8 January 2011
Annie Leibovitz “A Photographer’s Life 1990-2005″ exhibition (runs 19 November 2010– 27 March 2011)
Museum of Contemporary Art, 140 George St The Rocks, Sydney, Australia.
I don’t care about celebrities. And on Saturday afternoon, I found out that I don’t really care about “normal” people either. It cost me $15 to figure this out – cheaper than therapy bills so it’s not all bad.
Dropped into the MCA for the Annie Leibovitz exhibition designed to save her, her family and estate from bankruptcy. Has she garnered enough $15 entry fees to pay back some of her “small loans”, which caused her to sell the rights of her f(r)amed works of art?
Short answer: yes. Ears prick up like meerkats at a celebrity name that is even more famous as it is associated with celebrities. The whole of Leibovitz’s image is seemingly more than the sum of its parts. I was impressed at the large crowd entering the MCA 30 minutes before close time – but that’s where my impressed state ended.
Rich and f(r)amous
So why did I, and possibly many others, go if it was so unimpressive? Leibovitz’s career of shooting stars is a brand I recognise, an image in which I am interested, a career with which I am curious. But just like 8th grade science class, you soon realise a shooting star [and Leibovitz's work] isn’t really a star at all – it’s a big ball of dust falling from heavenly grace.
Don’t get me wrong, she takes nice photos. [Or her camera does - how much does this burn wanna-be photographers?!] But there is nothing that stands out to me about why her career is considered stand-out. She has access to the stars, and a penchant for shooting them lying about naked a la Kate Moss/Johnny Depp and Yoko Ono/John Lennon [in my police report this was referred to as "Peeping Toms"] – her access in itself is probably the only stand-out feature.
Subjective objection
The subject of Leibovitz’s photos is exciting, not the actual photo. This is confirmed when the majority of this exhibition featured photos of Leibovitz’s family – or everyday people as they say in the ‘biz. These are just some stranger’s holiday pics you seriously do not want to see even though they have set up the slideshow and put out the guacamole. There’s nothing special about them, unless you know the people. And that is the key to Leibovitz’s success. We only like “ordinary” photos when you know the people, a sort of perverse nepotism. We don’t know celebrities, but we want to. There was nothing special about Leibovitz’s fam photos, the art of the photography, as is with her celeb shots. Except that they are of celebs.
I am not a starry-eyed ball of dust myself, but I was drawn to the celeb photos and skipped over the fam photos. Who knows if it’s because the fam photos were boring, or the celeb photos were of celebs and I am in denial about my star-struck ways. I think Leibovitz’s photos aren’t really suited to a wide expanse of an MCA exhibition. She is a photographer for magazine covers, where they accompany feature articles, which essentially is about the subject. It is their image, their brand, their celebrity that we want to access. Put them on the wall and it feels you are in 8th grade again armed with blu-tack and a copy of Smash Hits under your arm decorating your bedroom.
Overexposed?
The few photos that stood out to me were ones where colour and lighting played a part and you almost weren’t sure who was the subject, such as:
-
Warm and orange Brad Pitt in Las Vegas 1994
-
An ethereal Nicole Kidman in NY 2003
-
Cool and earthy [and hot] Jamie Foxx
-
An unknown subject swathed in turquoise and crimson
I did like the exhibition, but I wouldn’t recommend it. It was the most unassuming, unprovocative, indifferent, disengaged MCA exhibition I’ve attended thus far. I only have a sour taste left in my mouth after paying $15 just so I feel something other than neutrality. So I will opt to feel charitable. I hope my $15 goes to helping those family members at whom I was forced to stare….
- What’s that noise? Oh right, I’m thinking. And not being impressed. Stars above my head but not in my eyes!
