Annie Leibovitz Shoots…um…Sears…with um…the “Kardashian Clan”?

Annie Leibovitz Shoots Sears with Kardashians

Is it just me, or is there something dreadfully bizzare just off with this whole thingie?

The Gothamist thinks so.

So seriously, am I off my rocker being sort of suspended in disbelief?

Here’s the behind the scenes video from Elle.com, which was even weirder…

You may be interested in:

114 Responses to Annie Leibovitz Shoots…um…Sears…with um…the “Kardashian Clan”?

  1. squarepegjer September 8, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    Blech – my brain can’t even find the words to describe how bizarre this is. Quite the switch from today’s cjLIVE… which was mind-blowingly fantastic, by the way. So inspiring!

    • Tracey Easter | Poetic Photo Press September 8, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

      Miss Leibowitz aint no fool } you go where the money is

    • Kidding Carassying September 9, 2011 at 6:40 am #

      Blech doesn’t do it justice. Annie had to get payed big bucks for this one. The big one without makeup is a horror show in itself.Definitley not one of Annies better shoots.

  2. Qua September 8, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

    Shocking contrast to Chase’s interview with Chris. wonder if it has something to do with Fear..(financial conditions and all)

  3. Sergiu September 8, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    This is…sad.I love this woman’s work beyond words.This comes like a baseball bat from the dark.I’m not trying to be dramatic , but it’s either a really big alarm sign for the industry or yet another unfortunate episode in her career.Either way , it doesn’t look good coming from someone who is arguably the greatest photographer of the 20th century.

  4. Oracio Alvarado September 8, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    It’s not just you, there is something bizarre about this. The problem is that when someone needs money… you gotta do what you gotta do.

    It’s a well known fact that Annie Leibovitz has had major financial hardship in the last few years and she is in a lot of debt. I’m sure this is one way to pay the bills. It’s sad to see someone so talented having to do this.

    Let this be a lesson to people who rest on their laurels that you can lose everything in a blink of an eye.

    - Oracio

    • Qua September 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm #

      sThis can be an opportunity to listen to and share the message the Chris and authors like Marianne Williamson and other have pointed to… feel the fear and do it anyway. hanging on too tight tends to choke off life force and opportunities. after you step into the void and realize that you haven’t been annihilated, you become much more free and full of Life.

    • Kate Becker September 9, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

      Who cares if she takes photos of pseudo personalities…. it is money in her pocket.

  5. Bob September 8, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    The post work is Photoshop Disasters worthy. And the pseudo-lesbian vibe is just not right with sisters.

    • Kevin Garrison September 8, 2011 at 2:17 pm #

      I really couldn’t disagree more. Annie’s staff has done really minimal retouching on these images.

      • El Duderino September 8, 2011 at 3:05 pm #

        There’s definitely photoshop going on, look at the larger one’s face. Unless you meant they were already pretty beastly prior to this photoshop, and in that case I wouldn’t argue.

      • dan stone September 8, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

        sorry but actually they have done a HUGE amount http://jezebel.com/5836489/khloe-kardashian-downsizes-for-annie-leibovitz-shoot they resized them! i dont blame her for doing the shoot, its a odd one but i doubt she’ll use them in her portfolio!

      • Bob September 9, 2011 at 4:38 pm #

        I hope you’re joking. Ever see these girls on TV? Khloe is a LOT taller and curvier than the other two.

      • Brandon September 15, 2011 at 10:51 am #

        Seriously? Well Kim especially.. she looks like she has been added into the pic of the other two….. her head is floating in relation to the other girls… she looks too far out in front of them and her nose is ridic.

  6. PLM September 8, 2011 at 2:01 pm #

    There had to be some big dollars involved with this shoot. I really can’t begrudge her doing this shoot as she has been through the financial wringer. You do what you must to get by.

  7. Freddy Oropeza September 8, 2011 at 2:03 pm #

    Hey, she is got to pay for all those lawsuits somehow :P

  8. Renee Bowen September 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm #

    I’m with Bob – it’s amazing how the really tall ugly, angry looking one in the video (sorry, don’t know and don’t care what her name is) looks……well, less angry and slightly less ugly but atrociously nothing like herself.
    Bleh.
    Sorry, Annie, I know you gotta make the money, but wow.

  9. Camille Dohrn September 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm #

    Here are my thoughts: After listening to Chris Jordan earlier this puts his words into sharp relief. The contrast is jarring and his message seems clearer and even more important. We live in a world that validates the Kardashian Klan example seen here. Changing that paradigm will take time, courage and messengers like Chris Jordan.

