Models have been masters of the #MannequinChallenge for years.
Long before social media games, models were posing like mannequins.
Feel free to take notes. Click here to see how others did it.
Feel free to take notes. Click here to see how others did it.
Seriously, aren’t there some really important things to worry about? Read about the controversy here.
If you went to a liberal arts university, or a reasonably well-funded high school, you likely took a course mysteriously referred to as “Art Appreciation.” Your instructor, who might have been an art history major if you were lucky, spent the duration of the semester trying to convince everyone that art was cool while simultaneously imposing a list of dates and names one was required to memorize in order to pass the sanctioned tests. The courses are required as part of the accreditation for most university programs in hopes that the institutions produce reasonably well-rounded graduates.
No, it doesn’t work.
A minority of the US population actually appreciates art on any level. Not because they don’t want to, mind you. Ask most people if they like art and they’ll tell you they do. Â However, actually appreciating the work requires a deeper understanding than just “liking” art. Giving a work the “thumbs up” on Facebook is a long way from being able to discuss the work’s merits or the motivations of the artist.
The general concept of art, for many people, is that it fall into two categories: the pieces where one can tell what the picture is, or those where they can’t. We “like” those pieces we find easy to understand, especially those brightly colored paintings of the Romantic period. More challenging to the common aesthetic are those pieces that demand abstract thought, almost any major work from the late 19th century forward. Hang a Jackson Pollock painting and wait. Someone will inevitably ask if it was painted by an elephant or a four-year-old. Every time.
One of the reasons we have so much difficulty with comprehending visual art is that we are challenged to connect it to what is going on in our own lives. After all, much of the artwork that we find in traditional museums pre-dates most of us by at least 100 years or more. What was relevant to the artist is not necessarily still relevant in a contemporary setting. We are often asked to have an understanding not only of art styles, but history, fashion, and politics in ways that are completely lost to us. People wander through a gallery without hardly a clue as to why a work is important or what makes one more valuable than the other.
The curators of museums feel your pain. They want visitors to appreciate the collections they’ve worked so hard to assemble. Understanding how different works by various artists connect not only to each other but also to our own lives is a struggle every curator feels at one point or another. Obviously, the curators see the connections, but they do so drawing heavily not only on their depth of accumulated knowledge but on their own life experiences with art. Transferring that experience from themselves to their guests is almost impossible.
Enter the Tate Britain, one of the world’s premiere art museums. Each year, the Tate offers its IK Prize for promoting the use of technology in the exploration of art. Named after philanthropist Irene Kreitman, the prize this year was awarded to a team in Treviso, Italy for their entry, Recognition. Created by Fabrica with the help of JoliBrain, an artificial intelligence firm, and Microsoft, which helped fund the project, Recognition uses artificial intelligence to match photographs from current photojournalists with works of art at the Tate. The presumption is that by relating works of art with modern photographs, we might better understand the art.
There are, obviously, a lot of questions to ask about an artificial intelligence program’s ability to understand and comprehend art. The folks at Fabrica are quick to explain that this is an experimental program and that a more accurate technology would require years more research and input. Recognition is not flawless by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, by forcing consideration of a strict set of criteria, even the mistakes help us to more deeply examine both the structure of art and of the images around us. Consider the criteria Recognition uses for comparison. These definitions are taken directly from the program itself:
Images with close similarity in these four categories are selected as a match, and displayed in Recognition‘s gallery. You can watch the process online through November 27. I’ve been watching it most of the morning, absolutely mesmerized. Recognition makes three or four matches an hour. Some of them immediately make sense. Others require more thought. And, inevitably, there are those where one has to conceded that maybe the computer got it wrong. But hey, at least it tried.
Visitors to the exhibit at the Tate have the ability to help Recognition learn by making better suggestions to the matches that it makes. Given that the exhibition is only open through the end of November, however, means that there is a distinct limit to how much the program could learn. If one were to leave it running for five years or more, I would suspect that its ability to match photographs to works of art would become extremely accurate, but such an exhibition would require a tremendous amount of funding and even the Tate’s extensive pockets don’t run that deep.
Yes, there are more than a few detractors. One needs to have a better-than-average knowledge of the Tate’s catalog in order to participate and interact with any level of accuracy. The interface isn’t exactly friendly and the errors are sometimes so mindboggling as to leave one disappointed in the entire technology.
Yet, it would seem that artificial intelligence has a lot it can teach us. The technology is still very much in its infancy. If anything, it teaches us that understanding art is a learning process itself. Applying strict analysis to what has traditionally been seen as a subjective opinion forces different modes and conditions of examination. Art viewers are forced to take on different considerations that may not be especially comfortable. Making those adjustments, however, are what deepens our own understanding of art.
