in a way that makes her look like a prisoner or a slave gazing out of a dungeon.
I'd like to see Bezos and his plus-one booted out of frame, and Ms. Davis behind the wheel of that pick-up.
If you don’t think the great Viola Davis had some say in the look of the Liebovitz’s portrait you are sadly mistaken as to the nature of how the business of A-level celebrity editorial portraiture works
Great article! Annie Leibovitz's work, being public, is subject to everyone's opinion, from experts to laypeople. Her style is instantly recognizable, but, as with any master, there are times when she might overdo things and face some criticism. In the world of critique, one has to clearly state their stance, whether positive or negative. This distinguishes constructive criticism from merely throwing darts.
Annie is one of the greats and an icon, no discussion possible. People who criticize her have not spent any time exploring her work. If you delete Annie from the history of photography we lose many, many historically important and stunning photos. Even these Bezos photos will go down in history and will be remembered if only for the conversations they have started. People underestimate Annie and her intentions.
You're either famous (Dennis Hopper, Jeff Bridges) and then pick up a camera and people are interested in your photography, or you photograph famous people (every celebrity in all disciplines).
Many of Annie's photographs are good, but part of what makes them good is that they are of recognizable people, which most people will accept in any form. Avedon was called a large-format passport photo photographer with his white background, but his subjects were well-known. Celebrities automatically increase the value of a photograph. And Annie is good at coming up with a clever idea and getting creatives to execute it for her--think of Clint Eastwood tied up in ropes on a dusty set. Most IBM executives will not do anything outside of the norm so that they don't look silly.
The NY Times I subscribe to and expect great things from. But they recently did a profile of a longtime celebrity rock and roll photographer Henry Diltz, and I find the photographs of him terrible. But perhaps the art director was going for edgy. I don't know. I just know I don't like them. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/arts/music/henry-diltz.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-Uw.a2bV.EL2eU369iDva&smid=url-share - If the photos were of someone famous instead of someone who photographed the famous, perhaps they would be more acceptable.
A photo of a fat man is just a photo of a fat man. But a photo of Hitchcock is a photo of Hitchcock--I know him! The connection to knowing who it is is what makes it a winner.
I like Annie's work, but this photo of Bezos and his wife, their eyes are dead--there's no catchlight--and I think a bit more light would have made it more stylized and a better photograph for a magazine like Vogue.
I think we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the nature of her abilities. I would argue that her photos contain celebrities as a consequence of her ability, not as the cause for it. But I appreciate you adding to the discussion!
I am not sure about the value of what I am going to say but there is a persistent feeling whenever I look at Annie Leibowitz's work that it just doesn't quite cut it for me. There is no question in my mind that she qualifies as a good commercial and/or editorial photographer, that she knows her stuff and that she delivers for her clients. Sure, she has some great shots, as we all do; but that's not enough. The difference for me is that a really good photographer gets lost in what is being seen, whereas a true photographer gets lost in the seeing itself. And while I am not sure about the value of what I just said, it's meaning is quite clear to me and that's all I can say of any relevance as to whether Annie Leibowitz "is one of our great American photographers". Or not. Personally, I don't think so.
Regarding Erwitt’s opinion, keep in mind that when Cartier-Bresson used to repeatedly chide Erwitt for taking advertising, public relations, and annual report assignments- in other words for being a commercial photographer- Erwitt’s responded “Henri, some of us have to make a living.”
Although I don’t know the context, maybe The late Mr. Erwitt saying Liebovitz is “a good commercial photographer,” was actually a compliment.
I loved your article - I don't like Leibovitz and to call her the greatest photographer of all times is hyperbole - but hey it got me reading the article. I realized that the reasons I don't like her are not for her photography but for her as a person. Living like the rich and famous that she was photographing was her downfall. Living with Susan Sontag is another sore point as I can't stand SS. So. your article got me to thinking more critically about THE photography not the person and for that I thank you
Thanks for reading, and for your comment. My goal was to incite more thoughtful consideration of her photography, so I’m glad it worked. One point of clarification, if I may: “one of the greatest,” which I wrote, is very different from “the greatest,” which I didn’t. And “one of” leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Top five? Maybe not. Top 50? Maybe.
