Pairings

Publishing this as I haven’t had any to add in months and need to clear out my post stubs.

[tweet https://twitter.com/vossbrink/status/319501232916025344]

Teenagers. In all their awkward glory.

[tweet https://twitter.com/vossbrink/status/322391560442490880]

Stares on the street. We all look. But it’s rare for a photographer to capture us looking.

[tweet https://twitter.com/vossbrink/status/334819989053919233]

Developing photos in the environment they depict.

[tweet https://twitter.com/vossbrink/status/342017765256855552]

Rivers and their environments before they’re dammed. Showing us the sacrifices we make for water, power, and development. Is it worth it? Also, the only pair I’ve written about on here: Butler andPorter.

Insomnia

I dreamt about Candlestick last night.

Not the games.
But the long cold hikes to and from The Stick.

Mostly from.

Over the bridge
Through the tunnel
Fighting the crowds

Mooooo

Past the pretzel guy
Into the neighborhoods where I was always surprised to find the locals were also Giants fans.

But also to.

When I was younger and we parked in the lots.
And passed the tailgaters
And entered through Gate A with the escalator and wound our way clockwise to the 3rd base side where we used to sit before we started buying tickets behind the plate.

The games never featured.

Instead it was the anticipation
The energy
The leaving the everyday world to go to a ball game.

And then the rough return back through the cold night
Peeling off the tundra kit and driving back home
Eating Cheetos.

10 photographers you should ignore

Some screwing around prompted by the strange phenomenon which occurs when a zombie blogpost gets resurrected as something to get angry about. Right. Now.

Seriously though, I’ve no idea how anyone can read the original post as anything besides humor. That it can keep trolling people years and years after posting is the gift which keeps on giving.

I figured I may as well apply the blinders approach to this list too. Although in all honesty, given the dominance of white guys in these lists, having the who-to-ignore list be all white/western is completely appropriate.

Do you drink blood?

“Mama, why don’t you drink the blood?”

“What?!”

“You just eat the body.”

It looks like someone has been paying attention during mass. I’m glad I’m not the Catholic parent who has to explain the miracle of transubstantiation to him. My first instinct is to say that it’s not real blood. But I know that’s undercutting what my wife would like him to believe so I’m letting her do the main explaining here.*

*He’ll make his own decision when he’s ready.

However, between this and his poop song, I do have to admit that I’m enjoying watching him grapple with religion and how it fits into the everyday world.

Famous Subjects

I’ve been keeping a list of these in my head since I find them interesting. Especially the street photos where the subjects aren’t actually posing. I don’t have much to add but when I saw someone start tweeting these, I chimed in with the ones I knew of.

Well, one thing that I do find really interesting about these is how they help us understand the way the photographer approached the scene. In the case of Elevator Girl and Grenade boy, we even have contact sheets* to go with the stories. Learning the back story helps us understand the famous image better.** It’s always nice to be reminded how a photo doesn’t exist by itself.

*Elevator Girl’s contact sheet. Grenade Boy’s contact sheet (which he commented on).

**Jörg Colberg has as nice essay looking at Migrant Mother.

#ReplacePeterLorreWithR2D2

[tweet https://twitter.com/vossbrink/status/343965341589848065] [tweet https://twitter.com/vossbrink/status/343965390583525377] [tweet https://twitter.com/vossbrink/status/343965504601460736]

So I was a bit disappointed to realize that I’m conversant in very few Peter Lorre movies. I was tempted to include a reference to Arsenic and Old Lace except that I couldn’t make it work. Is just as well, these three are all movies I really really like and would recommend to anyone.

Anyway, motivation came from here.

[tweet https://twitter.com/earthtopus/status/343894979455893504]

AP Art History

Eadweard Muybridge, The Horse in Motion, 1878
Alfred Stieglitz, The Steerage, 1907
Dorothea Lange, Migrant Mother, 1936
Diane Arbus, Child with Toy Hand Grenade, 1962
Cindy Sherman, Untitled Film Still #21, 1978
Barbara Kruger, Untitled (“I shop therefore I am”) 1987

This was interesting from both a photography point of view and a general art history point of view.

Art history-wise, the canon is homogenous and full of jargon. A lot of the questions and things you’re supposed to know are, quite frankly, boring and don’t do anything to encourage the appreciation of art. This is very sad.

I’m not enough of a generalist to comment more here, however as someone who likes modern art and photography, I find photography’s role in that canon to be particularly interesting. In every modern art museum I’ve visited, photography is always kept in its own discreet section, partitioned off and away from the rest of the works on display. It’s not relegated to an inferior status, just that it’s kept distinct from the general trends of the time.

I’ve never understood the distinction. Especially when you have artists like Jay Defeo, Ed Ruscha, John Baldessari, Robert Bechtle, and Andy Warhol whose work includes, references, or converses with photography. I enjoy modern art and I particularly like when photography exists in context with what everyone else is doing. In all media. But this rarely happens.

Which means that I was actually somewhat surprised to see any photography get posted. And as I noted, I don’t disagree with any of these photographs being on the “photos you must know” list. All six are hugely important to both to art and to photography.

At the same time, just looking from a photography point of view, there are a lot of things missing. No landscapes. No views of the city. No still-lifes. No patterns or textures. No color studies.

No non-American photographers* and no non-white photographers.**

*Very surprising considering who’s in the canon of photography history.

**Not surprising at all as this fits in with the rest of the Art History Canon.

It is nice to see though that there were twice as many women as men. Unlike the rest of Art History, there are a lot of female photographers who have been accepted by the establishment. At the same time, yeah, yet another grouping which suggests that female photographers only take photos of people.