    What Chris Jordan is choosing to do with his gift is a wonderful and valuable example. We can all learn from it. What will I choose to do with my gifts today?

  10. David T September 8, 2011 at 2:21 pm #

    I find it sad that she’s shooting this stuff… but what I find more bizarre is all these people are acting like they are above this, and that they wouldn’t do the shoot in a heartbeat if they were offered the opportunity.

  11. Kevin Garrison September 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm #

    I for one don’t see anything wrong with this. I’m sure these images aren’t going to make it into her personal archive of images she’s proud of – but at the end of the day she is a commercial photographer. She is hired to do work and if it pays highly, she is responsible for bringing in income and has a staff and payroll to be accountable for. The fact that she turned out a good set of images and made it seem like fun for the client is a tribute to her dedication. I’m actually astounded that there’s an attack on Annie for doing work.

    Photographers are a blessed bunch in that we typically enjoy our work – so suddenly it’s shocking to see a photographer doing work for a group of sister’s who’ve been featured on a reality TV show despite the fact it may not be her favorite clientele?

    Let’s focus on the actual client, eh? Sears. Sears, Roebuck and Co., specifically. They’ve been around for over a century and could literally chose any photographer in the world to do their advertisements. I salute Annie for booking a job like that, and I’m sure every single person who’s posted wouldn’t believe their agent if they were told they’d been booked by Sears for a campaign.

    • Roger September 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

      Thank you. the only bizarre thing here is that people talk like they wouldn´t take the job. The photographers work is to get the job from the COMPANY. not who they are shooting. i can’t see the whole thing about three sisters in underwear, but it sure is out of the box, maybe provocative for some, and that’s maybe what they want.

      • Kevin Garrison September 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm #

        Precisely. It might be a bit out of the box, but this is the woman who’s taken some of the most classic portraits in the world. Demi Moore pregnant and nude – that was one hell of an unorthodox photograph. John Lennon naked and clutching Yoko Ono in bed – a piece of history and one of the most unique, touching and revealing photographs of a celebrity I’ve ever seen. People don’t always understand Annie’s work from the beginning, but history leads me to trust her vision.

    • Jack Pope September 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm #

      I agree. The odd thing to me would be that Sears is selling Kardashian intimates, and choosing to partner with the sisters, and is willing to hire Anne Leibovits to shoot it.
      Sure, Annie is known to be in financial trouble recently, but is this really a desperate grasp at an extra paycheck? I think she would take the job just the same if she wasn’t in the hole, and y’all would too. Maybe it is a stepping stone for solid relationship between her and Sears, maybe she just accepted it to fill some free time, maybe she’s a fan of the Kardashian’s tv show. Who cares. Is it a weird shoot? Yes. Is it a weird gamble on Sears’ side? Yes. But there is no reason to bash Annie for taking the job.

    • TimR September 9, 2011 at 4:08 pm #

      Yep. Looks like a straightforward shoot to me. The Kardashians are hot now, Sears is maybe trying to get something new and fresh going, and Leibovitz felt for whatever reason she’d do it. Pretty standard stuff.

  12. David T September 8, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

    @Kevin ^^^ Exactly. You said what I wanted to say, but a lot more eloquently.

  13. Meelosh September 8, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

    gotta love that voice activated light stand :)

  14. Sasha Grubor September 8, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

    I’m assuming it is because of her financial troubles from last year. She almost had to sell the rights to her back catalog to pay off debts. Luckily she made what seems to be a good deal with a Los Angeles financial group to pay off her debts and still retain all rights over her art.

    Read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/09/annie-leibovitz-debt-deal

    But she’s still 15 mill in debt I believe.

    So therefore – The Kardashian Klan for Sears.

  15. Joe September 8, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    Aren’t celebrities one of her specialties, and aren’t the Kardashians celebrities?
    Can someone explain to me what is so off about this?

  16. Philip September 8, 2011 at 2:27 pm #

    Ha Ha Ha. I didn’t even know Sears sold stuff like that. I thought they sold appliances….and lawn mowers. Maybe Kim needs to learn how to use a leaf blower for the next shoot.

  17. MarkSam September 8, 2011 at 2:27 pm #

    You guys are a bit pathetic ( sorry to use such a strong word but..) Who’s to say that the lower class ( yes we do exist outside of your realm) can not have quality work done for us. I praise them for what they have done. It’s time to change your values and bring yourselves off of your high horses.