Very well said, she started at the bottom and worked her way up, deserving of her place at the top. Though not always a fan, I find there are those images that make me look and respect her work. Always a consummate craftsman and artist.
Really enjoyed reading this post and all the commentary. Thank you for sharing. It’s given me much to think about. I started an 8 month photography training program in September and we recently started working on portraits.
And I’m glad you included the John Lennon and Yoko Ono photo- I had forgotten that was hers. To me that image is really ingrained in my mind as illustrating or defining him and their relationship.
Thanks for this post. I've truly been thinking about Annie's work—and how I feel about it—all day since reading this. I think in some ways it is hard to separate her work in the 80s and early 90s from the politics and the economics of that time period. I think her photographs—especially the portraits she made for Vanity Fair when Tina Brown was at the helm—came to represent a sort of celebrity and a sort of wealth that we don't look back at fondly. That isn't a criticism of Leibovitz's work, just a comment on how bound up it is with celebrity and as a result, money. I think that is one reason the Bezos photos strike such a negative cord with people. (Also just because Bezos.)
In the 90s Susan Sontag challenged Leibovitz to push beyond that kind of work. I believe, for example, they travelled to Sarajevo together and Leibovitz took photographs. She also clearly went through a phase of more personal documentary work, perhaps inspired by photographers like Nan Goldin or Larry Clark. That work is interesting, if a little boring (I don't think it came naturally to her). You can see her trying things out. Exploring.
In her book A Photographer's Life it is clear how important Sontag was to Leibovitz—nearly half the book is made up of portraits of her. I think one way of reading her work since then is that she completely turned away from the kinds of photography that Sontag challenged her to make, perhaps because of how strongly she felt Sontag's loss.
It's an unfortunate coincidence that this correlated with the mass shift from film to digital—a shift I think Leibovitz struggled with. In one of her books, she talks about the use of underexposure in some of her film work—a series of closeups of bodies, for instance. I always got the sense that when she moved from film to digital she tried to work the same way, but the effect is quite different with digital. Some of her work from this period is quite simply underexposed. This is, in part, why she has struggled to light people of colour. (As an aside, I think your point a out Vogue not hiring a diversity of photographers is a good one. It's shameful that it took until Tyler Mitchell for a Black photographer to get to shoot a Vogue cover—and even then only at Beyonce's insistence. All that said, I don't think Leibovitz can just be let off the hook—some of her portraits of people of colour are bad.)
I also think she overused composite imaging. In certain photos—I'm remembering a portrait of Judy Dench and Helen Mirren in a car—the subjects are so clearly not in the same room together. Leibovitz has admitted as much. In a way I think this gets to one of the challenges in her work—it feels a bit too dramatic now, almost false (which I think it's back to the economics of the 80s). And in some cases—her photo of the Queen, for example, which was done on a green screen—it actually is false.
Leibovitz, to my knowledge, also had financial issues around this time. This could also contribute to her shift toward dependable, reliable work.
I interned in NY for a hot minute and stories about Leibovitz were often floating around. They painted a complicated picture—and who knows how many of them were true.
I used to love Leibovitz's work. I found her portraits simple and captivating. I don't think much about her current work either way (until today). More than anything now, I see her as someone who takes highly dramatized environmental portraits. There's nothing wrong with that. And it doesn't undo the power and the cultural relevance of her body of work. I just don't think it interests me as much as her work used to.
Thanks again for this post. I pulled a couple of books off the shelf and did some real reflecting on her work. Truly appreciated.
Thanks so much for this. I think your point about some of the digital compositing making images look “false” is well made, and I largely agree.
It’s interesting regarding the underexposure. Often I find myself seeing this, in her work and elsewhere, and thinking I don’t have the guts to go for that. I’m not brave enough. And while I don’t always like it, I think I can appreciate what it represents.
