Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: BBC - Is anyone Benefiting from the wealth of the super rich?  (Read 4982 times)
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 672



« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2012, 04:52:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Never felt Donovan fitted the triumvirate - his work seemed more dated but very technical, to me. In a way, I felt that he and Lategan were a closer match, style-wise.

You sound like Dinsdale Piranha here.  Grin

Frank Horvat really predated them all with his fashion stuff and I think his eye, for the 'street' sort of shot, was pretty seminal. But I expect that one could trace many others who had a shutter finger in the development of what became thought of as 60s fashion photography. Jeanloup Sieff was already doing it in '59 at least. In my mind, it was a European movement, and the US didn't appear to have many players in that style - they (the Americans) were more studio-oriented, with lots of lights, but that view is probably coloured by the magazines that were availabe to me on which I could base opinion.

Agreed—the street aesthetic worked in the US, but for other subjects. Perhaps in Europe it was the case that post-war austerity determined how photography developed. Horvat was great, but his website isn’t: damn Flash again, and wouldn’t display pictures on my iMac. Mentioning Sieff is a blast from the past—his erotic w/a stuff sticks in the mind. Did Doisneau ever do fashion?

And there’s Duffy.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2012, 01:13:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I did manage to see that Bailey/Shrimpton confection on BBC 4 tv last night,
Rather good I thought. I think it did a good job of catching the mood of the time, as incidentally did Jean Shrimpton herself. Although she refused to take part in any way, she was sent a preview courtesy copy and apparently thought it very realistic.
I gave up with the follow up doco, seeing photographers I admire messing around with plaster of paris like a junior school art class depresses me.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2012, 03:45:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Rather good I thought. I think it did a good job of catching the mood of the time, as incidentally did Jean Shrimpton herself. Although she refused to take part in any way, she was sent a preview courtesy copy and apparently thought it very realistic.
I gave up with the follow up doco, seeing photographers I admire messing around with plaster of paris like a junior school art class depresses me.



I didn't give up - but being an hour ahead over here I did get pretty knackered by the end. In fact, I found another thing more sad, though perhaps it's just the difficulty of trying to show anyone doing something creative, and that was the segment where Bailey was setting up the pics of the girl with the scarf background. It felt very stilted, and even as if the old master had lost his way. I just wanted it to stop. That chick-chat stuff doesn't transmit well; telling somebody they are fabulous when, to the onlooker they patently are not, doesn't help credibiity; the model can't see the shot so she and her ego allow her to believe and thus improve by dint of confidence, but it doesn't look good to an outsider; you've got to be a principal actor in the play for it to work. Which it does.

Something else: I have never been able to fnd his website if he has one; there is a David Bailey, but he's not the one we mean. There's also a Rob Campbell, but he ain't me, neither! Damned difficult world, this.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2012, 05:21:08 AM »
ReplyReply

You sound like Dinsdale Piranha here.  Grin


And there’s Duffy.



You mean I'm mythical? I'd like that in myself!

Regarding Brian (as in Duffy and not A Life of), there was a good documentary about him on the Beeb and then on his website; I can't seem to raise that website anymore, the link I put in Favourites now says it doesn't exist - the website, not Favourites which, as anyone could see, clearly must exist for me to be able to access it in the first place.

It was a funny thing with Duffy: he had this very low (to me) public profile, yet he was always mentioned as part of the threesome. I think he was quite right to have his name removed from that Pirelli. In the documentary I mentioned he is already an ill man; he is reunited with Joanna Lumley and has to take a shot of her on the pavement... like with Bailey's episode in the documentary of last night alluded to elsewhere, it doesn't feel at all comfortable - anything but. Some things are best left undone.

But hell, it does sort of reinforce my belief in a Golden Age long gone. An age usually denied by those too young to have been there.

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 05:22:44 AM by Rob C » Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 672



« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2012, 06:07:56 AM »
ReplyReply

But hell, it does sort of reinforce my belief in a Golden Age long gone. An age usually denied by those too young to have been there.

Rob C

Because of the links Australia still had with the UK (much faded today) we knew what was going on, even if it took months for pictures to get here (magazines particularly). We also knew about Avedon, Stern, my favourite Septic photographer Irving Penn, and others in the US.

I used to get a lot of visual information in the late-’60s from photo annuals, very much dependent on the editors’s choices, and wish I still had some of them. I went pro about 10 years later. Ah, nostalgia.

A problem young photogs face these days is the sheer over-abundance of visual imagery about; role models must be harder to pick these days. There is still a lot of superb work being done, but so much more sharp, well-exposed dross is on display.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2012, 08:43:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Regarding Brian (as in Duffy and not A Life of), there was a good documentary about him on the Beeb and then on his website; I can't seem to raise that website anymore, the link I put in Favourites now says it doesn't exist - the website, not Favourites which, as anyone could see, clearly must exist for me to be able to access it in the first place.