    • Wolfie September 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm #

      You took the words right out of my mouth, MarkSam. Too many arrogant asshats making comments about this shoot and work and yet THEY will NEVER produce anything half as nice as Ann’s work.

  18. Austin joffe September 8, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    The fact that she is shooting for Sears… kinda surprises me, but the fact that she’s shooting the Kardashian’s eases the feeling. Underwear, not surprising at all. EVERY photographer I know takes on jobs that are slightly under par – it’s quick cash, and it keeps you busy.

    What is VERY surprising to me is the behind the scenes video. Why would she release it? Maybe she had no control, but if she did, why would she do this? This could reduce overall value of the photographer, showing the public that you do these. I do smaller jobs, but request that my name not be associated with the piece.

    I’ve been doing a lot of research on fine art lately. one thing I recently came across was the pros and cons of donating your work to a charitable auction. lots of both; but, one of the cons was that it can sell far below it’s market/street value. So you have a piece that just sold in an auction for 400, and you have a piece from the same edition in a gallery for 1200, a collector may not purchase it see that the same piece just sold for 400, reducing it’s value. This is the way I see this BTS video for Annie L.

    • MarkSam September 9, 2011 at 11:09 am #

      Wow did you just honestly type what you typed.. Do you know what charity work means? It’s to help the less fortunate.

      Personally i would feel fine paying more for a piece i bought at an arts dealer, knowing that the artist also donates his work to charities. Actually … i would prefer that.

      but then again. You probably have never given a cent to charity, so you have no idea about it. And only see the dollar signs.

      Sad. :(

  19. adr September 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    Wow, much more tacky is this post. Shame on you, who are you to judge?

  20. ALDO September 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm #

    Why don’t u bring her on Creative Live? Anne L. that is.. ?

    • David T September 9, 2011 at 10:49 am #

      Yes, please bring Annie Leibovitz onto CLive!

  21. Boris September 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    Please go away, kweirdos

  22. Chase September 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    I guess Im failing to see the disconnect here.

    Annie has been always connected with Hollywood, sure more in a fine art vs commercial way, but as most have said, shes got debts to pay but this keeps her connected with Hollywood while Disney isnt calling for shoots.

    The post is typical fashion, its gotta Annies signature darks and theres a chunk of change made on all sides here.

  23. Todd September 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    Seems a little out of the norm for her type of work, I guess… but every job has its price. I’d do a photo shoot with Elmo, Barney, and the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers in the middle of downtown Moscow during a Blizzard, if the price was right. LOL I’m sure all of you would too. Good for Annie; she’s staying busy.

  24. stephen September 8, 2011 at 2:57 pm #

    kudos to the Sears marketing team for going out and doing something pretty out of the box for a bland retailer like them. I mean seriously, they worked the angle to get one of the most incredible photographers out there… sure, it’s kind of a bad vibe from mrs. Leibovitz, but I’m sure she’s getting paid really well to do… her job… take pictures. I seriously doubt that most (if any people) would scoff at the opportunity to present a bid to Sears’ agency for this gig.

  25. Kym September 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm #

    If you start to explain why you think this is weird, then you’ll probably decide to delete what you wrote. Sometimes you have to see the perspective of a world that doesn’t shop from the Ads in Vogue. I can see why Jimmy Choo wouldn’t design shoes for Target, but I don’t see why this would hurt Annie’s “brand” as a photographer.

  26. Callum Winton September 8, 2011 at 3:18 pm #

    Youch – really heavy handed with the photoshop.
    I thought the trend was heading away from painted pictures following the recent Lancome embarrasment?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14304802

    CW

  27. Paul September 8, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    The one thing I’ve always appreciated about your writings is that they always seem so inclusive. There’s always been a refreshing lack of pretentiousness to your words and ideas. That’s what makes this post so mystifying to me. Now admittedly, I’m no fan of “celebrities” like the Kardashians – quite the opposite. In my opinion, their ilk represent everything that’s wrong with our culture. Nonetheless, Annie is simply photographing them as part of an advertising campaign, not endorsing their lifestyle, nor attempting to validate their cultural significance. As far as Sears is concerned, many of us actually shop at places like Sears and Target and J. C. Penney. I see no shame in that whatsoever, and I would hope that you don’t either. I’d expect that kind of snobbery from teenage hipster doofuses, but I’d be very surprised and disappointed to find it here. I’m sure we’d all love to be able to choose our projects based solely on artistic merit, but in a capitalistic society, that’s not always possible. That’s why Michael Caine appears in films like Jaws: The Revenge. Obviously this is not going to go down as one of Annie’s great artistic triumphs, but sometimes you just gotta pay the bills. There’s no shame in that either.

