photo-breezing

ih deep dive super rewarding

http://41.media.tumblr.com/1d9db84cdb386ec28a71a66b3b1552cb/tumblr_noz69vEQNm1qzywvpo1_1280.jpg

IH should be in the smithsonian

Internet History Is Hard To See

agreed

http://i.imgur.com/OJnIW0d.jpg

GAH - wow.

http://slash-paris.com/en/evenements/shimabuku-city-in-the-sea

http://i.imgur.com/hN0Gj8Z.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8b6pWoT.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8m2m_C1Fbg?t=12m48s

http://by311.tumblr.com/

https://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1595

:|

I sublet from one of those artists once, and I just have to accept at this point that apparently people like what he makes

:|

my reaction too

hmmm
fwiw i think i saw a bunch of things at new photography that Looked Great There & which i might've flipped by in other circumstances, so maybe the kinda graphical works will be interesting up close

it's interesting seeing things like this & wondering if there is critical mileage in another wave of ultra-quotidian faux-casual urban photography

https://www.moma.org/images/dynamic_content/exhibition_page/126896.jpg

kind of a deeply satisfying photo idk

there's sort of more going on there since thats a photo of an actual newsstand set up by the artist, selling zines, photo books, etc. in the subway. I think the photo is just supposed to be the documentation in this case? not that it makes the photo any less nice, but I don't think it's the photograph that moma is interested in, but the newsstand project itself.

I guess I don't mean 'more' going on but just that I bet if that were a regular newsstand, that photo would not have made it to moma

ha ha hey thank you for the clarification, that is helpful. really pleased to know finally i am the dad at the gallery who is only interested in what kind of d-rings they used to hang the artworks.

think we can all agree the real enemy here is pink-floyd-based #vinylwave meme art, pretty sure next year moma is going to show three-colour jimi hendrix screenprints & letterpressed inspirational slogans

nah I like the picture a lot... I like it better as a photo than as representation of the actual 'piece' (which I didn't know was meant to be regarded as an artwork before, but had just remembered reading about on gothamist or one of those websites)

yeah I can't believe that one xpost

aram saroyan's name taken in vain
maybe there's a reason behind it idk

龜 was talking on twitter about the absence of chinese artists in this; it's also a slightly older crowd than i would've expected, like i would've thought there are waves of fresh photography that are constitutionally limited to under thirty y/os

think when we saw it that one year at MoMA birdhead was included

don't remember what came in between that was so many years ago

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/new-photos-show-bush-administration-reaction-to-911-attacks/

felt really weird noticing the variable exposure of a bunch of shots of cheney/rice/&c hanging out. super unfamiliar, now.

yeah these are like drug store prints!

lomography in the west wing

man, those look like hell. i've been back in the groove of scanning long-ago negatives and while i'm taking lots of shortcuts i'm doing a little better than THAT. kinda lame that fulfilling FOIA requests doesn't require running digital ICE or a little bit of fiddling with levels but i guess it's good that the public gets in this sense an 'undoctored' image. but it almost looks like these were scanned with a dirty mirror or something. (i recently went through this procedure with my baby, facing down the prospect of FINALLY rescanning maybe fifteen rolls that have haunted me ever since i botched the scans circa spring 2007.)

looks like a lot of color balance problems. also looks like what happens if you leave scanning software on default settings and don't move sliders around much. I just figured the scanning job probably just fell to some government functionary to satisfy the foia request. some of my early attempts as scanning film shot indoors looked sort of similar.

i definitely don't have the techniques down. it's okay for filling the gaps of shit that i didn't get develop-and-scanned as a combo. and i never shot on good slide film or anything like that. but i'm sure i'm not really doing it "right."

oddly, for me, the bad scanning/ color correction makes those images somehow more resonant
the fact that the room looks like, just, a banal conference room, with bad lighting (as opposed to a beautifully-illuminated tv/movie set)
there’s like intimacy to them too, feel like taken with an unobtrusive rangefinder rather than big dslr
so strange to see relatively contemporary white house images with grain

i agree with drash, dick cheney looks VERY handsome

^lol

btw my reaction upthread to moma 'new photography' thing was a bit kneejerk
setting aside issue of artist selection,
am interested in those themes, seeing art in person i’d prob find it interesting
(though think, like, in multiple threads on ilx you’d prob find better play on & insight into those themes)
(& not huge fan of photography qua illustration of themes or theses anyway)

also kinda have bad leftover reaction to recent trend of after photography/ is photograph over/ end of photography/ post-photography thinkpieces, conferences, exhibitions (& assimilated this to that)

like, art-curatorial preference for overtly ‘conceptual’ photography, 'photo-based art' or 'post-photography', is understandable (because it seems more like ART obv, lends itself more easily to contemporary theoretical discourse), but it kinda bothers/bores me too
(even though i really do like a lot of stuff that fits these categories)

guess what bothers me is not these genres of photo-art, theoretical discussion of or curatorial focus on them, but what seem like curatorial manifestos against (for lack of better qualifier guess i'll say 'documentary' but that's such a pathetically limiting term) photography as irrelevant/ reactionary/ not-art
lol i'm 'old'

