The Worst Photograph Ever Made

One thing there has unfortunately never been a shortage of is bad photographs, and collectively they parade a grand variety of shortcomings: there is unremitting blandness; poor taste; lack of taste; utter ignorance of taste; dullness (oh, much, much dullness); ostentation; unintentional humor; imitation; dishonesty; misguided attempts at aestheticism, and a great panoply of technical mistakes and missteps; the list goes on and on. But for inspired badness, this recent "photograph"* by Annie Leibovitz for the Lavazza calendar has it all: a pandering (unto capitulation) to empty style; excessive color which is nevertheless unattractive; an attractive model who is also unattractive (though she got legs! But what the hell is with that expression?); a really woeful idea (Romulus and Remus and their wolf-mother—oh, please) that nevertheless doesn't even work; heavyhanded overproduction; no trace of irony; a blatantly fake background that doesn't even try to match the studio-shot foreground; a baby butt, for that touch of smack-you-with-a-dead-fish cuteness; campy makeup, kitschy hair; and, to top it all off, a hilariously incongruous product placement like an embarrassing pimple. Ms. Leibovitz has made some great photographs in her time, and she's very far from the worst photographer ever, but she's also one of the most inconsistent of top photographers and her latest excesses of "stylyness"** are such a relentlessly wrong direction it's almost impossible to overstate, pretentious and vulgar in balanced measure. This picture as a whole has absolutely zero connection to reality or honest depiction, but is unredeemed by any countervailing expressive or artistic purpose. And (and this puts it out in front of many other contenders) it was all done intentionally, front to back, top to bottom, money-no-object, by an army of the most talented professionals, from art director to stylists to make-up artists to baby-wranglers to lighting assistants to photographer to digital retoucher, all working assiduously in concert in pursuit of the utterly pointless. You can name other contenders, but I think you have your work cut out for you. This is it.

_____________________

Mike

*Really a pastiche, of mainly photographic elements. Those babies, for instance, were not shot at the same time as each other, nor were they shot with the model.
**With apologies to Stephen Colbert.

ADDENDUM: See also this newer comment posted separately. —MJ

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Kent: "But what if it is actually photographic genius? What if Ms. Leibovitz is actually making a statement about her own personal hell, and/or consumerism? What if she's saying 'My job sucks, but I can't see a way out! Look at the utterly vapid concepts I get paid huge sums of money to execute! Can you believe the client actually PAID ME A FORTUNE FOR THIS?!?' Yeah, I kind of doubt it too, but it's a thought. Trying to be optimistic in a trying time...."

Featured Comment by Jay Moynihan: "Ah, found it. Here is the 'original,' so to speak, that she based her photo on."

The Capitoline she-wolf with the boys Romulus and Remus. Museo Nuovo in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. 13th century A.D. with figures of Romulus and Remus added in the 15th century.

Featured Comment by Barry Myers: "Gosh Mike! Turn it down on Annie Leibovitz and by extension, commercial photography. I'm almost certain that Leibovitz didn't dream up the concept for Lavazza (a coffee company, I believe)—she was hired to do a job. Probably had a layout to work from and some specifications as to image quality (PPI etc.), may have had some choice in talent—frequently, photographers present their choices to the client, but in the end, it's the client who chooses. The mood, lighting, even pose were most likely worked out by or with the client. She was a hired gun and she might even agree with you that it's not the greatest photo, but it may have been and I hope it was, a great assignment for her. Maybe she got to go to Rome, eat some great food, meet some interesting people, etc. and get paid.

"It's as though you're saying that if a client says to a photographer that they want you to photograph X, you
can come back at them with 'Why, I don't think X is the right person for me to shoot, how about Y or Z?'  Photographers working on assignment just don't make their living that way.

