Edward Steichen

It seems that whenever inspiration fails you, all you need to do is look back. People often talk of things not being as good today as they were in the past. I don't know how true that is, maybe we are just inclined to put a rose-tinted perspective on the past and things in the past weren't necessarily better, just different. Nevertheless, it is interesting to look at how life, fashion par exemple was compared to now. Before popular culture invaded life in the sixties, people really seemed to know how to dress. Hollywood cinema of the thirties wasn't called the Golden Age for nothing, it was glamour in the true sense of the word and not the page 3 kind that exists now. Anna Wintour reckons fashion is about going forward, and in a sense she is right but that doesn't mean we can't take a little slice of the past with us and mix it up to create something contemporary.

Anyway, all this rambling does have a point. I came across the photographer Edward Steichen, a name I think I've come across before but actually really looked at recently (today!). He began his career in fashion photography in the early 1900's in Paris and became the photographer of Paul Poiret's collection. However he was more interested in fine art photography. It wasn't until the 1920's and a meeting with Frank Crowninshield, editor of Vanity Fair, and Conde Nast that he was offerered job as chief photographer for Vanity Fair and his career as fashion photographer restarted.

His photographs capture that whole glamourous side of life that is often associated with the twenties and thirties. He photographed a number of actresses at the time including Gloria Swanson, Greta Garbo and Joan Crawford. Although clearly placed within their time I think they are as interesting and inspirational as ever...you can see his influence in fashion photography today, and I think setting the style of modern day Vanity Fair fashion editorials.

An example of his fine art photography

Thanks to Smithsonian for some of the images and information

Perry Curties

Todays photography post comes courtesy of Perry Curties. After attending art college, to pursue his interest in abstract painting he became interested in photography. He worked with high profile photographers, after graduating, in both London and New York. His fantastic ability to use lighting and subtle post production combined with strong narrative themes has led to him being highly regarded. He launched my favourite magazine 125 in 2001 which showcases the work of emerging and established contemporary artists. He has also worked on a number of film posters including Kidulthood as well as other clients such as BBC, Hardy Amies and Italian Vanity Fair.

For more information click here.

Image Credit: 125 magazine on http://theofficelondon.com

A Picture Says A Thousand Words

I'm a bit short on words after a crazily busy weekend at a wedding so thought I'd just share some pictures I like. Its a bit of a mixed bag featuring fashion photography from Cecil Beaton, Lee Miller, a Vanity Fair shoot featuring Emily Blunt and a dress designed by Manish Arora which was later worn by Katy Perry....



I love how fresh the first image is by Cecil Beaton, showcasing Dior's new look from the fifties and how that style is still used today...there are so many similarities between this image and the Vanity Fair image. His influence on fashion photography is huge. I absolutely adore fashion from the 1920's and fifties...both decades were so elegant. It was a time when people really dressed up.

I love how fun the Manish Arora dress is...the detail that has gone into it is amazing. I love it when fashion branches into art. Like the scuptural shoes that have featured for the past few seasons...totally unwearable in reality but absolutely brilliant all the same. I don't think fashion should be just about practicalities.

I'm wondering if anyone can help me...there is a photo, I think it was in Vogue during the second world war of a model standing in the middle of bombed London. I can't think who did it but I know its really famous. If anyone can jog my memory that would be amazing!

Hope you've all had a good weekend :)

Fashion Photography

More to remind me for next time really, but to get some of your ideas and comments before I write this post, as its late and I'm beyond shattered (and have had a few tequila sunrises!)...but what would you class as fashion photography?

*

Ok, now I'm more awake I'm going to attempt to answer my own question. If this post comes across as a little academic or whatever, my apologies but I think it is interesting to consider. The wonderful resource that is wikipedia defines fashion photography as "a genre of photography devoted to displaying clothing and other fashion items...enhanced by exotic locations or storylines."

Generally our ideas of fashion photography, or maybe just mine, involve glamourous clothing...something that represents a lifestyle just beyond our reach, a fantasy or dream. Yet some photographers, for example Corinne Day have thrown this idea out and redefined that view. Her style is touching on an almost documentary look, which leads us to question whether it could be considered fashion photography at all. One example is a shoot for Vogue in 1993, involving Kate Moss in her own flat.




At the time this style caused quite a stir. The almost voyeuristic feel to these photographs...fly on the wall documentary if you like, takes a step back from the typical photoshoots that people were used. The fact that these were featured in Vogue, usually a traditional magazine that has quite a defined, classic and high end style also adds to the shock factor. I would never have thought that these images were in Vogue, and have the feel of more edgier magazines of the time such as The Face. Would you consider these images to be fashion photography? All Kate Moss is wearing is a vest and underwear, which I don't think were particularly designerish, just plain. The images are simple, everyday, maybe even to the point of mundane. So what makes them fashion photography as much as the image below?


All three images are classed as fashion photography...they show the clothes the model is wearing in one context or another. Although fashion photography was traditionally used as a sales tool, I think fashion photography has moved away from this idea and now its more about selling a lifestyle. I don't think it is just about selling either, but also to do with the meaning created within the image. Fashion isn't just about amazing clothes with a very nice price tag, its about identity and clothes do create or contribute to identity. The Corinne Day photographs tell the story about just an everyday person, and the clothes they way help convey this meaning. If fashion is about clothes then the clothes in this image are key to the meaning produced in this image, just as much as the Vanity Fair (January 07) shoot does.

I think the definition or boundaries of fashion photography are broadening with time. The street style images on lookbook.nu are fashion photography as much as a Mario Testino fashion story for Vogue is fashion photography. Whether you are wearing Primark or Prada, if there is a message being produced in that image it is fashion photography.

What do you think? Also if your into the theoretical side of fashion I highly recommend the book Fashion Spreads: Word and Image in Fashion Photography by Paul Jobling. It is such a good book..check it out on amazon!