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…
Aren’t celebrities one of her specialties, and aren’t the Kardashians celebrities?
Can someone explain to me what is so off about this?
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.
gotta love that voice activated light stand 🙂
@Kevin ^^^ Exactly. You said what I wanted to say, but a lot more eloquently.
+1 with what David said
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.