If you're interested Teju Cole has a great essay about Roy DeCarava and his use of underexposure—along with certain printing techniques—to say something quite powerful. It's a great read.
I no longer subscribe to Vanity Fair but when I did, for many decades, I could pick out a Leibovitz spread without even seeing her name attached. Her photography was, and probably still is, breathtaking. And singular.
I didn't know she was looked down on that way. Very disappointing. She deserves to be way up there with so many other remarkable photographers.
Thank you for saying what I've wanted to say for so long. She has been an inspiration to me for my entire career. Her images are iconic and beautiful. There will always be those who have a myopic view of photography and other forms of art. Her work speaks for itself.
As you say, "her work speaks for itself," and there's no escaping that her work does very much denote a commercial aesthetic- that's not being "myopic," it's simply being... honest. You enjoy and aspire to it- fine, others like myself may prefer her previous b&w pj work, in which few could compete with. Her switch to color decades ago also accompanied her change to a much more commercial aesthetic. That's not a judgement, it's simply a statement of fact. And when photographing celebrities, one can often choose to downplay that significance and seek to reveal something else (as often the case of her earlier B&W work), or revel and exalt in it (rather than say something about the cult of celebrity itself). Her color portraits are outright celebrations of celebrity, often tailoring a laundry list of gimmicks to accentuate the particular celebrity status of the individual photographed. That, no doubt, requires a very specific skill set, which is what she is paid for- to make them look good and have their fans pay money. That is what commercial photography is about, and few would say she does not excel at what she does. But to then get defensive about the obvious commerciality of her work is a tad ludicrous.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. My initial reaction was “Who’s getting defensive?!?” Then I reread my title...
I would add on to say it seems to me her commercialism is more frequently used as a cudgel against her in a way it is not for other artists. And that while certainly some (much?) of her work seems purely commercial, maybe even cynically so, much of it is not. And I think it’s easy to see the headline shots and miss the other stuff. Anyway, thanks for reading.
Point taken; it's also curious that it's hard to recall another photographer whose commercial work has so often been displayed and promoted as 'art' photography in galleries, books and general discussion... Helmut Newton!
Great post, Bill — Thank you!
I worked for Annie in the late-80's and learned valuable lessons for her. She was tough but for a reason. The most valuable thing I learned from watching her work was to come away with the photograph, no excuses, every time. Failure was not an option. She reminded me of seeing a musician live. You like their recorded work but then you see the raw talent, the energy, the charisma, the effortless movement from genre to genre, the improvisation that cannot be captured in a recording. Annie, in the studio or on location, is the real deal. Watching her work, I came away knowing on what level I'd have to work.
Thank you so much for your comment. You have verified what I believed/hoped to be true. That “effortless movement from genre to genre” is incredibly impressive to me.
Truly enjoyed the essay.
Annie Leibovitz is still at the top of her art...and female. Those are great reasons for jealousy, evident in snarky criticism. Art criticism can be positive and interesting; it doesn't need to belittle.
I reread what I wrote -- Bill, I was not referring to you, but to those to whom you refer. Thank you for your post.
No worries, but thank you for clarifying!
Viola Davis is a creative force of nature, and Liebowitz has chosen to portray her in a way that makes her look like a prisoner or a slave gazing out of a dungeon.
I'd like to see Bezos and his plus-one booted out of frame, and Ms. Davis behind the wheel of that pick-up.
If you don’t think the great Viola Davis had some say in the look of the Liebovitz’s portrait you are sadly mistaken as to the nature of how the business of A-level celebrity editorial portraiture works
Great article! Annie Leibovitz's work, being public, is subject to everyone's opinion, from experts to laypeople. Her style is instantly recognizable, but, as with any master, there are times when she might overdo things and face some criticism. In the world of critique, one has to clearly state their stance, whether positive or negative. This distinguishes constructive criticism from merely throwing darts.
