Photographer Sante D’Orazio poses between two of his photographs at Christie's in New York. D'Orazio's photos are part of “Photographs Week at Christie's”. —Photo by AFP

NEW YORK: Sante D’Orazio, a photographer at the heart of the supermodel era, said that the switch to digital cameras means greater detail than ever before, but the loss of something more important: beauty.

“The sense of emotion is gone. It creates a detachment from the subject. The character of the personality is gone,” D’Orazio said of the digital production chain and its torrent of perfect, heavily-edited pictures.

“That’s the danger of post-production in digital. People kill anatomy. They have no sense of anatomy. The sense of realism takes away from the sensuality.”

D’Orazio, speaking at the opening of a sale in New York of some of his most famous fashion shots, knows a thing or two about beautiful women.

After getting his first job with Andy Warhol, the New York-born photographer went on to become famous for his late 1980s and 1990s pictures of models like Kate Moss, Helena Christensen, Christy Turlington and Eva Herzigova.

The pictures are variously poetic, even sculptural, often smoldering and sometimes borderline pornographic. D’Orazio, 57, said the supermodel era that he’s credited with helping to create is truly over.

“The term started with these girls,” he said, gesturing at the huge, provocative prints of models in the private sales gallery of Christie’s in Manhattan. “Everybody else is just usurping the title.”

His former muses are still world famous, but for the most part have moved on. “They’re busy with their kids and that,” he said. But their now iconic images have become “collectible” – a development he hopes will fuel sales at his Christie’s exhibit, titled “Other Graces”.

According to D’Orazio, commercial fashion photography is not what it was and the abandonment of film has a lot to answer for.

In film, “there’s an emotional quality that the digital loses. Digital creates a facade. Film has depth to it,” he said.

“Thank God, I kept all my film cameras. Nobody wanted to buy them anyway.”

But a broader loss in quality comes in the shift from the likes of the ethereal Kate Moss to famous-for-being-famous celebrities like Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton. It’s a “trash” world where “the new pop is porn,” said D’Orazio.

D’Orazio dropped out of the fashion frontlines for several years, but said he’s found a way to navigate this new terrain while maintaining his integrity: turning porn into art.

In his newest works, which he hopes collectors will discover after being lured in by his conventional fashion images, he took “old ’70s porn and scratched out the faces and their privates and what it did was make a moving abstract,” he explained.

“As an artist, you basically do a portrait of what you see,” he said, referring to Western society’s embrace of pornography. “That’s what our culture is.”


Published by

usman hashmi

#Writer #Blogger #Artist #Enterpuner #CivilEngineer #Chealsea #PSPFAMILY #SMT #Twitter #CTH #PSP #SM


  1. So true…. With digital you take 1000 of photographs and you can use just a few and u have to retouch even those. With a film camera you have 36 photos and you can use most of them. There is a special beauty digital cannot ever have for now..

  2. You posting this blog seriously almost made me cry. Ok, I won’t lie, I am moved to tears. I am a darkroom photographer and I love it. Hold on to your hat, because I am 26 years old. I got my Bachelors in Photography at one of the last Universities to still have a darkroom and I am PROUD! There is something about those images and developing them yourself that makes you intimate with what you created. You are not just part of the “process” you ARE the “process.” This is something I LOVE and reading this article just made me realize that I cannot let go of my passion which fuels some of the most orgasmic images I have ever created for the consumers of the digital world! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

  3. “….realism takes away from the sensuality.” This is very close to the struggle that painters had when the camera was invented, and even more so as it improved. HIs work is art because it does not become out dated. I would argue that it is more the eye than the tool that makes something art or not. Also, the standard should be held up by the artists and the artistic community over putting blame on a tool. Thank you for sharing this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s