The city's pigeons were clearly troubled by the huge human migration up First Avenue. They circled in flocks, but eventually saw food on the ground and decided to brave the crowds of runners. They flew in and out of the race, often directly at runners.
The first half of the day the crowds are upbeat. Some come out to cheer their friends, usually holding signs.
Later, as the run goes on, there's a very specific moment when the euphoric swell changes -- it becomes clear there's only a thin pained line of stragglers, fighting out each step. That's almost hard to watch as we sit there, eating pizza.
The marathon travels up First Avenue, and so passes 1/2 block from my apartment, more or less. I overheard someone say we're near mile 15.
Above: Close Call, November 4, 2007.
Sunday morning the New York Marathon will begin in Staten Island. In the hours before the start, thousands and thousands of runners will gather in a field, waiting anxiously.
They'll need portable toilets. Thousands and thousands of portable toilets.
Above: a snapshot from Saturday's visit to Staten Island.
Well, today I am a true New Yorker. I've made it to my final borough: Staten Island.
Sort of, anyway. Got there via taxi. Stood in a field for a while. Took a bus to the Ferry. Left on the Ferry. That counts, though.
Above: a woman sketching on the subway, seen on the way back.
Finally, there's some news on those proposed new rules on photography and videography here in New York.
"The proposal would allow photographers and filmmakers who are not using vehicles or equipment like dolly tracks, lights and cables to proceed without permits on public property as long as they stay out of traffic and their activities do not prevent public use. The rules would also allow photographers and filmmakers to commandeer a portion of a public walkway without a permit, as long as they leave open at least half of its width, or eight feet, whichever is greater."
That tiny black speck on the roof, one-third from the top of the photograph? That's a woman's shoe.
There are some cigarette butts near it. Probably a grand story also, but I'm afraid I don't know it. Or I'd share it with you.
I went to PhotoPlus Expo this afternoon. Strobes, softboxes, stands; backgrounds, bare bulbs, batteries; cases, cards and cameras.
Touched some Nikons, some Canons, the new Sony Alpha.
The Sony booth had one or two models posing at all times, and when two worked together, a crowd formed of a dozen men, surging forward. The cameras had huge zooms mounted on them, thick and long. (You need two hands to handle them properly, really.) The men would sometimes look at each other, comparing, then point them at the models and blast away.
I walked around the corner and tried out a Sony 28mm F2.8. When I asked to see it, the salesman put a big zoom lens on the camera instead and smiled. "No, the 28mm prime," I said. "Oh," he said. "No one has asked to see that before." It's a very unsexy lens. Not fast, not expensive. Snubnose and light. Invisible.
Any news items on photography today? Well, there's this:
Britney Spears appears to run over foot of celebrity photographer
"Spears drives off. Second later, video shows what appears to be a tire mark on the unidentified paparazzo's sock. The man, wearing sandals with white socks, doesn't respond to questions from the cameraman but instead walks off without any apparent problems."She probably shouldn't have done that, but isn't the real crime here wearing sandals with white socks?
I looked. If Pete was around, it wasn't obvious. It was the middle of the day, though, and I'm guessing Pete is not around until after dark. Way after dark.
I'm left with many questions. Does Pete really deserve the exclamation point? Is Pete related to the Fruit Guy on the Corner?
Will all the food groups be represented?
In a post today New York Portraits' pal Photo Chick expressed her doubts about a flaming ex-pope.
Apparently you can see her on Inside Edition tonight or in repeat tomorrow discussing whether a photograph -- claimed to show Pope John Paul II mystically manifesting in a bonfire in Poland -- has been digitally manipulated....
More on the original photography "news story" here.
The theft of the original "Nun Bun" is here. Heck, here's an entire photo gallery of Nun Buns for you from the BBC. Enjoy.
I managed to catch the Monday and Tuesday photography auctions at Sotheby's live on the Web. I've been to one in person, and it's an amazing thing to see: ripples go through the audience of live bidders, both of anticipation and -- sometimes -- of shock.
It's still great to watch online -- you sit at home with the catalog in hand, then see video of the auctioneer. But you don't hear the murmurs of the crowd, and you don't get to see the back and forth of the paddle-raisers.
Some highlights:
A complete set of Camera Work -- 50 volumes of the Quarterly published between 1903-1917 -- went for $229,000 (with Buyer's Premium).
An Edward Weston Nautilus went for $1,105,000 (with Buyer's Premium). And a Weston Nude on Sand, Oceano was $193,000.
A Herb Ritts made a surprising showing: with a catalog estimate at $20,000 - $30,000, it sold for $109,000.
Ah, Yorkville. In the morning, half of the people you see on the street are going to work, half are not. Instead they're running some local errand or taking the kids to school. A lot of folks on the street, but not the kind of pressing crowds you get in other neighborhoods.
No shortage of dogs.