    • marc September 8, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

      Totally agree with Paul. What’s so bizarre about this? If Sears called you and said “Hey, We want you to shoot the Kardashians” would you say no?

    • claude etienne September 8, 2011 at 9:44 pm #

      I also have to agree with you Paul. The bottom line is, if you took away Sears and The Kardashians, there wouldn’t be anything weird here. The pictures look beautiful, and the work should be judged based on its quality. Leibovitz was simply hired for a job, and she delivered to the best of her ability as any professional should. To conclude, I would like to point out, that another talented photographer by the name of Jeremy Cowart also did a photoshoot with The Kardashians. The pictures are displayed on his site, and I don’t think Cowart is weird for having done that photoshoot. It was a job, he took it, and he did his best, just like Leibovitz.

      • MarkSam September 9, 2011 at 11:12 am #

        well said claude

    • Meryl September 9, 2011 at 8:19 am #

      I agree with Paul, who posted above. I am appalled at the elitism in this discussion. You should all be lucky enough to have your photography seen by as many people as browse a Sears catalog. I don’t care for Sears and I only vaguely know who the Kardashians are, but they obviously sell magazines, and presumably intimate apparel. What a huge audience for the photographer who does that shoot. Go, Annie.

    • Chase September 9, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

      @ paul. i’m trying to call what i see, which is not as you’re describing it here. i tried to be a little more clear below.

      • Brett September 14, 2011 at 8:31 pm #

        “There’s always been a refreshing lack of pretentiousness to your words and ideas.” Really? Maybe it’s time to get back to reading this blog then. Those were the things that drove me away in the first place.

  28. Brian September 8, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    I seriously don’t know what is bizarre about this. Maybe I don’t know my Annie Leibovitz history all that well (uber famous fashion/celebrity photographer, has a lot of debt), but it seems pretty normal to me.
    This shoot features celebrities and fashion, which is what she is known for. We may not all like the celebrities or the fashion in this shoot, but what does that matter?
    I say take it for what it is a fashion/celebrity photographer doing her job.

  29. Adam September 8, 2011 at 3:49 pm #

    The only thing “bizarre” to me is the fact that people find this “bizarre”. It’s called “Commercial Photography”. It goes back to Irving Penn’s great quote “Photographing a cake can be art.” Well guess what, photographing the Kardashians can be art too!! Until you all reach the level of success as Leibovitz, stop being to critical.

  30. Dana September 8, 2011 at 3:54 pm #

    Not the kind of positive, inspiring, professional, and motivating post Chase typically publishes. Kind of disappointing.

    • Chase September 9, 2011 at 9:38 pm #

      @dana. sorry to disappoint, but i’m guessing we’re like ships in the night on this one. details below

  31. Fat Don September 8, 2011 at 4:05 pm #

    Annie is a commercial portrait photographer so I don’t judge on her doing this shoot – it fits within the parameters of her niche. I will comment, however, on the lack of creativity that usually comes from her images which is her trademark and one of the reasons she is recognized as one of the greats. The end product is standard catalog shots that most professional commercial photographers can accomplish. I think she failed in the delivery, not in the decision to do the project.

  32. Josh September 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm #

    What’s strange to me is not that she did the shoot, but that she looks uncomfortable, the posing is uncomfortable, and the girls look uncomfortable. This is not the work I’ve come to know from her and that saddens me more than anything.

  33. Chris Brock September 8, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    I guess she just badly needs the money.

  34. Paul September 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm #

    im sure this was mentioned already, i dont have time to read all the comments.. But the middle face in the left photo looks equivalent to my retouching skills in photoshop 6.0 circa 2000.. Yikes is right

  35. jamesd3rd September 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm #

    I don’t see what the big deal is and why so many people are spewing such negativity over an ad campaign. I mean for crying out loud get over yourselves you’re feeling yourselves a little way too much. They’re famous (granted for not doing anything) and they wanted the best to shoot the ad and the client is Sears. So what? Ok she’s shot some of the most famous and influential people of our time. Does that mean she should be a snob about it and say ‘Sears…oh no that is way beneath me I won’t do it.’? At the end of the day, she’s running a business that the purpose of a business is to make money. I seriously doubt if any of the above haters would turn down that gig.

    The client dictates the shoot and we only saw what was shown to us. People are comparing her commercial work to the ad. Well considering it’s for Sears, I doubt you can really get all that creative like she normally would and just have to work through it.

