Part 2 of Vogue
I covered this before, but generally you don’t advertise with ugly models unless you are selling something aimed at that demographic. Without going into a whole lot of detail I covered the advertising industry and the issue I have with people being “offended” by tried and true techniques.
Today, I want to talk about photography in the context of advertising and “sexy” subject matter. With that said there are many who look down on photographers who shoot nothing but attractive people and claim that if they were good enough they could make less attractive people look great as well. What a load of crap!
Of course, a great photographer can shoot flattering angles but he is not turning a frog into a prince by any stretch of the imagination.
Now, let’s get into subject matter. This really grinds my gears. If you see a landscape photo, what do you think? Amazing work, attention to detail, etc. That photographer has taken the time to hone his craft to create a remarkable image.
Next we look at a Maxim catalog photo what do you say? Smut, no talent, etc. Why? Because you don’t understand the art? The photographer for that style of photography takes just as much talent in his respected field as the landscape photographer but it’s not viewed the same way. NOW I AM IN NO WAY SAYING THE SUBJECT MATTER IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL but what I am saying is the skill level is amazing in both.
My point in this two-part rant is to show that sex sells in advertising and as primitive creatures we know it works so shut the hell up and move on. For part 2 my point is even if you don’t like that sex sells in advertising don’t bash the guys and gals that put it together but the photography, layout, and graphic design is just as hard as any other thing you are going to use as an alternative.