"Annie Leibovitz is at the top of our profession. She does great work and judging by a recent radio interview I heard on the Kojo Nnamdi show (WAMU, Washington D.C.) and your review of her book, she's pretty damn articulate. It may be sad, as you, or perhaps someone else on your blog pointed out, that young photographers admire her more than say, young photographers in my day (the 'sixties) admired Cartier-Bresson or Eugene Smith (who were also working on assignment), but that doesn't take away any of her talent or success at what she does. Many, maybe most commercial photographers would love to have the opportunity to do the type of assignments she does so well.

"When I hear your criticism of certain images done on assignment, I cringe. All of us, I think, have done work on some lunatic concepts and even have done less than our best on others. You seem to think that we have a choice—and I guess we do: eat or starve. I think a more generous way to look at it, is that the customer is always right and to assume that the photographer can try to persuade a client in a different direction but usually, like in most retail transactions, it's futile.

"For personal work, the photographer gets to choose, otherwise, when there's a client, I think the object is to please the client. You can always shoot it your way if there's time and budget and it's something many of us ask our clients to do if we're not happy with the outcome of the client's ideas."

Mike replies: Fair points all, Barry, but I'm not criticizing the photographer or what anyone does for a living; I'm criticizing the result. The corollary to what you're saying would be that I should admire or tolerate an advertising photograph because everybody's doing their job and getting paid—you wouldn't say that, would you? It's like saying I should admire a work of art because the artist is sincere and works hard and has a family to feed. Besides, if nobody turns up the heat on clients for perpetrating horrible crap, then we deserve it when we get more and more visual pollution on our billboards, busses, and everywhere else we turn.

Comments

[Jim Metzger]

I wonder if this image is part of the Annie Leibovitz lawsuit reported in Photo District News. The suit alleges that she has not paid stylists or equipment providers $778K for their services. If this image is involved, perhaps the stylist may want to remain anonymous.

Jim

[Janne]

Actually, my reaction when I first glanced at the above picture was "hey, that's not bad computer CGI". So yes, it's bad.

But my vote goes to the shared first place for all the images out there in the world prominently featuring a national flag, waving - nay, soaring! - in the wind, shot upwards from a low angle. The perfect empty picture of an empty symbol. So trite that it actually sucks out any meaning from the other elements in the image, no matter how poignant, like a vampire draining its unwitting victim.

[Eric]

Hahaha! Utterly terrible. It's like the Waterworld of photos, except that Waterworld was entertaining in a guilty way.

[Martin]

Mike,

I agree with you.
Here in Germany we had to tolerate this Lavazza advertisement poster in the streets - day after day!

[Ole M]

Well, I agree it's possibly the worst picture in the calendar. But it's not "make a separate blog post just to say it sucks"-bad =)

[Mike J.]

"So, who is John Galt?"

Heh. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our "stars"....

Mike J.

[cw]

So, who is John Galt?

[JL]

When I first saw the heading I thought, "Nah...". But having seen the picture I now think, "By God, he may have found it!." The only possible counter-argument I can think of is that there's so much photoshop, green-screen, and god knows what else going on that I'm not sure if it qualifies as a photograph at all. It's more like a H. Giger poster.

And this from the woman who was Susan Sontag's partner for so many years?

[Nick]

Mike,
It's utterly refreshing and enjoyable to read a post where there is no 'tiptoeing around sensitivities'. And yes, I agree with you, horrible picture! It reminds me of the cover of a cd I had in the 90's called something like "1000 Best Gifs".
Regards, Nick

[Jon Bloom]

But tell us what you really think, Mike!

I'm thinking this would be markedly improved if the baby on the right had a thought bubble that said, "Lunch!"

[carloch]

May I take some pride in having been the one pointing these pictures to you? I find the september/october picture "spaghetti with naked woman in the tuscany landscape" even worse for its content of commomplaces.

Carlo

[Peter MacColeman]

nick! That is exactly what I was thinking! It reminds me of a bad Huggies Advertisement. And considering it is europe i was amused to see the model wearing a bra considering the freedom that is espoused over there, lets not even forget the styrofoam cup for pollution.

