Yesterday I was doing some online research of the photography of Richard Phibbs, because I have a model coming to the studio tomorrow who asked for some shots in “Phibbs style,” when I came across this article:
Clinton’s Headshot Shot by Naked Boy Photographer
Now I realize that it’s an old story, and I realize that it’s just gawker.com, but the ignorance in messages like this just doesn’t let me leave it alone.
First, let’s talk about the “naked boy” part, would the writer have felt the need to write the story if Phibbs photographed women instead of men?
Oh wait, that’s right. He does.
He also shoots a lot of fashion.
And celebrities.
But yes, some naked boys.
I think what offends me about this ubiquitous mentality is amplified by the fact that I hear it, in some fashion or other, every fucking day. It doesn’t matter that I’m a photographer; it doesn’t matter if I’m a good photographer or if I suck at it. It doesn’t matter that the print I’ve sold the most copies is of the Chrysler Building, or that I make nearly all of my money shooting headshots and portraits. What matters to 95% of the people I meet is that I’m the photographer that shoots naked guys that are deemed by most people to be “hot.” Believe me, hearing about it all the time does get a little old.
(And when this isn’t the case, what I hear about instead is what I should be shooting — “You should shoot bears.” “You should shoot older men.” “You should shoot more erotica.” “You should shoot left-handed, nine-toed Samoans.” But that’s a blog entry for another day.)
Let’s go back to this juvenile gawker article. Obviously the writer doesn’t know any photographers. (Here’s a news flash for him: There aren’t very many of us who shoot only one subject matter, all the time.) We shoot what we get asked to shoot. So as opposed to picking one of the most well-respected portrait and fashion photographers in New York, where would he think Hillary Clinton is supposed to go for her headshots, the portrait studio at K-mart?
And let’s not ignore the fact that the writer also doesn’t know much about the “research” angle of writing: A simple google search of Richard Phibbs pulls up his fine art website as the number one listing, and on the site, aside from the variety of photography I’ve listed above, Phibbs also shoots
- Horses
- Flowers
- Architecture
- Landscapes
- Egypt
- Rugby
- Water polo
#1 by Sean on January 7, 2011 - 6:36 pm
Great article and very insightful about Phibbs and this smug, prudish, uncultured writer. Way to go Scott
#2 by Anonymous on January 7, 2011 - 7:31 pm
American prudishness, a residual Victorian affect,gives rise to it's own reverse — i.e. a childish tabloid tittilation with anything vaguely sexual. Also, “sex sells” and putting the words “naked” and “boy” in the title of a story or caption of a photo, guarantees that people will look at it, or pick it up, or buy it. They're all wannabe pederasts.
#3 by Gryphon77 on January 7, 2011 - 7:32 pm
wow. . good blog. I'm sure that would get tiring.
#4 by Mikael on January 7, 2011 - 7:35 pm
Your puritanical roots run deep my friend. Well, not yours. Your country's. I don't know if it is any more complicated than that?
Oh yeah, and sex sells. I've heard.
#5 by Brad Heintz on January 7, 2011 - 7:52 pm
Git 'em, Scott!
#6 by Mark, née Fuzz on January 7, 2011 - 8:14 pm
Um, Scott..you realize there are a lot of incredibly stupid people in the world, don't you? In the first place, not a boy in that bunch. Young men, yes. Boys, no. Secondly, I'd hazard to guess that most of the ignorant comments come from men who are insecure in their own sexuality. They are likely not even seeing the celebrities, flowers, bunny rabbits, normal people or artistic compositions, and zeroing in on that which scares the hell out of them. That being a sexually attractive male. Heaven forbid, it might cause them to go gay. I say shoot what you want to shoot, smile and thank the morons for their input, adopt a f*** 'em attitude behind their backs, and laugh all the way to the bank.
#7 by goodhome on January 7, 2011 - 9:10 pm
Mikael's right that sex sells, and as a writer, I suspect the author knew the words “naked boy photographer” would be more likely to get more clicks. But your larger point is well taken. It's the prudishness of our country that creates the salaciousness of the simple nude figure. If the prudes relaxed, the hyper-sexualization would,too. Well, most of it would. Mine would remain firmly in tact.
BTW, I'll stop asking you to shoot bears and older guys, but I just gots to have me some nine-toed Samoans.
#8 by Doug Peters on January 8, 2011 - 3:20 am
As always, you are more than you appear. And again, your post give one pause. While it is not your main body of work, or Phibbs, the nudes none the less leave an impact on the viewers mind. Your point is valid about your most purchased piece, of which we have one and enjoy daily, however, I will admit to having wandering thoughts of some of your models. But then I begin to analyze them, the pose, the light and try to envision more than a nude… Because like any work of art, it is more than skin deep.