  36. tom September 8, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    do people really buy these sort of cloths and wear them in public?

  37. Kirk September 8, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    Everyone does remember a few years back where Ms Leibovitz lost or almost lost the rights to her entire photographic collection right? She needs the money. Same reason you see big Hollywood actors in crap movies sometimes. They are normal people with a different way to pay the bills than you or I is all.

  38. Paul Scott September 8, 2011 at 5:29 pm #

    Would somebody please post a link to a list of acceptable companies to work for.
    I’ll pass it along to Annie and hopefully she won’t make the same mistake in the future.

    • Mel Haynes September 8, 2011 at 10:12 pm #

      Im guessing REI is an ok company to shoot for. Sears, no.

      I am hoping Chase’s comments are not towards the company, but the so called celebrities. I agree that working with the “K”‘s is not a great choice, but everyone needs to support themselves and even the famous people need money too. Its sad that those girls are famous for….well nothing and are making a living, but someone who makes great art has to be ridiculed for taking a job that probably pays well and perhaps steady.

      Who knows what her motivations are, but they are hers to make. I do not look down on her for it. I of course wonder what her reasons were, but thats just our nature.

  39. Pedro Tortilla September 8, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    It’s called getting paid…..revolutionary idea. Only 18 or so months ago she was in the public eye for her debt problems, I dont think she’s in a position to be saying no to work. She’s also a commercial portrait photographer and these are exactly that. Sears is worth $22 billion and the Kardashians are fairly famous. What is however bizarre is that you care about it, Chase. This is right down Annies street but with a lack of the usual uber-prestige. This is some sort of celebrity gossip post.., Perez Jarvis. The photography community need to leave this 60 year old woman alone sometimes from thinking they can do better with all those assistants and all that budget, to crying about not liking her new work, the fact she’s in debt and criticizing her for it and the Tiger Woods shoot that people whined about on some forums. It’s clear you have an admiration for Annie and feel she lowered herself for it but money is money so save the gossip posts and get back to the good and positive content you usually put up.

    • Chase September 9, 2011 at 9:37 pm #

      @pedro. not my point at all, bro. details below.

  40. joey boy September 8, 2011 at 6:04 pm #

    Chase – you are a class act and the “Gothamist”, I just can’t believe you stooping to their level. Clean it up, you are above attacking people. Do you know the Kardashians ? Your post seems out of character. I am guessing you had a long week of shooting.

    I still love ya, but please go shower and clean the dirt off your brow. And I hope Annie don’t show up at your door and bust your ass.

    love
    joey boy

    • Chase September 9, 2011 at 9:36 pm #

      @joey boy. seems like we’re talking apples to oranges, or maybe you took words that others have said in the comments and attributed them to me…. Hopefully I have been more clear in comments way below where I tried to summarize… hope you read em. .thx….

  41. Mike Moss September 8, 2011 at 8:38 pm #

    Celebrity and fashion don’t usually mix well.

    A lot of people in the fashion industry are getting frustrated because the market is making greater demands for celebrity star-power to sell clothes and move magazines. Clothing tends to photograph and look best on the tall/ skinny supermodel bodies, but very few high fashion models carry serious celebrity star-power. On the hand, there are many celebrities that have huge audiences and can sell the shit out of a clothing line, but they don’t have the look or the personality to really photograph as well as a dedicated fashion model. So the fashion industry is forced to find a “compromise” solution by using celebrities as models and spokespeople while employing an army of stylists and re-touchers to cover up their non-supermodel qualities. The Kardashian/Leibovitz shoot is an excellent example of a celebrity/model compromise solution because it alters the appearance of the subjects just enough to allow them to look good in the clothes while still accentuating the personal features that reveal their celebrity identities.

    My guess is that the campaign will be a success.

  42. Anthony September 8, 2011 at 8:40 pm #

    I really don’t get what the big deal is? Annie is a commercial photographer, if Sears and the Kardashians are going to pay her good money to shoot photos, I assume she would shoot the photos. Who are any of us to judge anyone else for what they shoot to pay the bills?

  43. jetgreen1 September 8, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    There is a fat one in every litter!

  44. Cecil September 8, 2011 at 10:24 pm #

    There is nothing bizzare or wrong with this. I’d shoot the Kardashians and I’d love it. I might even do it for free. and this is coming from someone who is not a fan of the Kardashians at all.

    For those that just want to shoot what you love, go find a pretty flower and shoot that until it pays you.

  45. Nick September 8, 2011 at 10:37 pm #

    Wow. Not her normal clientele I guess.