One of the issues that comes up in a day of wandering through photo galleries is scale.
Presentation sizes for gallery / museum photographs have increased dramatically, obviously. At one point 8" by 10" photographs were common in gallery presentation, and now few contemporary photographers are selling works smaller than 30 inches wide. 60 inch prints are very common.
There are, of course, photographs that "work" at 15" wide but not at 10" wide. So, go bigger, sure.
But have no doubt that part of the, ahem, overcompensation that is happening is based on sale prices. I don't really have a problem with that -- if you can sell your 5-foot-wide photograph for a lot of money, and a collector's loft has just the perfect spot for a 5-foot photo with a lot of red in it, great. Someone spending 5 grand on a photo wants it to hold the wall.
Still, the market-driven need for size makes for some boring work. The emphasis shifts to an ultra-detailed study of a thing, or a person in solitary. That's fine -- that's something photography does very well.
There's a de-emphasis, however, on the other, more important process that photography is suited to: showing one thing in relation to another thing. If a five-foot-wide picture of the side of a barn is fascinating, great. I'm really more interested in how this person looks at that person. Or the way this person reacts to that person. Or how these two stand together. It seems more like what I want to know about the world. A visual relationship, observed.
And I don't care what size it's printed.
One of our gallery tour stops was the Alex Klotz Gallery for a show of Andreas Feininger photographs. We realized we weren't on the mailing list, and therefore signed the gallery's address book.
Stephen Shore had signed in just before. We looked around, but have no idea what he looks like now. Might have been standing right next to us.
You know, the author of The Nature of Photographs
I forgot to mention that while touring the galleries with my wife and our friend Marc I kept trying to sort out an idea that's been buzzing around for a while: that while this is Chelsea's moment, it may not last forever.
Long-time New Yorkers point to the transformation of Soho, once the hot art gallery neighborhood. They ask: when the rents go up, or the art market dips, will only the blue-chip galleries remain? Will the scene move on, or perhaps fragment?
(From my California days I remember very well how the Santa Monica gallery scene changed quickly -- from a cruise along Colorado Boulevard's industrial spaces into a day parked in the gated-community of Bergamot Station.)
I'm not sure it can be known, yet. What's there seems very solid to me -- and I have a hard time imagining it won't stay oriented to an art scene. But I'm never surprised by change, and glad to see things as they are. All scenes are temporary, in a sense, aren't they?
If you're the main featured costumed character -- let's say you're wearing a giraffe costume outside of a toy store -- then crowds form and everyone wants to see you. Life is easy.
But what if you're a somewhat less-recognizable character? What if no one gets what you're doing there, and they don't seem sure what your appearance on the street signifies? And it's maybe too bright out in the sun, anyway, and there's some good shade right around this corner?
Then you just go with it. Maybe a hand gesture or two. Ignore the giraffe.
Go easy. Who needs crowds, anyway?
Spent the day in the photo galleries. Started off at the 57th Street galleries, went on to the Leica Gallery, and then -- of course -- veered back into Chelsea. The highlights:
A roomful of Garry Winogrand photographs at Deborah Bell Photographs features work from his books The Animals and Women Are Beautiful. Also, there's a snap of Winogrand at work that I had not seen before. (That's at 511 West 25th Street, Room 703 -- and they are only open Saturdays. And next Saturday is the last day of the show....)
A laugh-out-loud show of Richard Kalvar photographs at Leica Gallery. (That's at 670 Broadway, Suite 500.) The Web site doesn't show his work -- but there's a fantastic slideshow of 50 of his pictures at Magnum.
I also thought the "25 Years" show at Howard Greenberg was really a rich experience -- each image includes a very personal story of why Greenberg has collected that specific photograph and what it means to him. That's a lot of reading, but it's rewarding -- there are a number of great stories I doubt could be found anywhere else.
Above: my wife and I brought our friend Marc along on the tour.
Any news items on photography today?
Well, there's a little piece about some Andres Serrano Photographs Vandalized in Sweden.
"Around 3:30, half an hour before closing, four vandals wearing black masks stormed into a space known as the Kulturen Gallery while shouting in Swedish, “We don’t support this,” plus an expletive. They pushed visitors aside, entered a darkened room where some of the photographs were displayed and began smashing the glass protecting the photographs and then hacking away at the prints.The video was apparently posted on YouTube.
The bumpy video, evidently shot with a hand-held camera by someone who ran into the gallery with the attackers, intersperses images of the Serrano photographs with lettered commentary in Swedish like “This is art?” before showing the vandals at work."
I looked. There was no Fruit Guy on the corner. And, actually, the corner was close enough that if you'd come looking for the Fruit Guy, you could see him from there anyway.
Or is it the world's worst advertising campaign? "Fruit Guy On The Corner." It needs something.
Maybe this was for the Fruit Guy, and not about him? "Psst. Fruit Guy? On the corner!" Was there some sort of Fruit Emergency?
