|
Of course there was a time
when the greatest were the latest thing, but
not now. Helmut Newton died recently, so who is going to take his
place? No-one, because the industry doesn't want another Helmut.
He was the latest, the most modern once, but it was really his fame
that kept him going in the last few years. Now that he's not here all
the clones who could 'do' a good Helmut picture will become tribute
photographers like all those bands we hear about. Avedon's gone, is Bob
Richardson irreplaceable? Is it necessary to replace them? Who are the
replacements for Chris von Wangenheim, Bill King, Davis Seidner? And
anyway we already have the new HN in Terry Richardson. Richardson is
the modern equvalent of HN for a whole load of kids who don't know or
care what 30s German decadence was, will never get to see the riches of
Monaco, and figure more smuttiness is the order of the day. If you
think carefully about it Richardson and Helmut have many similarities.
Modernity is part of the presence of sizzle. People like the idea or
association of digital, point and shoot, Photoshop and the rest of it.
The kids in college gloss over when their tutor talks about unsharp
masking, dye transfers and all the other things that 'real'
photographers love. After a long lecture a friend of mine said in class
a student simply stated "couldn't I do all that in photoshop, and if so
why bother with all the other stuff".
It's the modern approach. Ask Mert and Marcus, the modern day
equivalents of Demarchelier and Lindbergh. "But their pictures look
sort of digi" someone says. Exactly, digi modern, worked over, cooked,
tossed in PS. Seasoned with modernity, cooked in the Modern style.
Get the sausage but don't forget the sizzle.
|