  46. Venura Herath September 9, 2011 at 12:34 am #

    Hmm! not her calibre!

  47. Eddie September 9, 2011 at 1:02 am #

    Dreadfully bizarre or just off? Not really. This is America, and if we can except Lady Gaga and her antics, what’s so bad about the Kardashian Klan working for Sears? I know, we’re sick of them and their constant media exposure. But I haven’t herd of any arrests, rude misbehaving, or of them doing anything really bad to anyone. Although I avoid watching crap TV, which I recommend if it bothers you.

  48. Cameron Brown September 9, 2011 at 1:04 am #

    Don’t judge. Most people would kill for these clients

  49. Milosh Kosanovich September 9, 2011 at 1:49 am #

    At least Annie wasn’t desperate enough for cash to shoot the wedding, or was she?

  50. jeremy September 9, 2011 at 2:12 am #

    Okay, so there is a lot going in this thread with in threads. This happens a lot more than one would think. All photographers, no matter who they are do “commercial” work. Nothing wrong with feeding your children. This is like the age old debate about selling out. There is no such thing as selling out if that’s the work you want to do. Regardless how you feel about the Kardashian’s it’s not anyones place to judge what one should or should not do within their own career. This is what happens when your great, you get haters for ever little thing. The Kardashian’s love em or hate em they are part of “American culture”. I can’t imagine one photographer in the thread (the ones disagreeing with her choice) that would not shoot these girls for !!!FREE!!! with the opportunity. Annie is still the greatest photographers in history even with her woes. The photoshop work is really strange. Great and subtle in some parts, and awful in others. The choices made to retouch Khloe’s face but not her thighs is just lazy and I doubt this would fly in the UK. I love you all. Glad I got to vent. I hate hearing about “great ppl”. heroes or heroines will always just human. I know it sucks seeing superman shit.

  51. Al Overdrive September 9, 2011 at 5:17 am #

    One thing ; Yes pretty much all of us in this thread would shoot this set given half a chance. Myself included. But none of us are so well known as Annie, none of us have the back catalogueor reputation she has, hence your arguement is wasted.

    I guess Chase was just trying to say “this was a suprise, considering the work I am used to seeing from her”. YOU seem to have taken htis to mean Chase is jealous or is saying it’s beneath Annie. I didn’t read it as Chase hating her or her taking the taks, just he ws wondering why this happened; none of us would have predicted it. Instead people seem to be reflecting their own issues.

    • Chase September 9, 2011 at 9:35 pm #

      @al – yes that’s what i’m driving at…

  52. Timothy Lefkowitz September 9, 2011 at 5:24 am #

    I agree chase, this doesn’t seem like your “character”. I would hope you wake up the next day realizing this was a pointless post.

    • Chase September 9, 2011 at 9:34 pm #

      @timothy seems like we’re talking apples to oranges, or maybe you took words that others have said in the comments and attributed them to me…. Hopefully I have been more clear in comments below where I tried to summarize….thx….

  53. Denis Duquette September 9, 2011 at 5:26 am #

    Didn’t want to blast Chase’s comment with a huge reply, so I put it in a blog post: http://wp.me/p1gY54-c0

  54. Russ Rowland September 9, 2011 at 5:31 am #

    I just want to know why the one in the middle looks so angry in the undy shot. Maybe she knows it’s minute 13.

  55. Donald Page September 9, 2011 at 5:57 am #

    Theres a lot of hating going on in these comments

  56. Stan C September 9, 2011 at 6:21 am #

    uh I think it’s weird because of the photoshopping. chloe’s been shortened a lot both pictures. Also can’t put my finger on it, but
    I feel there’s some compositing as the lighting, shadows & DOF seems off with the left picture.

  57. Rob Barnes September 9, 2011 at 6:40 am #

    Chase,

    Can you expand a little here……? My first reaction above all else was what are you thinking?

  58. fas September 9, 2011 at 7:15 am #

    Now I dont mind being a camera man :p

  59. Colleen Dubois September 9, 2011 at 8:40 am #

    Really Chase!! Cmon… We are all working for the same thing here…correct? As a budding photographer, I find this to be disapointing. I know you can’t please everyone, but I for sure would hate to be judge by my peers for making a living following my passion whatever road I follow. Maybe I mis-interpeted your comments.
    But then again…I’m sure Annie dosen’t give an F what everyone else thinks…so props to her!

    • Chase September 9, 2011 at 9:33 pm #

      @colleen. seems like we’re talking apples to oranges, or maybe you took words that others have said in the comments and attributed them to me…. Hopefully I have been more clear in comments below where I tried to summarize….thx….

