My thoughts on... "Beckham, the photographer".
It is without a doubt that whatever Brooklyn Beckham chooses for a career he will have the support of his family, be easily supported financially and supported through the use of the Beckham brand.
Really there is no limit to what the 16 year old could accomplish or wish to do. His father, David has worked as a model for more than a handful of fashion chains, from high street to haute couture. His mother, Victoria designs and models her own range of clothing. Now it is Brooklyn that is taking the baton, but incidentally not as a model. The 160 year old British firm Burberry has made Brooklyn Beckham their official photographer for the firm's new fragrance collection.
This will be Brooklyn's premier job into the world of fashion photography and this alone has caused some outrage in the photography world by photographers and other professionals alike.
The professional photographers were the first to voice their concerns (mostly anger) at Burberry's choice of photographer. "Sheer nepotism!" is their call.
"While professional photographers grafted, sweat, bled and honed their skills to get where they are over years and years of struggle, here comes Brooklyn, a no-body and takes our jobs!" (Indeed I am paraphrasing here) But it is true that it is only through Brooklyn's fame that Burberry choose him as the photographer and definitely not his experience. But, It is simple marketing.
Brooklyn has millions of viewers on his various social media outlets and it is his viewers' that will get the Burberry saturation. The people Brooklyn's age are Burberry’s target market or the future target market.
Coincidentally Romeo, Brooklyn's younger brother attracted 11 million views within 48 hours during his role working with Burberry over the Christmas period.
Could these instances produce similar or better attention and marketing success with different celebrities? One believes yes possibly maybe, but I think that Burberry was guaranteed success by using the Beckham brand.
So, is this "Devaluation of Photography"? This subject is another reason and example (Elitist at that) for why photographers produce froth and anger towards Burberry. In some yes it does seem to devalue the art, but this is going back to the statement of how "experienced" the photographer is, so mostly the answer is no, because poor photography evidently makes better photography more valuable and appreciated.
Looking over his shots I believe they are quite good, all the rules are there, seemingly modern, looks exactly like an Instagram shoot and is not exactly "standoutish", but a lot of fashion photography is like that. So in a way he fits right in.
But of course there could be a large team of people correcting any major mistakes. A team for lighting, a team for editing, a team for make up, an army all there to enable Brooklyn to do a minimal contribution as possible and to ensure he just simply shoot and nothing else, but isn't this inclusive in all industry practices? Or the example of the maxim too many cooks...?
Burberry could have possibly sent the best support team to get the image that Burberry wanted. At the end of the day it is the buyer who has the final say on everything and not the creator.
But what are professional photographers really complaining about is another question? Is it because it is Beckham that got the gig and not them? Is it because someone stole their gig simply because of fame? Are they seeing this as the death of "pure" photography?
I fail to think what exactly, but now the professional and self proclaimed elite photographers now realise what struggling photographers have to endure, and that is simple competition.
The budding photographer with bags of talent and energy being continuously snuffed out due to companies looking for the cheapest option and in this instant best marketing option. It is now the professionals turn to realise what competition is.