Fashion Photography

[Alpha]

Well glad your such a Fashionista, but wow your wrong. Fashion is very subjective and as I recall there is no standard on what constitutes fashion, are we talking Everyday Fashion wear of Haute Couture (Which no one in their right mind says oh I want to look like that, and gee I can't afford it, when was the last time you saw anyone wearing real Haute Couture or even craving the crap that has come out in the last decade or so?) Are you talking alternative Fashion or Ready to Wear?

Nice work, if your happy with it, and others like which they seen to do keep up the good work and ignore those who claim to know fashion even if they are Designers, Models or Photographers. I can show you ten top people in the Industry and get 10 complete different opinions on what fashion is.

Your response to my critique is thoroughly misplaced. I have no idea what your experience in the industry is, but it's clear that you do not understand the psychology of marketing high fashion. As Hertz pointed out, editorial fashion about selling the lifestyle. If your line of reasoning whereby high fashion and all of its intents are reduced to subjective nothingness, were true, then high fashion would cease to be high fashion at all. You're welcome to go on being an artistic rebel, but you can rest assured that no one would ever hire you to do one of these shoots because the AD is counting on you to understand and to convey the very things you reject.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Studio work, I think is a good example where there is fashion but not lifestyle.

That seems to have gone the same way.
You are still trying to sell an idea not the clothes. This is what branding is all about. Look at Nike, D&G, Armani, Dior and all the others. The clothes now have to fit with the image of the company and so are designed to reflect the image of the company.
It's become like Hollywood in the 30's where you are selling a dream.

I think the only place where the ideal of the clothes being central still holds true is catalogue work

 

[Alpha]

That seems to have gone the same way.
You are still trying to sell an idea not the clothes. This is what branding is all about. Look at Nike, D&G, Armani, Dior and all the others. The clothes now have to fit with the image of the company and so are designed to reflect the image of the company.
It's become like Hollywood in the 30's where you are selling a dream.

I think the only place where the ideal of the clothes being central still holds true is catalogue work

Well, I think the distinction between editorial and non-editorial fashion is simply a matter of context. And I don't really see the lifestyle aspect of studio work, except to the extent that the lifestyle is the clothing. I think real editorial work takes that a step further. I'll give a couple examples since I happen to be looking back through this spring's NY Times Style Magazine. There's a black and white St. John ad with Angelina Jolie wearing a black dress and carrying some black shoes as she gets into an elevator. She's looking back, out of the elevator. There's clearly some story here...she's on her way to some fabulous party and is perhaps waiting for someone coming down the hall- probably a drop-dead gorgeous boyfriend. A couple pages later there's a Jil Sander ad with a model against a white backdrop. She's wearing this unbelievably stunning dress that's really flowy and looks like it's made of three carefully assembled giant scarves. Her hair is wet for no apparent reason. This is high fashion but it's not editorial, because there's no story. As far as I'm concerned, non-editorial fashion is identical to beauty, except in the former the clothing and accessories are the center of attention, whereas in the latter the model is.

As for where clothes might still be central, as I said I think studio fashion (where there are no mock-environments) serve that purpose. Runway, as well.