Yes, today is the day when Spencer Tunick will pose a lot of people without clothes at the Sagamore Art Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. I don't mind that, though I find the photographs less interesting than they should be.
What I do mind is his pretense that he's an "installation artist" or a "land artist" or anything but what he is. As always, the breathless press release spins out of control:
"Creating his seminal temporary site-specific landscapes involve the recruitment of many nude figures arranged in specific public sites and follow on the tradition of the popular art of the early 70's known as land art. ... The poetic whole culminating from this sea of individual figures which are arranged in a sculptural way, further challenges traditionally held stigmas associated with nudity, privacy and social and political issues surrounding art in the public sphere."There are only a few things wrong with this -- he's not seminal, he doesn't actually follow in the tradition of land art, and there's no culminating involved. Also no challenging.
Why should you read this blog on a daily basis? Because you may have to serve as prosecutor in a case where a photographer apprehends the perp, that's why....
This week, Sun Journal photographer Russ Dillingham managed to both photograph and restrain an alleged car thief, as was noted here Thursday. Unfortunately, the prosecutor in the case has not been keeping up with this blog.
"[The suspect] was freed Friday after a prosecutor said he was not familiar with all the facts in the case, and a Superior Court judge declined to set bail. By late Friday, [the alleged perpetrator] was out of jail, and his whereabouts were unknown. ... Lewiston's deputy police chief criticized the prosecutor, saying, 'You have to be living in a cave to not know the facts of this case.'"Exactly. Full story here: Fugitive Nabbed By Newspaper Photographer Released
Yesterday I spent the day working from home -- editing video -- but in the evening we went to International Center of Photography for four shows:
Gerda Taro
This is War! Robert Capa at Work
Other Weapons: Photography and Print Culture During the Spanish Civil War
Dark is the Room Where We Sleep: A Project By Francesc Torres
I thought the Torres project was excellent, and was glad to see the history / story of Taro being brought into light.
The Capa show, however, left me with mixed feelings: it's the best and most detailed collection of his war work I've seen, but I much preferred the exhibition that toured (from the Philadelphia Museum of Art) around 1996-1997, as captured in this book: Robert Capa: Photographs.
Above: 43rd Street walking back from ICP.
Recently I mentioned the usual MFA hating that photographers love to take part in, especially in photography forums. While this is typically at the level of "Those darn MFA kids will never match my great closeup shots of a butterfly -- now get off my lawn!", a more intriguing note just went up at The Online Photographer. Mike Johnston, who runs the popular site and uploads a lot of images and good comments in photography forums as well, noted his difficulties getting jobs teaching photography without the MFA.
Which was a great post. Unfortunately, it was followed by a lot of MFA-bashing posts. So I posted a comment, which I'll share here, for what it's worth.
Excellent post, Mike.
I'd like to address the comments here, however. They are very similar to others posted on many photography forums -- they reflect the idea that somehow the MFA degree is only a piece of paper, and that the process of getting that degree is somehow based in fake academic pursuits rather than "real" photographic pursuits.
It's just not true. A good MFA program means two or three years of really intense, valuable work. It means creating multiple exhibitions -- not just a slapdash portfolio of images -- and going through a lot of intense critique with very informed professors with decades of experience (both professional and academic). It means understanding the history of the medium, the best current and cutting-edge practices, and the work of your fellow students.
It means a really deep commitment to photography that the usual suggestion -- "go work as an assistant" -- just can't match. One can leave five years as an assistant without any gain but a lot of skill in one vary narrow part of the field, but a good MFA program can open up a photographer's full potential, if they are willing to do the work.
There are many great photographers without the MFA. But I'm puzzled why many of the commenters don't get that those same photographers could advance if they had two years to focus on their work, and a lot of people surrounding them with the goal of giving them a bit of help....
Newspaper photographer grabs images, then grabs fugitive
"A newspaper photographer who captured dramatic images of a fugitive jumping from a third-floor balcony before capturing the suspected car thief drew applause from co-workers when he arrived for work the following day."
The Bechers versus The Bechers.
Surprisingly, there are some similarities.
A Master of Fine Arts (MFA) is the degree everyone lacking one says you don't need.
The world of photography is a strange one. It's filled with people who have succeeded and failed in many different ways. It's filled with every possible opinion. It's filled with distrust for the opinions of others -- because obviously yours are correct, and it's likely some of theirs will be directly opposed. And therefore obstinately wrongheaded.
It's always been a field with distrust of intellectual ideas -- after all, I already know how to make a good exposure and a good picture, why would I possibly want to read some dense book referencing French philosophers? -- and a lot of self-taught successes.