      • Colleen September 10, 2011 at 8:45 am #

        @chase…I gottcha now. YIKES!…after reading my post again. I attribute my shitty comment to being a little feisty from a red wine hangover. I only hold you with the utmost respect, and you have for sure been a huge driving force behind my path in photography…even though you may not know it. Thanks for taking the time to respond. -C

  60. Terry Clark September 9, 2011 at 9:53 am #

    Maybe next week she’ll be shooting the weekly supplement for Costco. And if she does, good for her, she’s working and last I checked that was the idea of being a commercial photographer. It’s interesting to read how some think she’s “above” that kind of shoot. Why? Because she’s had opportunity to photograph iconic figures for magazines? I’m betting the check from Sears was light years ahead of any magazine shoot she’s done. She’s a talented photographer but the bottom line, we all got to eat.

  61. damien September 9, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    gotta pay the bill$. the photoshop on the lingerie shot is freaking awful.

  62. Chase September 9, 2011 at 9:29 pm #

    For purpose of the discussion, I think a lot of people mistook the general direction of my curiosity about the images and the campaign. didn’t aim to bash folks – and i appreciate y’all for recognizing that i’m not a basher. That said, I’ll try to summarize what I find off about this. Notice the word choice first and foremost…not shitty, not lame, not stupid or any of that, not sell out, not ANY of what a bunch of you are unjustly suggesting I’m getting at (fair to criticize those who are doing that, but I’m just trying to explain myself here…) I chose words like bizarre and off. Here’s why… (and it’s not what 99% of the commentary is directed at herein, so I hope you’ll follow me here…) I’m surprised by the pictures because… mostly…they don’t look like Annie’s. (I’m an Annie fan – she’s a legend! Not complaining about the gig – prolly some big bucks – good for everybody involved). And I can still be surprised, perhaps even a little sad, by the video. Only because most of the people in there look unhappy and/or uncomfortable – both those traits are uncharacteristic of Annie, Elle.com, Sears, and the Kardashians for that matter. I was surprised a the technical problems with the quality of the photoshop stuffs … it is surprising given what I’m suspecting was spent in time, money, effort by all the parties who want this to succeed. All those brands are big brands. Big brands usually account for the details… and unlucky bit of circumstance I’d say. IMHO, most of these folks must have just had a bad day or two together. It happens. That’s a good take away, I suppose, more than anything. No mud. No blood. The magic just wasn’t happenin. This was just an instance where it was pretty noticeable – something that doesn’t happen very often, but…let’s call it what it is…it happens to everyone. Perhaps it’s a breath of fresh air…

    • claude etienne September 10, 2011 at 11:46 am #

      Chase,

      Your explanation does clarify what you meant to say with this post. The problem is that you chose a title that suggests something else. The word “um” before Sears and Kardashian clan does suggest that you were being condescending, and I think it’s perfectly normal that many people including myself misinterpreted the meaning behind this post.

      Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.

  63. joey boy September 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    Chase,

    Good to hear from you. Many of us come to your site daily and see you as friend -

    I think that’s all want to say :)

    cheers

  64. Forrest MacCormack September 10, 2011 at 2:09 pm #

    I see it as about the money – isn’t Annie digging herself out of a huge financial hole? Doesn’t seem bizarre at all to me.

    • Glenn September 11, 2011 at 4:02 am #

      Being a professional photographer means you get paid to take photos, unless you want to call yourself an artist?

  65. Brittani September 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm #

    I have some seriously mixed feelings about this whole thing.. who knows what the incentive really was for Annie to shoot this though?? We can’t judge without knowing the full story, though I’m having a hard time with it myself! <3

  66. Elvis Castillo September 12, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven…

  67. earl September 13, 2011 at 4:56 am #

    you always like to inspire discussion, and you have defiantly done that here :-) AL has always struck me as a real person, looking to shoot and work and be active as a photographer. Sears or Vanity Fair, it would seem the process for her is the same…shoot celebrity photos which appear in a print magazine, which is exactly what she is doing here…it just so happens that the print magazine is a sears catalog.

    But truth be told, aren’t we all doing the same thing as this? we are all looking to shoot and work and have our stuff be visible, weather we are just starting out or established photogs. Would anyone of us turn down a gig that paid us at our standard rate because we thought the subject or shoot was “beneath us”? If the local elks club wanted me to come in and shoot their prime rib buffet night, I would absolutely do that, if they were paying me at my standard hourly rate. I guess i’m a bit of a HOE like that, I work for money, and I don’t judge the job or client because tomorrow I very well could be without work at all. Yes I dream of shooting Coke ads and big prints for the storefront of Williams-Sonoma, but until then I’m more than happy to do the menu photos for “Eds Burger Palace” because its work, and this is my job.

