“David Bailey has made an outstanding contribution to photography and the visual arts, creating consistently imaginative and thought-provoking portraits.” - National Portrait Gallery
 |
| independent.co.uk |
 |
| nymag.com |
David Bailey was one of the first celebrity photographers in the 60s. He helped create ‘The Swinging London’ culture of the 60s with his images, his ‘Box of Pin-ups’ which were pretty much every iconic celebrity in the 60s at the time The Beatles, Mick Jagger, Jean Shrimpton... He changed the way photographers prints could be sold and the price of them.
He worked for Vogue and excelled massively, shooting 800 pages at the height of his proactivity, as well as doing a large amount of freelance work.
At Vogue he was well respected and popular with the models. Grace Coddington, creative director at Vogue and ex model said “... Bailey was unbelievably good looking... We were all killing ourselves to be his model, although he hooked up with Jean Shrimpton pretty quick.”
David Bailey during his career at Vogue, was given the chance to photograph some of the worlds most creative, inspirational, interesting, exclusive, mysterious people in history. For some reason he chose to shoot a majority of them in exactly the same style.
I don’t think David Bailey is a bad photographer at all. His compositions and rules of third are as close to perfection as a photographer would want. He’s clearly skilled with cameras, know’s what he wants, and very clever with his apertures. But his lighting? I failed miserably to try and understand why people kept coming back to him for work. The image of Jack Nicholson was taken in 1976, the image of Beyonce was taken in 2006. 30 years has passed and Davis Bailey is still shooting people black and white, looking straight at the camera, well lit studio. National Portrait calls him “imaginative”. Why? Why is he “imaginative”? Because people have been calling him that for years probably and it has stuck.
I went into David Baileys exhibition not knowing that much about him, apart from he shot the Kray twins and Michael Caine. I came out thinking him more of a brand name. That feeling I get when I see people wearing Fred Perry or Ralph Lauren, it’s good quality but not particularly interesting, most people like it and buy it because of the name, a sign of having a little bit of money, or they have no taste and just want something sensible (Fred Perry has helped me over the years).
I think any photographer could have made David Baileys images given the opportunity. They weren’t technically very difficult. I think most people on my course could have shot the images given the chance.
David Bailey by the sounds of it, has a brilliant drive for work. Which to be fair to him, not everyone has. So in a weird way although his images are, to me, just okay, at least he had the drive and nerve to travel and shoot as much as he did.
Unrelated to the gallery, I heard a film called Blow Up was based on the character of David Bailey. Portraying him as a sexiest, arrogant, general ass hole. However as true as this may be, was it not the models and the future art director of Vogue who said that he was “unbelievably good looking”? How far would have David Baileys work taken him if it wasn’t for his good looks and charm, that when you type in his name in google or search him in books you end up always hearing so much about. His photographs indicated to me that he may have been sleazy, and saw woman as objects for sex. But maybe his success also was down to him being good looking and charming. Maybe if he was considered unattractive and boring, he wouldn’t be as famous as he is. I’m not saying that it makes it okay for him to be sexiest and degrading models and woman in general. I’m saying to some extent that woman can perhaps be as shallow as men if not more. The fact that David Bailey was “unbelievably good looking” should not have even been quoted in relevance with anything to do with his work. So what if he’s good looking, does he take good photos? That was the attitude I would expect to hear from creative director of Vogue. Hypothetically, imagine if David Bailey was the creative director and Grace Coddington was a famous photographer for Vogue, and Bailey had commented not on her work but rather on her looks. How would that have looked and gone down?
To sum it up, I wouldn’t go because it’s £12 and you can’t get a refund.
independent.co.uk - image of Jack Nicholson, David Bailey, 1976
National Portrait Gallery - Quote, 2014
nymag.com - Image of Beyonce, David Bailey, 2006
I don’t think David Bailey is a bad photographer at all. His compositions and rules of third are as close to perfection as a photographer would want. He’s clearly skilled with cameras, know’s what he wants, and very clever with his apertures. But his lighting? I failed miserably to try and understand why people kept coming back to him for work. The image of Jack Nicholson was taken in 1976, the image of Beyonce was taken in 2006. 30 years has passed and Davis Bailey is still shooting people black and white, looking straight at the camera, well lit studio. National Portrait calls him “imaginative”. Why? Why is he “imaginative”? Because people have been calling him that for years probably and it has stuck.
I went into David Baileys exhibition not knowing that much about him, apart from he shot the Kray twins and Michael Caine. I came out thinking him more of a brand name. That feeling I get when I see people wearing Fred Perry or Ralph Lauren, it’s good quality but not particularly interesting, most people like it and buy it because of the name, a sign of having a little bit of money, or they have no taste and just want something sensible (Fred Perry has helped me over the years).
I think any photographer could have made David Baileys images given the opportunity. They weren’t technically very difficult. I think most people on my course could have shot the images given the chance.
David Bailey by the sounds of it, has a brilliant drive for work. Which to be fair to him, not everyone has. So in a weird way although his images are, to me, just okay, at least he had the drive and nerve to travel and shoot as much as he did.
Unrelated to the gallery, I heard a film called Blow Up was based on the character of David Bailey. Portraying him as a sexiest, arrogant, general ass hole. However as true as this may be, was it not the models and the future art director of Vogue who said that he was “unbelievably good looking”? How far would have David Baileys work taken him if it wasn’t for his good looks and charm, that when you type in his name in google or search him in books you end up always hearing so much about. His photographs indicated to me that he may have been sleazy, and saw woman as objects for sex. But maybe his success also was down to him being good looking and charming. Maybe if he was considered unattractive and boring, he wouldn’t be as famous as he is. I’m not saying that it makes it okay for him to be sexiest and degrading models and woman in general. I’m saying to some extent that woman can perhaps be as shallow as men if not more. The fact that David Bailey was “unbelievably good looking” should not have even been quoted in relevance with anything to do with his work. So what if he’s good looking, does he take good photos? That was the attitude I would expect to hear from creative director of Vogue. Hypothetically, imagine if David Bailey was the creative director and Grace Coddington was a famous photographer for Vogue, and Bailey had commented not on her work but rather on her looks. How would that have looked and gone down?
To sum it up, I wouldn’t go because it’s £12 and you can’t get a refund.
independent.co.uk - image of Jack Nicholson, David Bailey, 1976
National Portrait Gallery - Quote, 2014
nymag.com - Image of Beyonce, David Bailey, 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment