Renowned photographer Annie Leibovitz has once again found herself at the center of heated debate following the release of her latest photo shoot featuring actor Timothée Chalamet for Vogue magazine's December edition. The controversial images have sparked intense reactions across social media platforms, prompting photography experts to share their professional perspectives on whether the criticism is warranted.
The three-day photo shoot took place at Michael Heizer's land art sculpture called "City," located in the Nevada desert. Chalamet himself has expressed positive feelings about the collaboration, referring to Leibovitz as the "GOAT" (greatest of all time) via emoji on his Instagram post. However, the actor's fervent fanbase has flooded social media with predominantly negative comments about the artistic direction and styling choices.
Jeremy Gray, a photography writer, argues that the negative reaction is completely overblown. He believes that many of Chalamet's supporters simply want to see their favorite celebrity photographed in the most flattering way possible, which he describes as "dreadfully boring and ultimately just commercial work, not necessarily art." Gray emphasizes that Leibovitz offers celebrities like Chalamet an opportunity to be part of the photographic art-making process itself, rather than merely serving as portrait subjects.
Gray acknowledges that he doesn't love every single photo in the series, but he appreciates several of them, noting that such results are difficult to achieve when photographers play it safe. He expresses enthusiasm that Leibovitz has the resources and freedom to take creative risks, even when the results aren't always universally appealing. According to Gray, the photography world would benefit significantly if more photographers had the same creative freedom that Leibovitz enjoys.
Jaron Schneider offers a different perspective, focusing on the commercial and artistic mission behind the shoot. Despite his previous criticisms of Leibovitz's work, Schneider finds this particular series "downright fantastic" when evaluated from the standpoint of achieving Vogue's goals. He argues that Leibovitz understands the magazine's mission to sell copies and drive traffic, and creating standout images that differentiate Vogue from other publications is exactly the right approach.
Schneider particularly praises the cover image, describing it as a "weird blue galaxy with Chalamet's early-90s aesthetic standing on top of it" that immediately catches attention at newsstands. He also addresses the ongoing debate about whether younger photographers should be given opportunities for major Vogue features, while arguing that it's not yet time for Leibovitz to retire from such high-profile work.
One aspect that Schneider finds especially impressive is Leibovitz's willingness to include and highlight a back-of-the-head shot in the series, something he believes no young photographer would dare attempt. He describes this choice as "downright brave" and indicative of what makes Leibovitz exceptional. Schneider draws comparisons between Leibovitz and Pablo Picasso, noting how both artists mastered their craft early in their careers before spending decades experimenting and pushing boundaries.
Matt Growcoot takes the most defensive stance, referring to critics as "losers, lightweights, and lemons" who emerge to attack "the world's greatest living photographer." He observes that the pattern has become predictable: whenever a new Vogue edition features Leibovitz's work, thousands of online critics immediately begin voicing their disapproval. Growcoot suggests that Vogue actually benefits from working with Leibovitz precisely because of the buzz and conversation her work generates.
Quoting Oscar Wilde through a reader comment, Growcoot notes that "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." He points out that Chalamet's appearance on Vogue's cover was destined to generate discussion for multiple reasons: it's unusual for a man to be the cover star, and Chalamet is arguably one of the most important movie stars currently working, with his upcoming film "Marty Supreme" potentially impacting Hollywood's challenging 2025 season.
Growcoot acknowledges that the front cover is "a little kooky" but argues that it effectively communicates Chalamet's status as a major star. He finds the photos taken at the Nevada desert location particularly stunning, noting that Leibovitz cleverly references what Chalamet is best known for: his role in the "Dune" film series. Despite being well into her seventies, Growcoot emphasizes that Leibovitz continues taking creative risks, pushing boundaries, and maintaining her presence in public consciousness.
The desert location itself adds another layer of artistic significance to the shoot. Michael Heizer's "City" is a massive land art installation that has been under construction for decades, making it a fitting backdrop for a photographer known for her ambitious and unconventional approaches. The choice of location demonstrates Leibovitz's continued commitment to creating images that go beyond traditional studio photography.
This latest controversy follows a pattern of public debates surrounding Leibovitz's recent high-profile shoots, including previous criticisms of her work with other celebrities for major publications. The recurring nature of these discussions suggests that Leibovitz's artistic choices continue to challenge conventional expectations about celebrity photography and fashion imagery.
The divide in opinions among photography professionals reflects broader questions about the role of art versus commercial appeal in fashion photography, the balance between flattering portraiture and artistic expression, and the ongoing evolution of celebrity image-making in the digital age. As Leibovitz continues her career well into her eighth decade, her work remains a lightning rod for discussions about artistic vision, commercial success, and the changing landscape of fashion photography.