[Marek Krol]

At least she's consistent in that calendar:
http://blog.brotherhoodofthebean.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/2009_lavazza_calendar_05.jpg

[Robert Roaldi]

Say what's on your mind, don't sugar-coat it! :)

Anyway, I've taken way worse pictures than that.

[Jay Moynihan]

Interesting.
My first thought was Romulus and Remus suckled by the she-wolf (Roman political creation mythos).
Do not know the context of the shot, but given the background of the decaying arena, I guess i got the point...
Was this for an ad? Product aimmed at 20-somethings and below, in Italy/EU? Kind of like Roman Mythos meets Beowulf look (the recent CGI movie).

[Robin P]

Yeah, that really is horrendous!
How much is Ms.L. guilty though? - or is she just guilty of pandering to the whims of those who commission such tripe....
Nice put down Mike! :-)

Cheers, Robin

[Mike C.]

I don't know why, but the name Susan Sontag keeps popping in to my head, and I keep getting the urge to look up her definitions of the words "camp" and "kitsch".

I think the oddest/funniest choice is that the model is wearing a bra. But at least she hasn't been given the traditional rows of vulpine dugs...

[Ryan Holloway]

Looks like Smurf poop to me.

ryan

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

I agree, it's, um, not good. And for all those reasons.

I wonder if Annie actually made it herself? Or of she is so heavily assisted now that she has disappeared?

---
Anyway, general comment: thanks for an outstanding blog, a place I can come every day and find proof somebody has a mind.

[glen]

No wonder the kid at right looks disappointed!
She's wearing a bra!

[JK @ Studio Hatyai]

Brilliant, Mike, absolutely inspired. I've always loved pieces of writing that feel so utterly heartfelt that they just tumbled out. Coupled with that photograph . . . I think I've hurt myself laughing.

[Jeffrey MacMillan]

Mike-OK, I'll bite...BTW: I love your Hopper-esque D700 night shot. But the issue at hand: The worst photo ever? Come on. It is no masterpiece but...there is an attempt at being creative. That alone pushes it beyond your categorization. ( Remember Italy/Europe has a different sense of advertising.) Technique is good. Open ANY magazine and there are dozens of worse examples. I am not a blind fan of her work but I have seen AND shot too much bad work to pile onto a easy target like her.
Happy Holidays,
Jeff

[ken]

to me it looks like satire using photographic tools.
as such, it is pretty damn good.

one of the forces behind 'art,' applied or primary, - is shock. to mix up the certainties in your head. this ugly stuff surely does that. it is not supposed to be a 'photograph.' annie went out on a limb and got away with it. good for her and sorry for the literal-minded folks who are forced to being confronted by it on billboards as they go about their business.

you are supposed to chuckle mike at the absurdities of most things.

[R. Glaser]

Thank You Mike,
At this stage in the game (I'm 59), I feel the world needs some sort of 'photo czar' to maybe give us all a direction. I sometimes feel inferior to those folks who get innumerable kudo's to some mundane (although there's nothing wrong with that) post on Flickr merely because they belong to 500 groups and are female. I especially find fault with all the glitzy HDR photos which have (mostly) no composition or meaning, just like the Annie Leibovitz worst of.
Thankfully, we are free to express ourselves but at the sake of what direction?

[ma]

Of course she did manage to create a ton of controversy and get people thinking about the parameters of art and good taste.

[michael walker]

ok...wait. there is a cup of coffee!

it took me 3 minutes to see the cup? i think that makes it one of the worst advertisements ever, i wonder whether other people have the same problems...

fascinating...makes me like that image!

[James Kingdon]

I think Kent nailed it. There's no way that she didn't know what she was doing when she created that image for all to see.

[Robert Newcomb]

With so many bad photographs in circulation it is difficult to say which is the worst. This one sure is up there with very bad. She (Annie) was better when she didn't have so many Photo Shop tools (toys) to play with and actually made images in the camera.

