Posted on 08/23/2009 9:09:22 AM PDT by OldCorps
Annie Leibovitz is as famous as the people she photographs but now the genius behind the lens is close to financial ruin -- a victim, some say, of her own relentless artistic ambition. Among the qualities making Leibovitz, 59, the most sought after portrait photographer in the world are legendary perfectionism and the pouring of resources into lavish sets. Over the course of her long career, nothing has been too extreme in Leibovitz's pursuit of the perfect picture. She put former action icon and current California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on top of a mountain, submerged black actress Whoopi Goldberg in a bath of milk and closed France's Versailles palace to shoot Kirsten Dunst posing as Marie-Antoinette. Circus animals, fire, airplanes -- she was rarely denied a requested prop, however seemingly outrageous.
A 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. Banking giant Goldman Sachs entered the fray this week with a claim to own part of Leibovitz's debt. ACG disputes that, but says Goldman Sachs could ...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Had it been lava I would agree that it is art.
Thanks for the ping. A fascinating story. As others have pointed out, on paper at least, her collection can be sold to pay the debt and she’ll still be fabulously wealthy. However, I imagine that reality lies elsewhere. At the very least, she can still make a good living for awhile.
It kind of boggles the mind to wonder just how the money was spent by Liebovitz and her friends.
One of the great photographers of all time, though, IMO.
I started shorting the stock of home builders and mortgage companies(Countrywide in particular)in 2006. I am out of the market now, as I am not in the Dictators inner circle ;-). I lend private money on houses,first position only, not to exceed 60% LTV, and I do my own appraisals.
Yes, but this event will not only depress whatever prices the work will fetch, but will rob her of the right to make additional prints off the original negatives, as well as the coffee-table book collections. Digitizing is possible, but it's not the same as a hand-made original signed by the photographer.
The glory days of rock'n'roll flower power shock value that spawned her career are behind her, and now she has three kids ages 4 to 8, and she is 59 years old. Not the best planning. The criticisms of her recent work have some merit -- for instance her shots of Queen Elizabeth tried for the faux royalty look she used on rock stars, but Elizabeth is actual royalty! Leibowitz did not capture anything new about the Queen's character as she is aging. She might as well have been a Tussaud's wax figure in the sumptuous trappings of the palace.
I hope some magazine like Vogue takes pity and gives her a retainer. But every publisher is staggering right now. I hope for the kids' sake she can work something out.
that sounds interesting
I’m carrying two right now having just moved to a larger home with acreage south of Music City and it is a whole nut till the other sells
loan me a dime?
*bonus points if you can name the guitarist on that famous Boz Scaggs tune
Duane
From the article:
“Budget is not something that enters into her consciousness, but it is worth it because at the end of the day, she gives you an image that nobody else can,” said Wintour.
Kinda sums up the whole liberal mindset, doesn’t it?
Budget? Don’t worry about that.
Image? Now that’s what’s important.
The article you read announced that she was taking a loan against her entire portfolio. Now, this is the reckoning.
ha ha...I knew you’d get it
what nice work...
Dr. Allman?
Zevon and Kinnison. R.I.P to both.
Amen to that.
lol...amazing...
I have a bank meeting at 10 this morning..CDT ...to look at a mortgage for a partner buyout on a small office building
in this climate they are not the sports they were just two years ago
banks want not just your first born now, they want your soul....Faust National bank of Nashville
Some people just have no appreciation for art. Of course, photography is a fine art.
I met one ignorant jerk a few weeks ago who posted he wanted the entire Getty Museum to burn down. He had o appreciation or concern for arts and antiquities!
Good luck. Local Banks are more likely to help you these days.
LOL.
Never! It's other people's money anyway -- the little people's. There's always more where it came from.
Image? Now that’s what’s important.
Absolutely, Dahling! You must impress the people who count in Hollywood and New York. The rest is just dreadful flyover country anyway.
Story misses one key point..For the bank to take such drastic action against such an establishment icon can only mean one thing, IMHO..they suspect that the value of the collateral..i.e. her pictures, negatives, and real estate, is shrinking fast..and they don’t want to get stuck holding the bag..otherwise they’d work out a restructuring, and do it quietly. Look, people may be willing to pay millions for a photo of Yoko Ono when times are flush, but in a tight economy..not a chance..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.