David Bailey - is he a member here?

Yves Geza

Yves Geza

Urchin
Messages
2,160
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
There's a fascinating interview with the great man/ageing roue in today's Telegraph.

HERE

... it sounds like his criticism of other photographers wouldn't keep him a member here for long! :D
 
David Bailey? Who's he? :)
 
I hadn't read the article when I posted earlier, but I'm glad that I did. It's an utterly brilliant insight into art and photography.
 
It was a fascinating interview, Bailey's always good value. For me the image that stands out in my mind is the portrait of Michael Caine with glasses and a ciggie.
 
No David Bailey wouldn't let you know if he's here - afraid someone might give him crap C&C:lol::lol::lol:

Not me by the way - he's my original inspiration:notworthy:
 
I'd love to see him encounter some traditional camera club types. I'd pay good money to see that :D
 
DemiLion said:
F£&¥ knows, the bloody little pleb!

Signed

Litchfield (dec)
Click to expand...



smilielol.gif
 
Great article. I'd never heard if the guy before but he has an interesting point of view.

I get jealous of those people with natural art ability, but then I get over it, keeping shooting and having fun.
 
Interesting seeing he's contemplating a project on bullfighters and his reasons for doing it.

Straight out of Picasso's world view...
 
Wasn't David Bailey the/one of the inspirations for Blowup?
 
David Bailey was really Ron Digsworth if I remember the advert Olympus correctly :)
 
POAH said:
no they don't
Click to expand...

True - Bailey is an opinionated b****r - it's part of the persona he's cultivated since starting out.
Even his contemporaries will tell you that.
Anyone see the docco on Duffy last year? he was a perfectly charming man who had little time for Bailey's aggressive posturing.

Bailey takes great images - no question - I'm a huge fan, especially of his early work, but just like a lot of prima-donnas in the art and fashion world, he can be a bit up his own **** sometimes.
 
His work is very good, his opinion also. but why is he such a star even if he doesn't want to be ?

I guess everyone needs celebs. have seen him mentioned gazzilion times. I rate JR above Bailey for what he has done. has he been mentioned here ? doubt it .
 
cobra_lite said:
True - Bailey is an opinionated b****r - it's part of the persona he's cultivated since starting out.
Even his contemporaries will tell you that.
Anyone see the docco on Duffy last year? he was a perfectly charming man who had little time for Bailey's aggressive posturing.

Bailey takes great images - no question - I'm a huge fan, especially of his early work, but just like a lot of prima-donnas in the art and fashion world, he can be a bit up his own **** sometimes.
Click to expand...

I suspect that an awful lot of the attitude comes from being an early member of the Coach & Horses crowd and all that it entailed. Let's face it, none of them were exactly sane! :D

Starastin said:
His work is very good, his opinion also. but why is he such a star even if he doesn't want to be ?

I guess everyone needs celebs. have seen him mentioned gazzilion times. I rate JR above Bailey for what he has done. has he been mentioned here ? doubt it .
Click to expand...

J.R.-Ewing.jpg



:thinking: :thinking:
 
AGD: Are photographs less powerful now because there are so many of them in the world?

DB: No, it makes the good ones even more powerful because it hasn’t taken away the good ones. The good ones are still there. Digital and Photoshop just moved mediocrity up a stop, that’s all. They’re still mediocre – they just look better.

:)
 
I really like some of his portrait work and I fully agree about the need to have that artistic ability already there. However I don't really like the way he rubbishes the technical aspects. All great artists who painted or sculptured needed to have serious technical ability. What would his shots have been like if aperture, film iso or lighting were not taken into consideration?
 
Blasted said:
I really like some of his portrait work and I fully agree about the need to have that artistic ability already there. However I don't really like the way he rubbishes the technical aspects. All great artists who painted or sculptured needed to have serious technical ability. What would his shots have been like if aperture, film iso or lighting were not taken into consideration?
Click to expand...


what he's trying to say is that they are not even secondary. and unfortunately from loads of peeps here and elsewhere it seems that for them the equipment is first.
 
I've always found David Bailey to be gobby and although I am not a fan of portait photography, he took some of the most iconic photos in the 60's imo.
 
Starastin said:
what he's trying to say is that they are not even secondary. and unfortunately from loads of peeps here and elsewhere it seems that for them the equipment is first.
Click to expand...

I do agree with him when he says that being artistic is primary and that equipment and the technical aspects should be secondary, but I think to be so flippant about the technical aspects whilst banging on about art subjects that require the most extraordinary technical ability is a bit daft. Either he is bigging himself up or he doesn't really know that much about what he talks about.

I don't for a doubt underestimate his portraits though, I think they are great.
 
Isn't everyone on here David Bailey - it's all I get asked "who do you think you are David Bailey?" when I get the camera out!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top