Since I did go and get my M.F.A., but also teach a lot of beginning and intermediate and hobbyist and trying-to-break-into-the-profession photographers, I feel I have a foot in both camps. I realize you don't answer a question about exposure with a quote from Barthes, and that you don't evaluate a sports photo without a knowledge of the nuts-and-bolts realities of the sports page. But I also realize that among hobbyists -- and even "working pros" -- the opinions are often very strong and very uninformed: The Bechers? I could take a better picture than that, and -- heck! -- I could do it in color!
So sometimes I find myself, when I meet people in the photography world, feeling like a spy: trying to figure out what they know and don't know, and what they think they know. I find myself trying to deal with them on their own terms. I listen when they say, sometimes subtly, that you don't need much education to deal with images. Or that you only need practical education, or a good long-weekend workshop, or to work as an assistant.
And then I see what photographs they like, and what photographs they make, and what they think is most important. That's a very educational moment.
From Interviews with Master Photographers, published in 1977:
James Danziger: Do you see the camera as being generous or cruel?
Elliott Erwitt: Depends on what you do with it.
James Danziger: I mean innately.
Elliott Erwitt: Innately it's nothing. The camera doesn't do it. It's the person behind it. You make certain decisions. I was never very fond of Mr. Nixon and I once went to the wedding of one of his daughters with the specific intention of taking unpleasant pictures of certain people I didn't like. The event was so spectacular, so well done, so beautiful, that I totally failed in my mission.
James Danziger: Do you believe in the power of photography to effect social change?
Elliott Erwitt: Yes. Absolutely.
James Danziger: Does that affect a lot of your work?
Elliott Erwitt: Not all. I'm sorry. I just don't. I don't like to get into this heavy attitude towards everything. I really don't have that.
It's time once again for my Seriously Fun Photography class. Follow the link for more information and to register. It starts Thursday, October 11, so tell your friends.
Above: two of my students during a portraiture exercise, as photographed with my Zorki 6.
The photo of Friday's rainstorm was taken at 6:34 p.m.
The photograph above was made about 45 minutes earlier.
On the way to Kashkaval and Russian Samovar a storm broke out.
We took a bus up from midtown. The thing that always surprises me is that one minute you're in Times Square, surrounded by tourists, and then you're suddenly in the middle of a neighborhood, very specific and well-defined and with its own character.
We huddled in front of a fast food restaurant, and waited for the rain to lighten.
By the way, Russian Samovar has a blog.
Since I shot this on film previously, as I was walking in to work today I pulled out my pocket camera and made the shot above.
Here's Errol Morris doing his detective work on a little documentary photography history.
Something to look forward to: on Friday, November 9 I will be lining up at International Center of Photography for the Elliott Erwitt booksigning for his new book, Unseen.
"All book signing receptions take place at the ICP Museum Store on Friday evenings from 6:00 to 7:30 pm and feature a DJ and complimentary wine. Admission to the Museum from 5:00 to 8:00 pm is by donations."They had me at "complimentary wine."
After the talk on Lisette Model, I felt Larry Fink and the other speakers had sent me out into the world with a single idea: carrying a camera is about seeing the world and experiencing it.
On 89th I found a toilet discarded onto the curb, pulled my pocket camera out and took a few photographs. A woman walking past asked "Are you a photographer for Time Out New York?"
I said no. But there's a toilet, I told her. And I have a camera. You can't go wrong.
"Model’s edgy, indelible point of view gave rise to a portrait of the United States at all social levels, from Coney Island to Fifth Avenue. Larry Fink, Gary Schneider, Ann Thomas, and Rosalind Solomon will participate in the panel discussion, which will be moderated by William Hunt of Hasted Hunt Gallery. The New School, Tishman Auditorium, 66 West 12th Street. Free."
If you are in the Los Angeles area, don't forget to visit The Great Picture before the exhibition closes. Saturday is the last day.
An exhibition of the largest photograph ever made. At three stories high and 11stories wide, "The Great Picture" is a gelatin silver print made using a shuttered F-18 aircraft hangar blacked out to form a giant camera obscura.
Well, let's check and see what's making news in the world of photography...
Here's a story about a Nan Goldin photo.
"A Northumbria Police spokeswoman confirmed that an image of a child was removed from the exhibit and said it was being looked over by prosecutors ''to assess whether or not an offense had been committed.'' She spoke anonymously in line with force policy and declined to disclose the nature of the offense police were investigating."
Monday proved to be an interesting day, with stops in the Upper East Side, The Bronx, and Midtown. Cameras are omnipresent in New York, of course, but it's in Midtown that you see people walk to a corner, put a pocket camera in front of their face, and lean back to take in all of a famous building. Foot traffic flows around them, they carefully compose the shot, wait, wait, and finally take the shot.
At one of my gigs I'm near the Chrysler building, so you see this throughout the day. Go another block over and you see it around the front of Grand Central Terminal. And a few blocks further and it's the main sport in Times Square.
As a follow up to this, here's a snapshot from last night's subway ride.