Annie is one of the greats and an icon, no discussion possible. People who criticize her have not spent any time exploring her work. If you delete Annie from the history of photography we lose many, many historically important and stunning photos. Even these Bezos photos will go down in history and will be remembered if only for the conversations they have started. People underestimate Annie and her intentions.
You're either famous (Dennis Hopper, Jeff Bridges) and then pick up a camera and people are interested in your photography, or you photograph famous people (every celebrity in all disciplines).
Many of Annie's photographs are good, but part of what makes them good is that they are of recognizable people, which most people will accept in any form. Avedon was called a large-format passport photo photographer with his white background, but his subjects were well-known. Celebrities automatically increase the value of a photograph. And Annie is good at coming up with a clever idea and getting creatives to execute it for her--think of Clint Eastwood tied up in ropes on a dusty set. Most IBM executives will not do anything outside of the norm so that they don't look silly.
The NY Times I subscribe to and expect great things from. But they recently did a profile of a longtime celebrity rock and roll photographer Henry Diltz, and I find the photographs of him terrible. But perhaps the art director was going for edgy. I don't know. I just know I don't like them. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/arts/music/henry-diltz.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-Uw.a2bV.EL2eU369iDva&smid=url-share - If the photos were of someone famous instead of someone who photographed the famous, perhaps they would be more acceptable.
A photo of a fat man is just a photo of a fat man. But a photo of Hitchcock is a photo of Hitchcock--I know him! The connection to knowing who it is is what makes it a winner.
I may not like the lead photo of Michelle Williams in this NY Times story, but they are probably looking for something different and actors will give it to them. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/04/movies/michelle-williams-fabelmans.html?unlocked_article_code=1._Uw.szQR.nv0fS0mT2PiL&smid=url-share
I like Annie's work, but this photo of Bezos and his wife, their eyes are dead--there's no catchlight--and I think a bit more light would have made it more stylized and a better photograph for a magazine like Vogue.
I think we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the nature of her abilities. I would argue that her photos contain celebrities as a consequence of her ability, not as the cause for it. But I appreciate you adding to the discussion!
I am not sure about the value of what I am going to say but there is a persistent feeling whenever I look at Annie Leibowitz's work that it just doesn't quite cut it for me. There is no question in my mind that she qualifies as a good commercial and/or editorial photographer, that she knows her stuff and that she delivers for her clients. Sure, she has some great shots, as we all do; but that's not enough. The difference for me is that a really good photographer gets lost in what is being seen, whereas a true photographer gets lost in the seeing itself. And while I am not sure about the value of what I just said, it's meaning is quite clear to me and that's all I can say of any relevance as to whether Annie Leibowitz "is one of our great American photographers". Or not. Personally, I don't think so.
Regarding Erwitt’s opinion, keep in mind that when Cartier-Bresson used to repeatedly chide Erwitt for taking advertising, public relations, and annual report assignments- in other words for being a commercial photographer- Erwitt’s responded “Henri, some of us have to make a living.”
Although I don’t know the context, maybe The late Mr. Erwitt saying Liebovitz is “a good commercial photographer,” was actually a compliment.
I loved your article - I don't like Leibovitz and to call her the greatest photographer of all times is hyperbole - but hey it got me reading the article. I realized that the reasons I don't like her are not for her photography but for her as a person. Living like the rich and famous that she was photographing was her downfall. Living with Susan Sontag is another sore point as I can't stand SS. So. your article got me to thinking more critically about THE photography not the person and for that I thank you
Thanks for reading, and for your comment. My goal was to incite more thoughtful consideration of her photography, so I’m glad it worked. One point of clarification, if I may: “one of the greatest,” which I wrote, is very different from “the greatest,” which I didn’t. And “one of” leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Top five? Maybe not. Top 50? Maybe.
Very well said, she started at the bottom and worked her way up, deserving of her place at the top. Though not always a fan, I find there are those images that make me look and respect her work. Always a consummate craftsman and artist.
Really enjoyed reading this post and all the commentary. Thank you for sharing. It’s given me much to think about. I started an 8 month photography training program in September and we recently started working on portraits.