(lol, but he does look handsome; imo film makes everyone look better :) )

9/11 photos are beautiful & haunting, i wouldn't change a thing w/ them

agree

looking through whole set is fascinating: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/sets/72157656213196901

want to unpack, respond to schlump’s joke/zing & my attempt at joke back; maybe something worth disentangling here re complicated experience of looking at/ talking about these images (or images like these) as ‘photography’

(also relates in some way to quiddity of ‘documentary’ photography)

interpret joke to mean: there’s something funny (or worse) about aestheticizing these images, regarding or reading them through aesthetic categories (‘beautiful’ image, quality of film, grain—> ‘handsome’ cheney)

critic (not schlump but rhetorical construct) may argue that ‘aesthetic’ response somehow falsifies, masks, ignores (import of) content; that appropriate response/ interpretation/ critique shd not be aesthetic but political (if not political critique, at least some political or politically-informed feeling, e.g. of antipathy)

to start i’d say, my experience/response (e.g. what i find ‘resonant’) is not merely aesthetic, nor can aesthetic strand be abstracted from whole complex of feelings/thoughts, including political & historical & existential

there’s plenty of material here for explicitly political readings of various kinds, if that's what one is looking for, but mostly, probably, not v interesting ones. don’t see these images as providing ‘new’ evidence to prove or disprove a viewer’s already adopted political narratives & characterizations. viewer’s (political) judgment of these figures is already formed in advance: insofar as one is supposed to feel certain way about them, looking at (reading) images then is just exercise in corroboration.

what i find fascinating/ resonant/ haunting is more difficult to pin down & express. will try to later.

http://i.imgur.com/8eOwmW9.jpg

IH

omg

that's great. obvious horror movie poster potential with the right crop.

frank's editor laura israel made a film, don't blink: robert frank, playing at nyff, wow

i guess i feel like my photos are better than every other dumb photographer's photos, but that everyone who is just taking photos's photos are better than my photos

i'm very very very in love with by311.tumblr.com

^ have that "just taking photo's photos' vibe to it

i also totally recognize it's because it's presenting an environment that's very familiar and yet strange to me due to my living in china and strikes me in a way idk very good photos of istanbul or the continent don't

it's weird but i could spend hours scrolling through photos like those

great tumblr
"just taking photo's photos' vibe
think i know what u mean
un-tendentious, democratic (in eggleston's sense), unmannered
yet obv (to me) v sophisticated eye

street scenes great ofc
but also really like occasional closer, intimate, quiet photos of interiors, still lifes, etc

https://scontent-lax3-1.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xfa1/t51.2885-15/e35/11375261_1107788405915697_1535693033_n.jpg

wow
so much going on in this photo (especially given-- but not only bc of-- who took it)
the pitch-black interior, nocturnal, of sumptuous leather, reflecting gleams of daylight; array of cut crystal glasses awaiting liquids;
framing (from perspective of dark car's passenger) cloudy blue skies & RAINBOW
it's lynchian (mullholland drive comes to mind), egglestonian--
but no, forget comparisons, this is its own unique thing <3

woah by311.tumblr.com btw

it's presenting an environment that's very familiar and yet strange to me -- the fact that there are no identifiable landmarks, kind of puzzle, where is it? somewhere in the north obv but its anonymity? is appealing (actually, it's changchun, i think) -- all those textures and angles in heaps -- i love it

you kinda wonder what friedlander would do if unleashed in china but i think this blog is that

http://i.imgur.com/vrte9W8.jpg

no frame of reference here

as much as i love the pictures, they also unsettle me because i've taken a thousand pictures in third tier chinese cities and these are probably the ones i wouldn't take and not the way i would have taken them but they capture exactly what i would have liked to capture.

dayo do u knw anything about him(?)? http://c--x.tumblr.com/ texttumblr kinda heavy. i love these pictures.