    I understand the snobby elitist comments. Many photogs are very egotistical and see themselves as fine artists making great socially relevant images that will change the course of humanity, and thats great…. but i’m a hoe, I do this for money because money buys new cameras, new gear, and helps me to become better at what I love to do…thats take really good photos.

    word. dope. fresh. keep it real. :-)

  68. A Comment September 13, 2011 at 9:11 am #

    Whether you like her work or not I think Annie’s cv more than speaks for itself. Never mind Vanity Fair, have a look at how many Rolling Stone covers she has done…. I am sure most of us envy having such a long and successful career. What campaigns have you been shooting lately folks? Chase?

  69. Bluestill September 13, 2011 at 6:18 pm #

    I have never understood all of Ms Liebovitz work. But for that matter that is what draws attention to it. I don’t think so much on terms of her financial status, so i see this as her “trending” with current situations. Perhaps the focus should be on Sears.

  70. RJ September 14, 2011 at 6:38 pm #

    Just because it isn’t her fantasy-type portrait work does not mean it’s wrong/inartistic. Well, at least for me.
    Am I the only one who thinks this looks cool?

  71. yiding September 19, 2011 at 8:59 pm #

    in my opinion, don’t judge anyone, just do yourself best,be happy

  72. Alan Matthews September 30, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    I do think it’s disturbing. However, it’s interesting to me what is deemed to be disturbing in our pop culture and art. I think the “reality” show on MTV ‘Skins’ showing 15 year olds acting like adults was disturbing but there were plenty of people who excused it because of the artistic representation or cinematography.

  73. gay webcam November 25, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    Wow! This could be one of the most helpful blogs we have ever come across on thesubject. Actually great post! I’m also an expert in this topic therefore I can understand your effort.

  74. Aleks December 7, 2011 at 10:16 am #

    Annie is – bankrupt!

    Her whole photo collection and archive is confiscated by some law firm as a colateral for her credit debt (or some sort of similar situation; point she has no money)…
    In a situation like that, of course she will acept job that is well paid by -anyone!

  75. Tami Pu December 21, 2011 at 11:43 pm #

    I wanted to write you the very little note so as to thank you very much as before for the magnificent suggestions you have documented in this article. This is unbelievably open-handed of people like you giving unhampered all that a lot of folks might have made available for an e-book in order to make some cash for their own end, even more so since you could have done it if you considered necessary. Those advice in addition served to be a good way to comprehend other people online have the same interest much like my own to see a lot more pertaining to this condition. I am certain there are lots of more pleasant instances in the future for individuals who scan through your blog post.

  76. blick | fang December 27, 2011 at 8:51 am #

    I’d respectfully disagree. I love a lot of Annie Leibovitz’s work and what I see here is maybe not the most impressive in any way, err, shape or form, but I find it consistent. Her art/work always depicted the “reality” of celebrity life in a very staged and artificial way. And when it comes down to that and with some historic myopia applied I don’t see a significant difference between a highly photoshopped Queen Elizabeth in full regalia, a drugged up Keith Richards or a bunch of chunky reality-TV girls who are a cultural phenomenon whether we like it or not.

    And if this helps Sears to sell some cheap high heels from a pseudo-fashion line and makes Ms. Leibovitz enough doe to pay her mortgage I don’t have a problem with it. And since we’re having a serious discussion about the thoughts and emotions the whole thing provoked it may even qualify as art in a good way.

  77. Luis January 20, 2012 at 1:42 am #

    I don’t know about you, but I think they look really hot.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. My Two Cents… (Leibovitz with the Kardashians) | Denis Duquette - September 9, 2011

    [...] Here’s the thing: Leibovitz has shot anyone who is anyone and has worked for the majority of the most prolific magazines in the world. Do a Google image search and I’m sure you’ll see many familiar images. So… of the all the people to photograph, and the companies to photograph for, why the Kardashians for Sears? It’s interesting because the more I have read on the subject the more I’m surprised by the reactions of photographers. I see the words “sell-out” and that she just did it for the money. Or people saying she must be really hard up for cash to do this shoot. Check out Chase Jarvis‘ post about it here. [...]

Leave a Reply

Highslide for Wordpress Plugin