This dude is such a smug little cocksucker. His photos are incredibly mediocre. Not to mention he left his wife and kids for his French fashion blogger jumpoff. Real sweetheart of a guy.
I'm pretty sure he's got Clipse's 'kind of a big deal' on repeat in his head.
This guy is such a prick. Everytime I comment on his stupid shit he never publishes it. You have to unquestionably kiss the subjects ass in every photo for him to have approved your comment."Awwww Scott you look so cute. You're so sweet Scott. Awwwwwww"Bitch...
He's wearing a black button up. My douche-dar started blinking like mad. I approve of all low blows on this man.
Translation of the last five minutes into one sentence: "I cannot see you from all the way up here on my gigantic Dolce and Gabbana throne, I am so high and mighty right now."
this interviewer makes me want to shoot myself,, but interesting words from schuman
I smell sour grapes..
Seems like Schuman tried to be honest and sincere but that interviewer was just more interested in hearing his own voice. I'm there with p.m., tres annoying.
No surprise here. I expected peeps to come on here and talk shit about the sartorialist. Fucking wack give me a break his blog is the best on the planet! He's the one that got the ball rolling and inspired all these other kooks to come along and start their own shit! So save it and give credit where credit is due! The man is being upfront and honest about fashion blogging. And let me just say his photographs are some of the best around!
There's enough sour grapes here to make vinegar for all the chip shops in England. I like his mix of picks which certainly aren't Richard Avedon or Capra but they aren't supposed to be. They're happy snaps of fashionistas and would be fashionistas. And like all these sort of pics they are entertaining, and if they're not you move to the next one. I've published critical comments on his blog, I even ruffled his feathers once but he had the guts to publish it although he marred it with a somewhat defensive rejoinder. He's been a success and spawned a bunch of imitators. His advice seemed reasonable to me and he certainly wasn't being pompous, so give the guy a break.
word. i thought it was informative. and a stark dose/bitter pill for many a blogger to swallow.
Calling him a prick or a cocksucker is for one immature & ignorant (you know who you are) but most importantly, it will not erase the fact that he's one of the pioneers in the whole street style blog phenomena. I agree w/ Double Cherry & Brummagem Joe, give the credit where it's due & give the nman a break. Hate all you want, he does make really reasonable & great advice on how to create a successful blog in the video. "Haters gon hate, but the fella is raking in the success."
My only issue with his stance is the whole 'original content' and how are bloggers going to pay the people who create the content. Do you think he gave any of his subjects royalties on his book deal? Or ads on his own site? I'm just saying that his work is the photograph, but it's entirely predicated on someone else's creativity-their personal sense of style. I don't really know how intellectual property works, but it just smacks of a lack of self-awareness to call out people like jjjjound when on some level he does the same thing-just with real people. I'd be bummed if I was the cover model on a book and got no credit-not even a name let alone a few pennies.
Jon you're totally right. Well said.
@Jon, while you make a fair point, i think your argument belittles the work of a photographer a bit. No one disputes that his subjects are creative in their own right. That is the whole reason for them being photographed in the first place. But there is much to be said for the photographer himself, and the skill/eye required to portray the subjects in a given light. Not to mention compiling them together to convey a cohesive message. You kind of make Sart sound like some leech who is subsisting off of other people's talents. That point of view completely invalidates who a photographer is, and what he does. Those people could look pretty all day long, but no one would be talking about them if Sart (or someone else) wasn't there to shoot them.Also, I don't know that any of us knows what kind of benefits his subjects have received from being in his site/book. I'd be honored to just get a mention. It really isn't always about getting a check. And for all we know, the cover model DID get one. Whatever difference that makes.I'll spare you a treatise on intellectual property...but with regard to 'original' content, I think most of us can agree that many of the blogs we truly enjoy have figured out how to occupy their own space. There is a reason his blog has done so well, and hundreds of others fall by the wayside. Ultimately, cutting and pasting from your favorite site isn't going to make you a contender. Assuming of course, that is what you are going for.
I certainly don't mean to belittle the work of a photographer-I just meant that his stance belittles the work of other bloggers. His (the sartorialist's) point IS about money and about getting a check-I think it would be naïve to think that his claim of original content and its appropriation by bloggers isn't a veiled reference to the use of his photos. He implied that he has a right to be compensated when his work is used by someone else and that person profits in some way-and he does have a point there. I just think it comes of as disrespectful to his subjects-he didn't style them, on some level he didn't even pick the location. I'm not saying he isn't talented or that a different person could take photos of the same exact subject and it look just as good. I just think that, like a random stylish person on the street, a random photo on the internet may not seem as profound or cool without someone putting it into a grander context. And not to nit pick but I highly doubt the hundreds of people in his book got royalties or even notice that their images are in the book. There's a level disdain in his delivery that I find distasteful-his somewhat viable claim is obscured by the backhanded way he talks about other bloggers (lest he forget he is a blogger too). He should ask Rumi of fashiontoast about how taking pictures of your own outfits can be a moneymaking proposition. I just think those blogs show a level of courage and creativity he is unwilling to recognize. Also not to sound like too much of a jerkstore but at best his work has to be seen as collaborative- it's like a director not giving credit to the actors or his dp. Really how hard can it be to make Lapo look steezy?But I agree with you about it not always being about money-I just don't think he would. Which I think demonstrates that he really doesn't get the internet and blogs in general. I would be completely flattered (and in fact am honored) when one of my photos is reblogged. I just don't think he is, which is a shame.
Fair enough. I see what you're saying now. Thanks for clarifying.re: the jerkstore -- whats the difference. he's their biggest seller.
The majority of people he features on his blog are rich & powerful magazine editors & fashion buyers, so I don't really think they worry about getting royalties from their images being used by Scott. And most who are featured on his blog do get some form of internet fame through his site. So it's a win-win situation for everybody. Most people didn't know Lino, Anna Dello Russo, Giovanna Battaglia, Nick Wooster, Milan Vukmirovic until their images were posted on his website. Now every street style blog has them plastered on their websites.
The simpering, lisping interviewer was so unbearable that I couldn't even watch to the end.Black shirts are the uniform of the old guy "in" crowd in Hollywood (Pacino, Nicholson); Al Gore likes them too. Wouldn't catch me dead in one.
I think he makes a lot of sense, he's being very frank and honest and its good feedback.Many people go into blogging without understanding intellectual property. They need to know that using or reproducing other peoples creative works (even if it is a photograph of someone on the street whom they didn't style) on their blogs without permission is tantamount to stealing and opens you up to being sued.Its good advice from Scott and bloggers need to be aware of the risks faced if they infringe on others intellectual property.