One solution to the traditional tourist problem of shoes that hurt is to stuff a napkin into the heel of your shoe. Then just go with it. No one will notice.
Here's that new Elliott Erwitt book: Unseen.
It looks like it will be shipping in December.
This year's Lucie Awards will give a lifetime achievement award to this Blog's main inspiration, Elliott Erwitt. That is as it should be. I learned two things I wasn't aware of, however, in the blurb about Erwitt:
"In the ’80s Erwitt produced seventeen comedy and satire television programs for HOME BOX OFFICE. From the ’90s to the present he continues to lead a remarkably varied professional life encompassing many disparate aspects of photography. While actively working for magazine, industrial and advertising clients Erwitt devotes all his spare time toward creating books and exhibitions of his work destined for galleries and museums. To date he is the author of over 20 photography books and is preparing a new one titled “UNSEEN” for fall of 2007."So, now I have to go and track down all those HBO shows, and patiently await his new book....
So here's the thing: if I were a painter, it might occur to me to have two white shoes, two black shoes, a play between the idea of legs and chair legs, a confusion of space and directionality and depth and flatness, and so on.
But that fifth shoe stepping into a little pool of light -- that's photography. That's why using some kind of device to observe the real world is interesting.
(This was yesterday, at a get-together for art historians. The black shoes? Studying photo history. The white shoes? Interested in early photographic processes.)
I mentioned Kohei Yoshiyuki's "The Park" photographs last week. Today the New York Times has a serious look at them titled Sex in the Park, and Its Sneaky Spectator.
The exhibition, and the article, do a nice job of bringing up the issues of voyeurism and observational recording that seem inherent in photography.
Karen Irvine, curator of the Museum of Contemporary Photography in Chicago, said Mr. Yoshiyuki’s work is important because “it addresses photography’s unique capacity for observation and implication.” She locates his work in the tradition of artists who modified their cameras with decoy lenses and right-angle viewfinders to gain access to private moments. Weegee, for example, rigged his camera to capture couples kissing in darkened New York movie theaters. Walker Evans covertly photographed fellow passengers on New York subways.A long while back I wrote about my own experience at a photo workshop photographing photographers as they took photographs.
Over on my other blog, I've posted on watching a documentary about Annie Leibovitz. Go and read it. I wanted to note here, however, a more specific and pithy criticism of the assumption that Leibovitz is our greatest living portraitist.
In the midst of endless praise for Leibovitz' work, for balance Vicki Goldberg is allowed to take a shot. While various other fawn over the Rolling Stone Magazine "concept" pictures -- Whoopi Goldberg in a milk bath, the Blues Brothers with their faces painted blue -- Goldberg says:
"These are supposed to be 'story pictures' -- but the story is one sentence long."
That's my favorite one-line critique ever.
So, as the fall season starts, I'm left to ask: where is photography at this very moment? The answer: it's very fragmented.
The classics roll on ... though it will be very interesting to see if the "blue chip" photographers continue selling in the auctions for record prices or not. The galleries roll on ... but there's no sense of any particular new movement, style or group arising. The museums roll on ... about the same as always.
Yet you can't help but notice, out of the corner of your eye, that more people are shooting more photographs than ever, and that cameras have become omnipresent. There must be change in the works ... but where is it?
Lisette Model and Her Successors at Aperture Gallery (547 West 27th Street in Chelsea) was a good show. More exciting to me, however, was getting a look around the rest of the building.
Aperture is on the 4th floor, and it's a very beautiful space. Take the elevator to the 5th and 6th floors, however, and go see the "Alcove" -- a tiny hallway transformed into an installation space -- and the various studios and galleries throughout the building. On a quiet day, it's a very good experience. The floor creaks under your feet, but around each corner is a new and unexpected space.
Tuesday's trip to the Chelsea galleries included several highlights, but the real surprise for me was the Chris Marker exhibition at Peter Blum Gallery (526 West 29th Street).
"Chris Marker: Staring Back is an exhibition of almost 200 photographs taken over the course of six decades by the enigmatic and influential French filmmaker. This show, organized by Bill Horrigan at the Wexner Center for the Arts, is the first exhibition of Marker’s photographs, and consists of images selected by the artist himself from his own archive, including black-and-white portraits of individuals that Marker has encountered during the course of his world travels.
Divided into four sections, Staring Back is organized around the idea of the faces Marker has seen in his travels, and of the faces that have in turn witnessed his observant gaze –“I stare” and “They stare,” as Marker puts it. Central to the exhibition are his depictions of political demonstrations from Algerian independence protests in 1962, to the Pentagon march in 1967, to May 1968 in Paris, and continuing to 2006 in a stunning series devoted to the sustained demonstrations by French young people against punitive employment legislation. Interspersed throughout the exhibition are photographic traces of his inimitable films, including La Jetée, Letter from Siberia, The Six Face of Pentagon, Cuba Si!, Le fond de l’air est rouge, Sans Soleil, and The Case of the Grinning Cat, among others. Although some of the portraits depict well-known individuals (such as Simone Signoret and Akira Kurosawa), most are of unidentified citizens to whom Marker and his camera were drawn in the course of his global progress through Asia, South America, Scandinavia, Africa, Russia, and elsewhere. The exhibition also includes a selection of photographs of animals."