[Charlie H.]

Wouldn't Romulus and Remos have been suckling about before the Coliseum was built. What an anachronism! Seriously, if the foreground/background problem wasn't so bad I could get into it. Very provocative. Speaking of Leibovitz, PBS did a nice piece on her in one of their American Masters series. If nothing else she has had a very intersting life. ch

[Goodwynn]

This is any different than Whoopi in the milk bath?. Many of her photographs have always been overproduced pieces of kitsch, (except for the very early black and white work). If that model had been someone familiar, like Kate Moss or whoever, everyone would be reading all sorts of secrets into the images. How much money do you think it took to produce this nightmare? It's time to forget about Annie and let someone else play.

[Aaron]

I agree with Marek - that pasta shot makes me wince.

[Pep]

But this image is really bad too, look the perspective.

[Other MJ]

With crap like this, to me, it's not photography anymore. This isn't a photograph. It's just Photoshop masturbation.

Leads me to one of my favourite sayings:

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[John Camp]

For the title of "worst photograph ever made," -- call them the Gaggies, we could have an annual awards show and become rich and famous ourselves -- you have to set up some parameters. *Of course* there may be a worst photo hidden in the bottom of a drawer somewhere, but if nobody sees it, what does it mean? So "worst photo" should apply to widely-distributed, expensively produced photos. Like the academy awards: the academy doesn't consider student films, or accidents, etc., but only work in which specialist movie makers really *tried.*

Given those conditions (pro photographer, lots of production money, wide distribution)...

Yup, I think you found it.

[brad daly]

It has long seemed to me that Annie Leibovitz can only make interesting photographs of models and celebrities, which is ultimately rather boring. I don't think she can make interesting photographs of ordinary people, as did Richard Avedon.

[D.B. Walker]

I just finished "At Work", and it seems to me that Annie's work has progressed to the point where the shutter press is almost unnecessary.

However, looking at the arc of her career I have to say that, in her defense, she has had an amazing run and has earned her place in the pantheon of great photographers.

It seems though that the amount of retouching required by magazines has progressed to the point where even non photographers look at photos these days and say "Wow, that looks Photoshopped"... we can only hope that soon the magazine editors will begin to demand a less "Photoshopped" look.

The point being, the Leibovitz company is producing work made by many hands for customers that expect what they are getting. I dont blame Annie for working, or for producing what her customers want.

Are we not entertained?

my 2 cents

[David A. Goldfarb]

The pasta image is so over the top, I can't believe that the Remus and Romulus image isn't satire as well.

It's a cuppa coffee. Are you going to sell a cuppa coffee by showing some nonna bathed in sunlight as she sits with her hair in a bun in her breakfast nook savoring a cuppa coffee? This is post-post-postumism. Get with the program!

[Jay Moynihan]

"Wouldn't Romulus and Remos have been suckling about before the Coliseum was built. What an anachronism!"

Yes, like never actually, being it is mythic :)

But the rest of the calendar series has well known images in Rome, as backgrounds, at least the ones I glanced at.

I to find the background both too busy, and too dark for my tastes. A light background would have made the main image components very bold.

But on the other hand, putting the ruin in the back may be good for another reason. Assuming the modern EU audience also has a less than stellar vicarious memory of cultural motifs, and miss the Romulus thing, the background might help ground the image for them.

[Charlie H.]

Its interesting how whenever Leibovitch comes up there is no shortage of opinion on her merit. She seems to be a singularly controversial figure, or her work his at least. I think its important to remember that much of her (well known) work is less photography than it is advertising, as with her now infamous lavaza piece. I believe when she started working at Vanity Fair, perhaps sooner, she realized that she was longer simply a photogrpaher and was being paid to sell magazines, and she adapted her work accordingly. To that end, she was extremely adept. The Whoopi Goldberg in a bath of milk shot is a particluary good example. As Goldberg said herself, before the shot, she was all but anonymous, afterwards, she was instantly recognized everywhere. If you choose to judge her as a photographer, examine her work found inside the magazine, not on its cover. Likwewise, the lavaza shot should be judged as an advertisement not simply as a photograph. Speaking of Avedon, she appeared on Charlie Rose with him, which segment can be watched on you tube. ch

[Mike J.]

