Hi Folks: In addition to being an actor, director, narrator, and writer, Leonard Nimoy (yes, of Star Trek fame) is also a photographer: Leonard Nimoy Photography

Mike.

Anything he can't do? Some really nice photos in there too. Thanks for sharing

The musical stylings of Leonard Nimoy. Or as one Youtube user put it: "I like Leonard Nemoy (sic) but damn man. He should have stuck to pinching necks."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Rqj7TqSlM...feature=related

Paul

Here's a grumpy rant for you.
In recent years we've been subjected to an endless wave of books and exhibitions composed of photographs shot by celebrities. Just off the top of my head I can list Joel Grey, Bryan Adams, Jeff Bridges, Leonard Nimoy, Jessica Lang, Christy Turlington, Viggo Mortensen, Dennis Hopper, Bob Lilly, Kenny Rogers...and that's without googling anything. Some of the work isn't half bad; I must confess to liking some of Jeff Bridges' black & white panoramic shots. Most of it, though, varies from cliche to kitsch to just plain lousy. It's transparently obvious that celebrity status, a platinum credit card and access to other popular celebrities as subject matter, count far more than actual, you know, talent when it comes to opening doors. I mean, seriously. Can you look at the images in Nimoy's Shekhina, or the even kitschier Full Body Project, and seriously argue that a photographer lacking his name recognition would find success with them?

I live within an hour of George Eastman House, and this summer they had a substantial exhibition of photos by Jessica Lang, complete with opening gala attended by Ms. Lang for those who just can't get enough celebrity. Thing is, the photos were pretty dreadful. Mostly grainy B&W Leica shots with no central theme or vision, lots of missed focus, sort of like what you'd get handing a Leica and 50 rolls of Tri-X to a high school student. A tiny fraction were decent, but all the drab photos around them made them seem accidental.

This just pisses me off no end. I understand that Eastman House has to attract interest and donors, and the chance to rub shoulders with a celebrity is certainly a drawing card for new members. But it cheapens any pretension to "art" and curatorial integrity to make celebrity the main criterion for exhibition.

Grumble. Snort.

I think he should stick to wearing pointy ears.

Jeremy

And don't forget Don Imus.

In general, I agree with you. On the other hand, we wouldn't want to set up barriers that keep out all but the selected few who are deemed worthy by the academy...

It seems to me that some of the visual arts have descended into a phase where one needs a special degree and a secret handshake to be part of the "in" group. It's getting to the point where there are many paintings being shown that are intentionally completely incomprehensible. Many, paradoxically, try to make one political point or another, while being entirely devoid of any representational communication. A lot of them strike me as over-intellectualized, under-executed blather. I'm afraid some of that is rubbing off on photography as well, at least in fine art circles.

So, while the Full Body Project probably won't move the photographic art in a bold new direction, at least it's somewhat amusing. Maybe sometimes, it's just interesting enough to examine how a celebrity sees the world around them.

Seems to me that we already have waaaaay too many opportunities to 'examine how a celebrity sees the world around them'. And not enough to hear new voices that actually have something to say, other than "golly, see how many famous and beautiful people I know!"

I have no interest in building a fence around the officially approved 'academy'. I do have a problem with celebrities being whisked past the velvet rope ahead of everyone else. Of course, that's the way the world has always worked. We just don't have to like it.

I've never been much of fan of marginal (or even good ) actors who parlay their questionable skills into other areas and gain acclaim just due to access or their fame. In fact in any celebrity photograph if it can't reveal anthing interesting about the person I just mentally place it in the trash. My theory if you could replace the subject with Uncle Bob or Aunt Mary and it still stands up it's a good picture. If it's just an actor in some pretend pose, forget it. Therefore Annie L stuff to me is pretty irrelevant.

Same for people who shoot rock concerts or go backstage. The subject is already lit, in some tortured rock pose, and the photographer only has to fire off a thousand shots to get his one or two masterpieces, he hits my garbage can too. To me, a press pass doesn't make it art.

So the people who aren't on my Christmas Card list (as if they cared) are Annie L, Jeff Bridges, Viggo, etc

I seem to recall that Roddy McDowell was pretty good though.

Well, I can't argue with any of that either.

Mike, Let's face it, EVERYBODY's a photographer. If you don't believe it, just ask them.

RSL, we all respect your insights. But it really isn't helpful to make generalizations like that.

For instance I'm sure there's an old lady a couple blocks away who is not a photographer. Oh wait...there she is, she's taking pictures of my unkempt front yard with her cell phone camera. Never mind.

Bill, Have you checked your back yard?

I found that statement difficult to believe -- until I ran it past my photographer/mother, my photographer/accountant brother, my photographer/housewife sister, my photographer/accountant other brother (the one who lives in Portland, not Phoenix); my dental assistant/photographer/seasonal tax consultant cousin in Omaha; my roofer/photographer/house painter cousin in New York; my photographer/photographer/auto mechanic/photographer cousin in Orlando and his father, my photographer/accordionist/photographer/photographer/photographer uncle, also in Orlando.

They all said "yep."

And they are right, generally speaking, and also underline the increasing credibility gap facing those of us who claim to live by that sword. But don't let it bother anyone: we die by it too.

Rob C

Actually, the Leonard pictures were already on his website years ago, when I stumbled across his site in the Black & White Mag pages. Frankly, they were as good as these things tend to get. In the end, photography of that type depends much more on the subject than the shooter. Unless you have done it for a living you might not know nor want to believe this - myths are pretty powerfull ju-ju - but it isn't accident that gets the same few girls so much work.