I had friends in from out of town today, so I returned to Chelsea to complete the round trip of all the galleries.
One more thing on the gallery shows in Chelsea: New York wins over Los Angeles in the category of "the gallery opening experience."
There are great shows in Los Angeles, and the museum experience there is often a match for New York's offerings. But the basic idea of a night of gallery receptions works better in New York. Stroll from one to the next, drink the free beer and wine, bump into unexpected shows because the gallery is on the way to the one you planned to see. It just flows better with no cars involved and with the street life New York does so well....
Part of the fun of going to Chelsea exhibitions, of course, is everything else that's there: the restaurants, bars and general feel of the place. That's always a good time. On a Saturday night, almost everyone looks as if they're having a great time.
I did note, however, that for those living in Chelsea, dog ownership is now apparently mandatory.
Took a trip to the Chelsea galleries. An honest appraisal: most of what I saw was weak, bad, or a retread. But not everything, and I get as much out of seeing things I don't like as those I do. Sometimes more. What I do recommend:
Kohei Yoshiyuki: The Park
"For these photos, taken in Tokyo’s Shinjuku, Yoyogi, and Aoyama parks during the 1970s, Mr. Yoshiyuki used a 35mm camera, infrared film, and flash to document the people who gathered there at night for clandestine trysts, as well as the many spectators lurking in the bushes who watched—and sometimes participated in—these couplings."That continues at Yossi Milo Gallery (525 West 25th Street) until October 20th.
"Jeon has created his first multi-channel work for this New York debut. The 527 West 23rd Street space features a 5 channel video installation; each of the 5 computer animations exist on their own, yet, when presented together take a different shape both literally and figuratively. In one, an anime character is left crying after a brief encounter in a hotel room, the score resembling the music played in a Hitchcock film just before the climactic moment. Another shows a line drawing of General MacArthur, notorious leader of the United Nations Command Force, repeating the same phrase ("I shall return")."The highlight for me was the ice skating toy soldiers of "Hyper Realism (Statue of Brother). The show continues through October 13th.
The most interesting photo caption I've seen in a long time: "Joe O’Donnell didn’t snap this photo of John F. Kennedy Jr."
Known for Famous Photos, Not All of Them His
"Joe O’Donnell’s glowing legacy outlived him by less than a week. The man recalled by some as “The Presidential Photographer” with a knack for having a camera to his eye at just the right moment, became instead someone described as a fraud who hijacked some of the 20th century’s most famous images and claimed them as his own."
Tonight I'm going to the galleries in Chelsea. Since coming to New York, that's been one of my favorite experiences. We'll see how it goes.
How do we integrate portrait subject and background? What's the connection between a representation of a person and the environment we see them in? Does the evidence surrounding a person reveal anything?
Three photographers to know in the field of environmental portraiture:
Arnold Newman
Yousuf Karsh
Annie Leibovitz
The dialogue between photography and the world of fashion is a fascinating one. Michael Kors show at New York Fashion Week, for example, referenced the work of photographer Slim Aarons.
An article on Aaron's life is here, and David Patrick Columbia's visit with Aarons is worth checking out as well.
Since Monday's visit to Click Chic I've been asking a question that I more-or-less always ask: What is sophistication?
I ask because certain "seams" are painfully obvious to me -- in both the fashion photography I saw in that show and in most of the visuals I saw during New York Fashion week -- and I think you can learn as much by what doesn't work as from what does.
Here's what I'm saying: reference without depth is unsophisticated. A fashion photograph that calls to mind Helmut Newton's work, or Guy Bourdin's -- work that now forms a sort of fashion-photography canon, for better or worse -- cannot simply reference the older work and call it a day. A reference without some change of perspective is just bad copywork.
Putting up something derivative seems to me to imply a low opinion of the audience. It says "I know the reference, I'm copying the reference, but you wouldn't know it." Or perhaps it says "what do you mean, now go further?"
In any case, ironically, it's an attempt to be sophisticated that falls flat if the audience is, in fact, not stupid. I think real sophistication takes the opposite tack -- assuming an audience that knows, that wants to know, and that gets the joke.
One of the things I find very odd about Fashion Week: it sounds like it would be great fun to be a runway shooter, perched at the key viewpoint, firing away and then quickly filing all the images for distribution to the world. Strangely, though, every runway shot I've seen this season looks more-or-less identical. And by coincidence I've spoken recently to two people who do exactly that kind of shooting -- and gotten the impression that the goal is in fact to provide that generic set of shots.... That's why the check gets cut. Still, it brings up an interesting question: what would a unique eye do with the runway situation?