And I’m glad you included the John Lennon and Yoko Ono photo- I had forgotten that was hers. To me that image is really ingrained in my mind as illustrating or defining him and their relationship.
Bill,
My Annie fandom goes back to the mid/late 70s, when, as a teenager, I bought Rolling Stone to see her work.
She's one of the reasons I became a photographer ...
Great post, thank you.
Thanks for this post. I've truly been thinking about Annie's work—and how I feel about it—all day since reading this. I think in some ways it is hard to separate her work in the 80s and early 90s from the politics and the economics of that time period. I think her photographs—especially the portraits she made for Vanity Fair when Tina Brown was at the helm—came to represent a sort of celebrity and a sort of wealth that we don't look back at fondly. That isn't a criticism of Leibovitz's work, just a comment on how bound up it is with celebrity and as a result, money. I think that is one reason the Bezos photos strike such a negative cord with people. (Also just because Bezos.)
In the 90s Susan Sontag challenged Leibovitz to push beyond that kind of work. I believe, for example, they travelled to Sarajevo together and Leibovitz took photographs. She also clearly went through a phase of more personal documentary work, perhaps inspired by photographers like Nan Goldin or Larry Clark. That work is interesting, if a little boring (I don't think it came naturally to her). You can see her trying things out. Exploring.
In her book A Photographer's Life it is clear how important Sontag was to Leibovitz—nearly half the book is made up of portraits of her. I think one way of reading her work since then is that she completely turned away from the kinds of photography that Sontag challenged her to make, perhaps because of how strongly she felt Sontag's loss.
It's an unfortunate coincidence that this correlated with the mass shift from film to digital—a shift I think Leibovitz struggled with. In one of her books, she talks about the use of underexposure in some of her film work—a series of closeups of bodies, for instance. I always got the sense that when she moved from film to digital she tried to work the same way, but the effect is quite different with digital. Some of her work from this period is quite simply underexposed. This is, in part, why she has struggled to light people of colour. (As an aside, I think your point a out Vogue not hiring a diversity of photographers is a good one. It's shameful that it took until Tyler Mitchell for a Black photographer to get to shoot a Vogue cover—and even then only at Beyonce's insistence. All that said, I don't think Leibovitz can just be let off the hook—some of her portraits of people of colour are bad.)
I also think she overused composite imaging. In certain photos—I'm remembering a portrait of Judy Dench and Helen Mirren in a car—the subjects are so clearly not in the same room together. Leibovitz has admitted as much. In a way I think this gets to one of the challenges in her work—it feels a bit too dramatic now, almost false (which I think it's back to the economics of the 80s). And in some cases—her photo of the Queen, for example, which was done on a green screen—it actually is false.
Leibovitz, to my knowledge, also had financial issues around this time. This could also contribute to her shift toward dependable, reliable work.
I interned in NY for a hot minute and stories about Leibovitz were often floating around. They painted a complicated picture—and who knows how many of them were true.
I used to love Leibovitz's work. I found her portraits simple and captivating. I don't think much about her current work either way (until today). More than anything now, I see her as someone who takes highly dramatized environmental portraits. There's nothing wrong with that. And it doesn't undo the power and the cultural relevance of her body of work. I just don't think it interests me as much as her work used to.
Thanks again for this post. I pulled a couple of books off the shelf and did some real reflecting on her work. Truly appreciated.
Thanks so much for this. I think your point about some of the digital compositing making images look “false” is well made, and I largely agree.
It’s interesting regarding the underexposure. Often I find myself seeing this, in her work and elsewhere, and thinking I don’t have the guts to go for that. I’m not brave enough. And while I don’t always like it, I think I can appreciate what it represents.
If you're interested Teju Cole has a great essay about Roy DeCarava and his use of underexposure—along with certain printing techniques—to say something quite powerful. It's a great read.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/magazine/a-true-picture-of-black-skin.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
Thank you, I will check it out.