In fact, if you look at model agency site - real ones - you will find that there are basically three dominant types: white, black and brown. Each is subdivided into further categories which, broady, consist of the yellow-haired, and the dark-haired with a rare red thrown in for good measure. Of the whites, you will find that they are increasingly looking like modern copies of Claudia (herself a Bardot clone but bigger); the black are all morphing into Naomi Campbell and the browns are forever approaching (but not reaching) classic Tyra Banks.

I do not, for a moment, suggest that that's how they really are, I am suggesting that if you look long enough you realise that there is a homogenization number being played out. I suspect that this is much the product of post-production where the artist is striving to achieve the respect of his peers by creating from the raw material yet a more embellished rendition of the imagined ideal, which is where we came in, all those years ago.

I suspect My Leonard didn't have, or seek, access to post-production people - that would sort of nullify the point of having the hobby...

All in all, he has nothing there of which to feel ashamed.

Rob C

Except for that website. It's pretty weak.

His work appears technically proficient, unique, at times witty, and well done. I haven’t seen so many fat girls since looking at Rubens’ work.

There are a small number of successful people who seek out success in different areas and actually get it. Nemoy is clearly one of those people. It is an interesting psychological phenomena, this need to prove yourself in different areas. It is something I bet every reader of this thread shares. It has to be a very powerful need. In Nemoy’s case, he has it all yet is still pulled towards achievement.

What do you think it is that drives people in this direction?

Once thing is certain: The lucky dog shoots a lot of nudes and evidently not only has wide range of taste in women, but likes to paint, too.

Good question, and probably answered by thinking it to be the same drive that gets them up off their butts in the first place, and onto the first rung of the ladder to success in whichever field they seek it.

That drive , I'm certain, is what marks the greatest difference in people in the sense of failure or success at the game of life: some are born with it and the rest never have it. I think it has not all that much to do with the circumstances of birth, education or anything much else that's external; it's from within.

Rob C

May be I leaped without looking recently enough!

Out of curiosity as to why you felt that way about the site, I did return and I see your point. It has changed somewhat from my last visit, admittedly some time ago, and I see what appear to be two very bad prints - exactly what you'd get if you had mucked up your exposure/development in the days of the wet print. Justan's remark about gross birds also made me wonder what I had missed earlier times around.

Worse, the use of the overweight lady seems to me to be a rip-off of Irving Penn's ouevre with an old dancer (if I am not mistaken again), not a good idea even for him.

So many feet of clay about - I'm terrified of looking down!

Rob C

I disagree. Anyone with a camera in their hands can take pictures, but that doesn't make them a photographer. Of course then we devolve into a 'what is art' conversation!

Mike.

Mike, You have to know I agree with you on that point, but, as I said, "Just ask them."

Here's another point I'm sure you've witnessed yourself: Many years ago I entered a photograph in a contest being run up in the mountains around here. It's so long ago I don't even remember the name of the town where it was held. My third son -- then just a kid -- had shot what I thought was a very good photograph with his box camera. I helped him print it in my darkroom (now long gone), and mat it. He put it in the contest and won a prize. When the jury pinned the ribbon on my son's picture, another guy who hadn't won anything became quite irate. He told the judges that there was no way a kid with a box camera deserved a prize when he, with his thousands of dollars worth of equipment, hadn't won anything. I'm happy to say I managed to avoid rolling on the ground laughing, though it was difficult. I get the same reaction when someone who's a celebrity picks up a camera, shoots some pictures, and is feted for his ability as a photographer. In the end, what you said applies.

"A photographer is a person who takes a photograph using a camera. A professional photographer uses photography to make a living whilst an amateur photographer does not earn a living and typically takes photographs for pleasure and to record an event, place or person for future enjoyment."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographer

Guess that excludes unpleasant or unenjoyable photographs for you amateurs, sorry!

And clearly the author of that never met any of the legions of professional photographers who aren't quite making a living.

But some other definitions want to apply "photographer" to pros only.

"A photographer is a person who takes a photograph using a camera. A professional photographer uses photography to make a living whilst an amateur photographer does not earn a living and typically takes photographs for pleasure and to record an event, place or person for future enjoyment."




Interesting that 'an amateur photographer dos not earn a living and typically takes photographs for pleasure'. Seems they are all unemployed, then, and came into the world with silver spoons firmly gnashed between their teeth.

Like the idea...

Rob C

Since this thread had gotten a little sidetracked into 'celebrity photographers', I came across a link on Jeff Revell's site to the photography site of Tipper Gore (Al Gore's wife). I must say, she has a pretty good eye!

Tipper Gore Photography

Mike.

I agree. Thanks for pointing it out, Mike.

Thanks for the link; one surprising thing: with that eye, how could she end up married to a politician - any politician? Maybe she sees what I can't.

Rob C

No pain, no gain.

Rob, I'm sure you're aware that "amateur" comes from Latin: "Amator," lover. And that's exactly what the original meaning of amateur was. Unfortunately the word has been corrupted to include the connotation "novice," which is a long, long way from being universally true. As far as silver spoons are concerned, I certainly never had one, and I'm proud to be considered an amateur. I sell prints but I sure don't make a living doing it, so there's no way I could consider myself a "professional."

Guess the web ain't no place for humour, then...

I shall giggle at funny statements by myself.

Rob C

I must confess I missed what Rob was talking about first time around, and had to read more carefully. I think he was commenting on the fact that the quote said "an amateur photographer does not earn a living" rather than "an amateur photographer does not earn a living from photography", thus implying that amateur photographers don't make a living at any job.

Thanks, Jeff; I thought for a moment that I had taken another walk on the slow side...


Rob C

Rob, No, you were fast enough. I missed it too. Guess I was the slow one.