I've seen some interesting "behind the scenes" coverage from Martin Fuchs and there have been books like Runway Madness.
Are there no other ways to shoot this?
I'm told my Hunter Continuing Education photography class won't run this time. Not enough enrollment. (I'm not sure why they moved it from Friday to Thursday, since it was enrolling enough on Fridays. That end-of-the-week feeling was something I enjoyed about the class, and I assume that others looked at it the same way -- a creative outlet early Friday evening seems fun.)
Maybe it's time to re-write and restructure that class anyway -- my initial idea was that there was already a basic "how do I use my camera" class, so it became a class about creating your first project portfolio: learn control of your photography technique, find a topic, and create a portfolio of images on that topic. Have fun while doing it.
Perhaps, however, the nature of things has changed. DSLR cameras have become omnipresent, almost, and online sites have become the main place where people present their photos. So, maybe something else makes more sense. What would the Art Students League be like if it started today? Or any of the camera clubs that started in the first half of the twentieth century?
I'll have some time to think about that, I suppose.
Just wanted to clarify my comments on fashion design and fashion photography: I'm for both.
Still, I think commercial work, advertising and that sort of thing is not -- despite a lot of claims made to the contrary, some by very fine thinkers -- the art of our time. I've studied the history of advertising and where photography fits into it, and taught classes where I've looked deeply at persuasion and the use of art, and I just don't agree that future art historians will feel fashion ads and political commercials mark the height of our era's art. They'll be studied as significant, as saying a lot about us, and as often pushing technique and style forward. Still, I don't think that type of work will be seen as the best of our time.
There's a fine line, of course, especially with the best work in those fields. Elliott Erwitt's portfolio mixes both "pure" street photography -- where a situation was found by chance and prepared luck -- with his advertising work, including images that are set up. That's fine.
Yet I'm adamant that there's a distinction -- that fashion designers can be brilliant, important and worth admiring, but that they don't address the same concerns as art. As well, while I like and admire fashion photographers -- and I think there's no reason someone can't be one of our best artists and shoot fashion too -- I don't think the boundaries and goals of the field allow exploration of the concerns of art.
Sometimes the point is to sell shoes.
Starting Thursday -- as in tomorrow -- I'll be teaching Seriously Fun Photography at Hunter College Continuing Education. As long as enough people sign up, of course. So if you had plans to do so, now would be the time....
As Inigo Montoya said: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
While I'm fascinated, as a relatively new New Yorker, by Fashion Week and all that it entails, I am also amused by the conceit that it is Art.*
Fashion is great. It's part of our visual culture, and as a competitive and ever-churning field, it produces something worth watching. Some of its practitioners are fantastic. But please stop calling designers Artists. It's a different thing, with different concerns. Celebrate Fashion for what it is, but stop pretending or -- worse yet -- sincerely thinking it's art. Saying that only means you are insincere, or ill-informed.
And if you are going to have a show that is about the works of fashion shooters as works of art in their own right, be prepared for laughter if what you really show, weighed objectively, is just pretty / decent fashion shooting. It makes you look like you don't know what art is, and you probably do.
*(This is relatively rarely expressed by those succeeding in fashion -- and all-too-often expressed by those watching from the sidelines. Still, it is heard constantly, so it becomes fair game for critique, no?)
There is one place, of course, that people photograph themselves even more than in museums: at gallery openings.
I went to School of Visual Arts to see Click Chic: The Fine Art of Fashion Photography. I was entertained.
Above: cell phone picture of Fashion TV interview crew at work.
The above image of a man photographing a museum label was a quick snapshot taken with my pocket camera. Still, I tend to compose using the Rule of Thirds.
To follow Friday's visit to the Met, we spent Saturday at MoMA and ICP. The cliché of people shuffling past the art with a thoughtful expression or puzzled look is gone. Now, everyone photographs the art and each other with the art.
Above: Man Photographing Label, Museum of Modern Art, September 8, 2007.
On Friday night, we stopped by the Met for a gallery talk on David's The Death of Socrates. Great lecture. Of interest to photographers: this painting serves as a perfect example of composition using the "rule of thirds."
The basic idea photographers can learn from this: rather than automatically placing the subject dead center of the frame, explore what happens when you place the main subject -- in this case, Socrates face -- at one a point 1/3 from the top of the frame, or 1/3 from the side of the frame, or at the "node" 1/3 from each.
While life will rarely unfold in front of you in perfect composition, thinking of the photographic rectangle of film or digital cameras as divided into three parts is a powerful strategy. For many images, setting up a 2/3 versus 1/3 arrangement creates a much more dynamic composition.
