« Ain't Any '-mercial,' Just Info | Main | The Sony A900: Beauty Is As Beauty Does »

Monday, 03 November 2008


Interesting take on the 'controversy' over the edited video footage.

Living on this side of the pond [Ireland] I can tell you I caught NO reference to crass American photographers vis-a-vis the Queen of England. A little bit of over-sensitivity perhaps? (There was much more of a stink when the then Australian premier put his arm around her.)

What I find more interesting and would love to see Ms. Leibowitz comment on is how on earth could she be over 715,000 in debt?

Vanity Fair pays her TWO MILLION a year

short blurb on this here



That's the 'impartial' BBC for ya! During the miners trike in the UK in 84, there was a 'confrontation' between police and strikers outside the Orgreave coking plant.

BBC TV news that night showed miners throwing rocks at the police line which then seemingly retaliated by parting their lines letting police on horseback charged at the miners.

In reality, the opposite happened: the police charged the miners on horseback and some amoung the crowd threw stones as a means of self defence.

It's all in the edit, you see. By the time the film reached London, the clips had been transposed.

I thought the article was going to be about how manipulated the photos look, but that doesn't get a mention. Apart from the over processing, the posing & locations of the photos are banal attempts to copy some idea of classical portraiture.

Note to Paul McCann - Australia has a Prime Minister, not a Premier.

"That was interesting enough, I think, and they had to go and make something else up."

I look at the second portrait and think the very same.

It was headline news in the UK and it reminded me of the famous shot that Frank Hurley took of Shackleton returning to rescue his men from Elephant Island. Frank Hurley never let the truth get in the way of a good story. It was actually a shot of Shakleton leaving


715,000 in debt doesn't seem like that much for someone who makes 2 million a year. The article Tom referenced indicated that she was bankrupt. Why? She should be able to pay that down fairly easily in a year or two.

Right, for someone like her that's more in the nature of a cash-flow problem.

Mike J.

I always get a big kick out of rich people who go broke. You just want to grab them by the ears and slap them around a little, don't you (figuratively speaking, of course, I don't want to be sued for inciting violence) ?

I have personaly seen this happen to friends and family and it's astonishing. In my case, I have even had to listen to them whine, as if what happened was an accident.

A friend who was involuntarily unemployed for a long time said it best, "It's not what you earn, it's what you spend."

Just one thing about the Queen. Although I grew up and live in Canada, I feel no particular allegiance to the Britich monarchy. But, you have to say one thing for her, she has a lot of dignity compared to most of the rifraff who pass as world leaders.

Interesting, albeit very predictable, reactions thus far.

Leibovitz, and her handlers, clearly timed her belated remarks concerning this non-issue to create free promotion for her show in London (http://www.npg.org.uk/annieleibovitz/index.htm) and sales of her book(s). And the photo "bloggers" (yes, like Mike) not only took the bait but are making meals of it by feeding the snipers.

Well, hey, they don't let just anybody be $715,000 in debt, you know.

Mike J.

Hi Mike,
from an Australian living in China, having just watched McCain's gracious concession speech and Obama's victory speech, just wanna say Congratulations!
Woo hoo! (that's Chinese for "job well done")

you spelled 'leibovitz' wrong.

honestly, i cannot see where the venom concerning ms leibovitz is coming from, unless it is jealousy, pure and simple. comments on her solvency? please.

i am familiar with her habit of looking to other artworks for inspiration. i understand the reactions of many people who look at her photos and see... the person in them, so full of the character for which they are famous that it appears any moron with a camera could take a photo of them just as powerful. but doesn't this simply show that she is damn good at what she does? the special status of photography in the arts is that it depends directly upon something else out there, in the world, for its existence. part of her genius lies in giving her viewers an experience of unmediated connection to her subjects. it is rather misguided to then turn around an accuse her of insufficient art, or some such.

and i don't even particularly *like* her work, but i do respect it, and i recognize that it doesn't just happen by itself--it really is work.

Read this story about Jane Bown photographing the Queen on her 80th birthday -> http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2006/apr/02/featuresreview.review

I like both Bown's and Leibovitz's results, but what a contrast in approach and outcome!

The comments to this entry are closed.