Rob,

The Man Who Shot The Sixties - http://vimeo.com/9141202




Thanks, Nick; I'd hate to lose the link!

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2012, 09:29:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Because of the links Australia still had with the UK (much faded today) we knew what was going on, even if it took months for pictures to get here (magazines particularly). We also knew about Avedon, Stern, my favourite Septic photographer Irving Penn, and others in the US.

I used to get a lot of visual information in the late-’60s from photo annuals, very much dependent on the editors’s choices, and wish I still had some of them. I went pro about 10 years later. Ah, nostalgia.

A problem young photogs face these days is the sheer over-abundance of visual imagery about; role models must be harder to pick these days. There is still a lot of superb work being done, but so much more sharp, well-exposed dross is on display.



Yes, I also owe a huge debt to Popular Photography Annual and Popular Photography Color Annual of the late 50s/early 60s. These were rather difficult to run to earth in Scotland; I found mine in Glasgow Central Station at the large kiosk that was there in those days. It was where I discovered Sam Haskins, Ernst Haas, Bert Stern, Penn, Avedon, W. Eugene Smith (and part of his Pittsburgh epic) and a host of other people that marked me for ever.

 Other sources of interesting people were the Fawcett and Whitestone Publications productions, where I met Peter Gowland, Peter Basch, Russ Meyer and several other good shooters of the day. During the 60s early 70s US Playboy was also a source of good photography.

Whether the huge volume of work to be seen today has much to do with it, I’m not so sure, I think it’s more a matter of money. In the G.O.Ds, there was plenty being spent, and that was the lubricant that allowed everything else to function. One could actually dream of going off to shoot something in the Bahamas, the Seychelles or wherever, and a client would eventually turn up to give your mind a ticket. It seems that those sorts of things are far more rare today. Magazines are also less able or willing to send people to the four proverbial corners, and so the shooters who might be new influences on the young seldom get the chance to develop.

Another thing about it, during that period it was the photographer who was thought of as king – there was an undeniable sexiness connected to being one, and a fashion photographer in particular. This from people quite outside the business. Now, everybody knows about models like Gisele and Kate, but hardly anything about the guys who make them look good.

Rob C
Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 672



« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2012, 05:26:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Ejectees from various franchises of Big Brother have a higher profile these days; most of them disappearing without trace fairly quickly (one hopes).

Celebrity just ain’t what it used to be.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
langier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 603



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2012, 05:43:41 PM »
ReplyReply

If Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, et. al. are on this list, most certainly, every day we all benefit from both their leadership and wealth. Many are even are employed directly or indirectly by these people, their companies or their products.

We "reward" them by purchasing their products and they are entitled to make a profit no matter how obscene the amount may seem. Nobody forces us to buy those goods, we do it all on our own voluntarily for the most part.

I always thought it was insane in the late 1990s how the U.S. Government went after Microsoft and their fortunes yet had to use Microsoft products in court to prove their point. Yet, Microsoft created many millionaires and started a revolution of sorts that benefited us all. Nobody forced anybody to purchase their products and in fact, one of the issues was Microsoft giving away some of their software (Internet Explorer) for free. Back then and today, this legal case made little sense other than getting-evenism.

Today, there's even an economic model of "free" still floating around and in the circle of things, making people both richer ($$) and better off (user). Long live (what little is left) of the free market!
Logged

Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2012, 04:05:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I saw in this morning's news that a poll has just revealed that a majority of Brits believe that no top exec. should be paid more than a million pounds a year.

I expect that were the same poll-sample to be earning that million, the upper limit would then be raised somewhat.

I hate the politics of envy; I detest the 'if I can't have it, then neither should you' attitude that permeates much of society today. There is nothing standing in our way except for ourselves; settle our own, personal problems and there are few limits. But boy, isn't it nice to be able to give up, slide even further back on the sofa and blame somebody else's success for our own lack of same!

Rob C

Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2401


« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2012, 04:34:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote

We "reward" them by purchasing their products and they are entitled to make a profit no matter how obscene the amount may seem. Nobody forces us to buy those goods, we do it all on our own voluntarily for the most part.

Unquote

We have to buy their products because they have captured the means of production. Do you actually enjoy paying over the odds to make them wealthy?
You may worship them but I don't think they give a damn for you, only your money. They employ you because they have to - to make themselves wealthy.
As to giving away internet explorer it was paid for out of the obscene amount of profit the made and it wasn't free. 
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2012, 01:24:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote

We "reward" them by purchasing their products and they are entitled to make a profit no matter how obscene the amount may seem. Nobody forces us to buy those goods, we do it all on our own voluntarily for the most part.

