The Politics of Fashion Photography Part 18 What's the Score? Marketing-13 Talent-7

[benjikan]

It is becoming more evident to me, the longer I am in this business, that it has become more of a marketing game than that of talent, for those wishing to succeed in any "Artistic" venture.

I am reminded, that in the last decade and even more so prior to it, if you wanted to get an assignment for a magazine or an Ad Campaign, you had to always pass through the Art Director or Creative Director. Once doing so and if the response was positive, you would be introduced to the Fashion Editor on that particular assignment or the traffic coordinator at the ad agency. You basically were hired because you either had talent, or your work had been seen in a competing magazine or on some billboard and you thoroughly impressed the Art Director or who ever turned you on to them to call you in. So either way, someone recognized your talent. In that environment the score would be closer to Talent-21 Marketing-3. Not taking in to consideration a great agent.

Today, in most cases, the Art Director has been assigned a more pragmatic and cursory role as a layout artist for the major magazines out there. The decision for hiring the photographer, is in the hands of the Fashion Stylist and Editor more often than not. That has changed the dynamic dramatically and as a result the criteria for choosing talent has changed. It is not only talent that matters, but the celebrity or top model that was used in the image, as well as the recognized Fashion Designer that is featured in it. If you do not have any of these key ingredients, in most cases, it doesn't matter how incredible your image is, it may be passed over due to that glaring over sight.

As a result of this new dynamic, what is more important than ever is NOT talent, (which I believe has taken a back seat role in this scenario) and given rise to the importance of Marketing. Now this in it's own right is another form of creative talent, that must be taken in to consideration as well, when embarking in this or any of the other Media oriented forms of expression. I am not saying that talent does not count. What I am saying is that talent has been re-calibrated so to speak, to reflect the social landscape of our culture. Thus, talent is not only equated by the perceived beauty of the imagery, music or art form, but by the way it has been marketed. The marketing has become an integral part of the art form, thus the art form.

So the next time you observe an image in VOGUE, Harper's BAZAAR, ELLE, Marie Claire, Numero Magazine, or what ever and say to yourself, "I could have done that..." Just be reminded, that you probably could have. So what's the problem then? I suggest you go ahead. But just remember, that having Talent is only around 10% of the formula. The rest is highly guarded secret.

So what's the score? I'll give you a play by play update as it comes in. But the gap is widening and as of now, it is Marketing-26 Talent-7...

[Asmarlak]

That is really great to know, thanks for sharing. From what you mentioned those ratings apply to fashion/magazine shoots which usually involve more than the photographer (hair, makeup, cloths, accessories,..so on) and not just any shoot?, which make sense since the photographer's responsibilities become limited to minimal, almost pressing the shutter button. Are you familiar with other kinds of shoots that involve only the photographer with his camera, and how talent plays role?.

I wish I hear your opinion also in regards of what I call "THPS" (The Horny Photographer Syndrome). Sometimes I see photos of women by some photographers, they most often with big breasts and in bikinis or just all nude. I understand that this is could be part of the "marketing" strategy that you talked about, but sometimes those photos are not money making for those photographers. Do they do it because they let their stereotype fantasies get in the way thinking that they'd end the shoot by bedding those women, like what we see in Hollywood films?.
On the other hand, why aren't there women photographers taking pictures of semi-nude men as men taking pictures of naked women?. Isn't the whole thing is sexual, from the strait white male sexual stand point?.

Why magazines such as the ones you mentioned not trying new trend in selling women products by good looking, semi-nude males instead of women?. I think that would help women in every way we can think of. It will lift the pressure off women and young girls who think they would look like the woman in the picture when using the product, which is a big lie; It would make women concentrate more on the male physique and not their own; It will make women raise their standards in men by wanting the kind of males they see in pictures not the fat big bellied men they often settle for; It'll takes the looks pressure off women and through it onto men's when men eventually realize that they need to improve their physiques in order to get laid. The idea could also raise the sale of those magazines and products not only among women but also gays, and it'll be a win/win situation.
I'd be willing to bet, if those magazines survey their women readers and ask them what would they rather see more of, pretty women, or pretty men?, they'll chose men.
I believe by doing that, women fashion magazines would prove that they're loyal to women causes rather than only exploiting their wallets. After all, that above formula are proven to work in men's health and fitness magazines and advertising, they're already using more and more semi-nude women in their magazines.

[Asmarlak]

Wow, I gave it some more thoughts and here is the catch. Both men and women magazines are owned by the same people or at least the heterosexual white male kind, aren't they smart?. In Men magazines they're giving the heterosexual white male what they'd like to see and in women magazines they're giving women what the heterosexual white male would like to see as well, screw women even in their magazines, sorry for the language.
On TV many people consider Victoria's Secret commercials to be soft porn. When was the last time did we see a male in briefs, I think when Micheal Jordan did it and became a controversial issue more than fifteen years ago, why? because TV is also run by the same category of men lol.
Regards