A while back I noted Canon's new cameras:
Canon EOS 40D 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III 21.1MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
Nikon has since announced new cameras also, including:
Nikon D300 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
And Sony has followed as well:
Sony Alpha A700 12.24MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
All are amazingly capable, and all are moving toward incredible resolution, great high ISO performance, and other capabilities that surpass what was once possible with film. At the same time other aspects of photography -- from image storage to printing to software -- advance.
Is a sort of photography renaissance moving forward -- or have our ideas been surpassed by our tools?
I'm always amazed at how many people photograph in museums, and at how they do it.
In the Guggenheim, of course, people want photographs of the building. A good number, though, want photographs of themselves standing near the art. Do they make photo albums, and later flip through them while saying "...and here I am with the Kandinsky..." or do they collect them like sports trading cards?
My paintings: let me show you them.
Every so often I run around the reservoir in Central Park. It's a pleasant loop. There was good weather today, so after I finished two short editing projects and put one of them in the hands of a bicycle messenger and the other in my stack of materials for tomorrow, I went for the run.
On the back stretch, by the West side of the park, I looked up to admire the trees and the usual collection of people. And then I noticed a large umbrella, black outside and silver inside, and a man holding a medium-format camera at waist level. Flash. As I ran on, I saw a model holding one of those poses photographers get out of posing books. Flash.
"No," I thought, "you've got to move her hip forward. You're doing it wrong."
And then I remembered why I hate that sort of thing: even if you're doing it right, you're doing it wrong.
The first Labor Day celebration took place in Union Square, and by coincidence we went to Union Square -- on Labor Day.
We stopped into Trader Joe's for a few groceries, and the woman at the check out counter noticed I had a magazine in my hand. I explained I was planning to use it in a photo class to talk about the use of lighting in contemporary fashion photography.
It turned out she was a photographer, and had just finished a year at the school at International Center of Photography. We talked a bit, and it wasn't until about 15 minutes after I left that I realized why she seemed so familiar.
I'm 99% certain she was the woman from this post.
The Great Picture -- now in the Guinness Book of World Records under "World’s Biggest Camera" and "World’s Biggest Photograph" -- is finally going on exhibition.
The image, created by Jerry Burchfield, Mark Chamberlain, Jacques Garnier, Rob Johnson, Douglas McCulloh, and Clayton Spada, will show at Pasadena's Art Center College of Design in the South Campus Wind Tunnel, Pasadena, California September 6 through 29, 2007.
There is an opening reception and performance set for Thursday, September 6, 6 - 9 p.m. and an artists’ lecture set for Thursday, September 20, 7 - 9 p.m.
The Great Picture is a history-making gelatin silver photographic image three stories high by eleven stories wide. The $65,000 photograph was made using a shuttered Southern California F-18 jet aircraft hangar transformed into a gigantic camera obscura—the largest camera ever made.More information is here.
As I've mentioned on Actualities I've started teaching a video editing class at Bronx Community College. It's been great so far, and I'm looking forward to an enjoyable term.
It's also made me realize I haven't shot enough photographs in The Bronx. While I have visited Stickball Boulevard, I haven't seen most of the borough. I'll see if I can remedy that soon....
Enjoyed the Guggenheim's show The Shapes of Space.
Still, I want to be perfectly clear so that future generations don't think we were all fooled: Pipilotti Rist is boring. I know many of my generation and a number of institutions have been fooled, and once fooled can't go back on their investment. It's clear though: her work is boring.
The museum's didactic text claims:
"The work simulates a dimly lit interior cluttered with found objects—retro furnishings, piles of books and magazines, assorted bric-a-brac—seemingly in casual disarray, but in fact carefully arranged by the artist. Videos from hidden projectors are cast onto the surfaces of various static objects, animating them in uncanny ways: on a side table, the artist presses her face against a windowpane; a lamp is lit by a close-up view of the open mouth of a woman standing in the snow; liquor bottles atop a 1950s-era bar glow with tiny films of an athlete and a landscape."It is worth noting that the way the work simulates a dimly lit interior cluttered with found objects is by being a dimly lit interior with found objects. It is also worth noting that the "hidden" projectors are not. And that the ways of animating the static objects are canny. Also, the piece is not good. Just to be clear.
And while we're on the subject of fashion photography, here's a portfolio I think you may enjoy:
Rodney Smith
It seems half of New York has left the city for one last attempt at Summer vacation.
So on Saturday, we went out and took advantage of the things our neighborhood offers: a good brunch, a walk through the Guggenheim, and coffee and sachertorte at Cafe Sabarsky. The weather keeps hinting about Fall, Fashion Week approaches, and you can sense a transition ahead.
Above: A woman making a self portrait at the Guggenheim, September 1, 2007.
With New York Fashion Week approaching, here are three photography blogs that take a more-or-less documentary approach to fashion on the street. I think what I admire is that these sites depict the stylized in an unstyled manner: point the camera at the subject, let the interest emerge from that.
The Sartorialist
stpiduko
HEL Looks