Unquote

We have to buy their products because they have captured the means of production. Do you actually enjoy paying over the odds to make them wealthy?
You may worship them but I don't think they give a damn for you, only your money. They employ you because they have to - to make themselves wealthy.
As to giving away internet explorer it was paid for out of the obscene amount of profit the made and it wasn't free. 




Basically, you're right.

The trouble is that that's the way things are - it's the only way that's been found that makes anything happen. If you remove the profit motive, which you clearly don't like, then where the incentive? It simply isn't within man's nature to do anything for nothing; that's why people who do lots of charity work etc. get honours and high praise - they're the exceptions. Anybody with any can contribute money; time's something else.

All people are very obviously not equal. They are formed from their experiences, their backgrounds and even their genes; some can do some things and others not. Thinking about that poll about top exec. pay: the vast majority of folks asked thought none should be paid more than a million quid. Right, then what about sportsmen, footballers (sportsmen?) et. al., are they exceptions? I'm pretty damned sure the same people polled would consider them exceptions, for some imaginary reason of perceived value to humanity. I think about the billions that the Olympics are going to cost the UK and shudder. What a waste of money in such times! In any times, as far as that goes. All that money for some leaping, running, cycling, swimming ego-trippers to have thier moments in the sunshine? On the taxpayer? But I supposed it keeps the people quiet... the Colosseum wasn't built for nothing.

Oh boy.

Rob C
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2401


« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2012, 03:11:20 AM »
ReplyReply

It is not the creation of wealth that I dislike it is the distribution of it and the greed that surrounds it. Rob a country man of ours, Andrew Carnegie
brutally exploited American workers with low wages, child labour, long hours and bad conditions. When they couldn't stand it any longer they went on strike.
He hired 250 gunmen to force them back to work. Meanwhile he sailed back to Scotland. His conscience started bothering him and he distributed his wealth among the Scottish  people. Fine for Scotland but in reality it should have been the American workers who should have benefited? They created the wealth despite his methods. I believe it was £10 million in the late 1890's. A lot of money. There are philanthropists out there, but very few compared to the amount of wealthy people.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5032



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2012, 07:46:10 AM »
ReplyReply

... Rob a country man of ours, Andrew Carnegie brutally exploited American workers with low wages, child labour, long hours and bad conditions...

Stamper, you got a couple of things wrong: it is not Andrew Carnegie, but Steve Jobs, it is not American, but Chinese, and it is not late 19th century, but early 21st... but the rest is pretty much identical.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2012, 09:33:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Stamper, you got a couple of things wrong: it is not Andrew Carnegie, but Steve Jobs, it is not American, but Chinese, and it is not late 19th century, but early 21st... but the rest is pretty much identical.



Ah, Slobodan, you forgot about the Chevrolets Nouveaux; sad to see the style-deprived oriental products now shining under that banner... where the Impala with those delightful rear eyebrows? Oh, of course, wrong ethnicity for that. Or is that racist, the ability to discern a difference? Whatever, I think it has lowered the GM profile a hell of a lot, though to be totally fair, they've done a lot of lowering all by themselves via their own designs. Only the Corvette seems to look cool, and that because it looks Italian.

Rob C
Logged

Rocco Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 483



« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2012, 10:23:11 AM »
ReplyReply

having grown up in a small town where there wasn't much money gives a certain perspective I think.
Good for them for getting rich.
Bad for the world as we have been witness to the destruction of even the last remaining shred of hope that we'll be a society driven by putting people before profit.
We won't, and aren't.
If you are ok then great,
if you live in baghdad or gaza you're screwed
there's a running battle nightly in most big cities in America,
the drug trade from Mexico has spawned unsafe American highways in Az and elsewhere.
Poverty is at it's highest level in 17 years here.
My State public schools can hardly graduate 50% of its students from HIGH SCHOOL!
The line between rich and poor hasn't been so clear for decades in America.
The entire world is environmentally dangerous.
Big floating rafts of pollution in the ocean
Chemicals from plastic in every single human.
I'm telling you myself right now;
no amount of money in the world will generate the kind of good that starts with even just one of us.
How about saying no to a life of consumption?
Step up now and become a producer.
For the sake of the world.
Then when it is clear that we essentially throw 97% of our means of production down the drain to collect in these big floating pools of plastic maybe we can redirect that production into something useful and meaningful.
Like justice or any other of those noble quests.
Take the pension of every banker/trader that let this last crisis happen.
BTW those Greeks really know how to live I guess...
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad