Mario Testino

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

my friend showed me the book from the exhibition which she had been to, but i didn't like it much, it didn't appeal at all really. but why? i'm not sure, i'm not a 'portrait' person much anyway i admit, but these i liked less still.

what say you about testino?

― gareth, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Technically brilliant but his desire to be mates with the stars overcomes all. He is chosen by stars because he can project the perfect unblemished idealised image of them, much like sicophantic portrait painters of yore.

― Ed, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

what Ed said, plus i found the pictures (they were in magazines, i didn't actually go to the exhibition) utterly sickening because of this and they made me quite angry. there was something about them that just made me instinctively hate them, they seemed so plastic, soulless and even Aryan. they were so obviously all about a certain kind of "lifestyle" rather then people. ugh.

― katie, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yes, katie, i agree. BUT, for something to be plastic is not normally a criticism from me, i like things to be plasticy and depthless, perhaps in a trite way revealing a certain lifestyle for what it is, but it fails to do even this. it does not even achieve emptyness

― gareth, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

gareth: yes, plasticity is good when it's making a point, this is true i suppose, though i can't think of any examples offhand. but COR - you meta-dislike testino! :)

― katie, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

lego!

― mark s, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

mark s, you are right as ever. and a very bad man!

― katie, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It's not plastic. It's far too nu-bourgeois for that.

― cuba libre (nathalie), Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yes, you are right, it isn't plastic, otherwise i would see merit, it is something else. i cannot really put my finger on why i do not like it, (it surely cannot be the mere sycophancy of it, ed, can it?)

― gareth, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

gareth surely uR4 sycophancy? it is the new rebellion

― mark s, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh the IRONY!

― cuba libre (nathalie), Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i know mark, ed mentions the sycophantic painters of yore, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. paintings of european royals that did not necessarily resemble the monarchs at all, but projected a certain image (likeness not important as most people would never see the royal in person)

― gareth, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think it's so much that his portraits are plastic but that they are just unoriginal and baw-ring.

― Nicole, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

That's because so many of his subjects are unoriginal and boring - I mean, Meg Ryan!

― Andrew L, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

His style is so yawnsome too -- who hasn't done that (and much better) before?

That he mostly features People magazine trash like Meg Ryan and Princess Di doesn't exactly help his case either.

― Nicole, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Agreed. testino is about selling lifestyles, but because the lifestyles are so implausible for the vast majority of us there's no we can engage with his work. It doesn't say anything about celebrity except that they're good-looking, which we knew already

― Matt, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Cunt cunt cunt! Right up there in my least favourite people ever balloon. Ugh.

― Mark C, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

This is the time when I say:

1) Mario who?

2) Er, so are there any pictures worth posting of this un-savant's work, for critical purposes?

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The thing I really dislike about him is that he, unlike pretty much evry other photographer in existance, fails to real absolutely nothing abput his subjects. The 2 dimensionality is incredible and I geuss a skill in itself. Most photographss reveal something about their subjects. The cameras ability to reveal the depth of instances is formidable, and yet testino manages to avoid the slightest hint of revalation. Only some vapid, high fashion, idea of perfection remains.

In short testino is the only photographer who could photgraph the superstitious without fear of removing people's souls.

― Ed, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Didn't his younger brother die of an overdose? I seem to recall he died several years ago. I could be wrong though.

― cuba libre (nathalie), Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You're thinking of the Sorrentis; Davide Sorrenti is the OD. Mario Sorrenti, his brother, photographed the Kate Moss Obsession campaign and dated her for a while.

What Ed said, largely because it is what I said about Testino in the review I wrote for the Japanese magazine Studio Voice. And he's matey with that krunt Gwyneth Paltrow.

― suzy, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Testinos photos of Paltrow reinforce the problems I have with him. They make her look rich and elegant, depending on the coolness of the photo and her surroundings as a protection against any insigt. That coldness reflects more then Paltrow seems to know.

The oppoiste of this are his photos of Madonna and Child-unaware of the verbal irony and religos history, he seems to make them outside of any time and place. But Madonna looks beutifal and the light seems pure, and there is emotion there.

― anthony, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i went to the exhibition w/my sister; apart from anything else the pictures are all way too shiny + reflect everything, so don't bother going.

otoh there were lots of pics of kate moss, and kate moss = sexiest person ever ever ever, so...

― toby, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Anthont maybe you're seeing a bit too much in all this. Or not? Who decides?

― cuba libre (nathalie), Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I really enjoyed the show, Mario Testino is a realy talented photographer, he is really good at what he does, which is: fashion photography. His audience is vogue or Ell readers. Anyone expecting insight or truth is gong to be diapointed. He constructs images as most photographers/artists do. I thuoght the Liz hurly photos gave a lot of insight to her character: a pretty body, that is good at turning up at parties in great outfits.

― Nalini Mackie, Friday, 31 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

you are happy with fluff = you get fluff!

― katie, Friday, 31 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I read VOuge and Elle. I in fact have a subscription to Vouge. I saw it in a gallery and thought of it as art-the natitional potrait gallery was unclear in its curtorial intentions and most of the art was weak, with the exception of the Madonna and the Gywneth. I am sorry,if it is possible, that i thought too much about the pretty pictures.

― anthony, Friday, 31 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.