People who know me personally understand that I am a contrarian. Those views manifest themselves in my thoughts and theories about photography and photographers. Put 100 photographers in a room and I’ll be the one saying that Ansel Adams was an assbag. And I’ll be right.

Another photographer who I feel is over praised for her photographic talent is Annie Leibovitz. It is widely believed that the reason behind Leibovitz’s success is her ability to “form an emotional bond with the subject”, I say that’s crap. If that were the case you would see her shooting silo’s of her subject which allows you to see their true self, something akin to what Albert Watson can do.

Tupac by Albert Watson

Even the photograph that made famous Leibovitz doesn’t show a one to one connection between subject and photographer, it captures a destructive obsession love shared between the subjects.  It would have been interesting to see if we ever knew her name if John Lennon was not murdered shortly after his portrait session with  Leibovitz.

John and Yoko by Annie Leibovitz

So why is it that we have all heard of Annie Leibovitz and she has enjoyed such success? I’m sure that part of it is due to her antics of being a bitch to the Queen of England or the media storm surrounding the so-called scandalous photos of Miley Cyrus but mostly its because her photographs are memorable due to the lavishness of them.

Take for instance these two well known Leibovitz photographs of Sting and Demi More.

Sting by Leibovitz

Demi Moore by Leibovitz

Are these two photographs interesting and visually appealing? Sure. Do they show any sort of outstanding connection with the viewer or insight to the subjects personality. No.

What do Annie Leibovitz’s photographs show us?

These images are prime examples of how having an idea and an unlimited budget can create a photograph that stands out.  Whether she is showering someone with thousands of rose petals or renting Versailles Leibovitz stops at nothing to hire the talent (in the above Demi Moore photo hiring an exceptional airbrush artist), style the set or travel to exotic locations to make her shoot happen. Does that make her a good photographer?  9 tourists out of 10 can take a post card worthy photograph of Versailles assuming they show up on a nice day.

It seems that Leibovitz has become a victim of her own illusion of grandeur. In her effort to make her life imitate her art she has found herself financially bankrupt.  News over the wire states:

Yet behind a facade of unlimited financial means, Leibovitz was spending her way into nightmare.

In what now appears as a disastrous decision to raise funds, Leibovitz took a 24-million-dollar loan from Art Capital Group (ACG) — in effect a high-end pawn broker — in December 2008 using her own photographs as collateral.

That debt is due September 8 and if she can’t pay up, she could lose her life’s work.

ACG, which specializes in making loans to owners of high value art works, is unlikely to adopt a soft line.

Leibovitz must “comply with the sales agreement she signed authorizing Art Capital to sell the fine art and real estate assets and to pay the invoices that are due,” ACG spokesman Montieth Illingworth said in a statement.

The over-leveraged photographer not only risks losing her photo archives, which The New York Times estimates could be worth 50 million dollars, but also her house in the trendy Greenwich Village district of Manhattan and a second home outside the city.

If she is forced to declare bankruptcy, it will then be up to the courts to decide how to distribute the assets.

As happens with so many artists (and con men) she bought into her own hype and it destroyed her. Sure some rich benefactor might swoop in and save the day but that isn’t the point here. On the one hand I appreciate spending all your fortune on your art. Sometimes I wish I could sell everything I own except my bike and my cameras and travel the world taking photographs. What true artist doesn’t have similar feelings? I have plenty of photo shoot ideas I could easily drop $100k on and it might just land me a few book deals or staff spots on some prestigious magazines, but I have a family and people who depend on me, so I refuse to be financially bankrupt to be creatively prosperous.

Does that mean I am not truly an artist at heart?