"I've seen a lot worse."

Chris,
Such as?

Mike J.

[Alan]

It somehow reminds me of a poor version of a purposefully poor Terry Gilliam execution, circa late 1960's Monty Python. And now for something completely different.............

[Evan]

from an article on the shoot:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photoserve/meet-the-clients/e3icc46e9fc32c62f06aebc6a2ad8c749d2

Unusually, they left the models almost entirely un-retouched – a bold move but one which, to Mariani, was key to the whole concept of the calendar. "We didn’t want typical, glamorous, artificial images," he says. "We wanted to convey the idea of authenticity.’

Mmm-hmm....

[andy]

Your serious comments, which I do agree with, remind me of your great piece in which you pasted "comments" after photos taken by the great photographers which satirized uniformed mass opinions on their images.

Photography is basically subjective and we all base our love of an image on what the prevailing fashion of our time is. What we are taught is important eventually becomes important.

Check out what young, widely heralded photographers are creating and tell me, in all honesty, if their work will stand the test of time?

Lack of pretense (http://flickr.com/photos/lastleaf/3076187587/) might be the reverse of Ms. Liebowitz' style but it does not necessarily make the less artificial more superior.

[Chris Stanfield]

Photography is subjective and everyone has an opinion, but calling this photo by Annie the worst picture ever made? Seriously? It's certainly not my favorite, I'll give you that. I've seen a lot worse. Nonetheless, Annie and others like her aren't at the top of their games by making bad photos....

[Mark]

Reminds me of Jeff Koons' stuff--specifically the giant ceramic figure of Michael Jackson and Bubbles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1333396.stm

I saw it in person at the SFMOMA back in the early 1990's. Quite impressive in a horrible sort of way....

[charlie d]

Oh my word,

Maybe I take it all back and hate her too? (HUGE FU**IN' GRIN) The thing is I just don't pay attention to this stuff at all, so it rarely hits my radar.

It seems people take this stuff too close to the heart and feel ashamed to be a "photographer" because of things like this.

Just don't give it another thought. It just does not matter and the world and photography is not any worse because of it.

Life is too short to sweat the silly stuff.

I just don't care.

[dja]

I have to think the bra is a signal of deliberate falseness. As many commenters have said it just seems too far out to be anything other than pastiche. Then again, maybe it's easy to lose perspective when you're paid because of your name. I'm sure it's depressing for a good artist to know for sure that it actually no longer matters whether or not you make good art any more...

[Markus Spring]

Whilst I enjoyed very much that devastating comment - also for the pure delight of formulations - I wonder if this picture is worth that roasting: There are too many highly paid bad pictures, and in the end the bad news are good news for the publicity of the company.
But worth every word of slating are not only those art directors/campaigners/what-the-heck that always find a lower level, no - these words are in certain way also targeted at the audience (given that the agency has had reason to setup such a campagne - and I fear there is). And here that cavalcade of justified deprecatives probably fails miserably, because there are no recipients in the true sense of the word. This, for me, is the saddest truth.

[erlik]

(nudity alert, for those who are not allowed to watch nude photos)

And here's apparently where the idea of the calendar came from

http://www.pirellical.com/thecal/calendar.html

what with the Pirelli calendar being a bit famous and a teensy bit older than Lavazza.

Note the latest calendar. Note the technique similarities. Although the Pirelli people seem to be better with Photoshop. :-)

So, Mike, what do you say about those?

[Darren M]

While I am sure that worse photos have been taken, I am at a loss to really come up with one which qualifies. This is pretty awful, and I think I am generally more forgiving of Annie L than you.