I wish I had time to fly to London and watch other people interacting with Recognition. I think it would be interesting to study how even a basic interaction with the program alters one’s perception of the art pieces displayed in the gallery. This is an exciting exhibition, one that could genuinely improve public appreciation and understanding of art, which could eventually translate into better public funding for the arts and for artists.
At least, we can hope for that outcome, can’t we?
Friday afternoons are notorious time wasters. One is either rushing to get something done by the end of the day, or one is putting everything off until Monday. Oh, and then there are the Friday’s where one can’t get anything done because you need the approval of someone who decided to take the afternoon off. Never fails. Now, if you’re one of those people who should be rushing to meet a deadline, WHY ARE YOU READING THIS ARTICLE? Geeze, get back to work already! You’re holding up everyone else.
Now, if you’re one of those people who should be rushing to meet a deadline, WHY ARE YOU READING THIS ARTICLE? Geeze, get back to work already! You’re holding up everyone else.
For everyone else, however, I’m in the mood to waste some time and we might as well do it together. Only, I’ve already watched the videos below. If I hadn’t then I would be able to recommend them to you, would I? And since I was watching them specifically so that I could include them in this article, it wasn’t exactly wasting time on my part. We call that research.
Amazing how we justify things around here.
Anyway, I’ve chosen three short films that, combined, kills less than an hour of your afternoon. Go grab you a soda and maybe a chocolate bar. Tell everyone you’re doing research. Hey, it works for us.
A seven-minute long commercial? Really? I’m not sure exactly what the folks at Ford were thinking with this one. It certainly isn’t something that one is going to see one television, even late night. We’ve we’ve got here, though, is some incredibly creative writing. Not since Herbie, the Love Bug has a car played such an integral role in the telling of a story. You may need to watch it twice, though. The plot unfolds in such a way that only on the second viewing do you see all the hints that were dropped. And to the folks at Ford, you’re welcome.
This little thing was just uploaded a couple of days ago, but it has “award winner” written all over it. What happens when two people’s lives become so incredibly entangled in each other that separation becomes impossible? Is this why one shouldn’t go into business with a spouse or lover, or is this exactly why you should? This is an incredibly well-done piece with a few surprises slipped in along the way.
I thought twice, actually three times before including this last one. First, it’s long, a little over 20 minutes. Second, I was concerned that it might only appear to those in the advertising industry. However, I think any creative person is going to find a lot here that is valuable. Discussion of design, white space, and NOT filling the frame are something anyone involved in the visual arts is going to appreciate. Plus, there is such a strong sense of history and nostalgia here, especially for people my age who areally are bored on a Friday afternoon and bummed that it’s too chilly to be out taking a walk.
That’s all you’re getting from me today. Kat said something about going “out.” Lock the door and turn off the lights if you’re the last one to leave, please. See you in the morning.
There is a conference taking place in Malta right now involving arts and culture organizations from all over the world. The World Summit On Arts And Culture includes participants from every populated continent, people dedicated wholly to preserving the future of the arts and the cultures they represent. Interestingly enough, this is one international program where the United States is sitting mostly on the sidelines. Yes, National Endowment for the Arts chairperson Jane Chu did speak this morning, but the only other American organization on the very full speaking schedule is Robert Lynch, CEO of Americans for the Arts late tomorrow. The conversation is very diverse with points of view from places whose cultures and arts have long been overlooked by the Western arts community.
From the summit’s website:
The focus of the 2016 World Summit on Arts and Culture, will be on Cultural Leadership in the 21st Century. The arts and culture can be considered to be at a crossroads – faced with many challenges and opportunities at the global, national and local level such as: the impact of new technologies on the production and distribution of cultural goods and services; threats to global security; new patterns of migration; changing contexts at the national level including austerity measures and continuous requests for reform; aspirations from artists and culture operators to extend their impact and outreach to other sectors, while also struggling to guarantee freedom of expression and ensure cultural diversity.Â
I really can’t comment too terribly much beyond this point because I’M NOT THERE! Sigh. No one ever wants to send me to the fun stuff. I could volunteer to be shot at and be accepted right away, but offer to be involved in conversations about how photography factors in arts and especially non-Western cultures and nooooo, I’m still sitting here at home. Fortunately, though, those who are participating have been very active on social media, especially Twitter. There is also a discussion paper that covers many of the issues addressed today and tomorrow. The paper’s quite academic so you’ll most likely need to give it multiple reads. However, there are some gems from that document that are well worth quoting here.
… the cultural leader is an agent of change who contributes to cultural development in their country, Discussion Paper 21 Ayeta Anne Wangusa region or continent. The cultural leader does this through visioning and building relations with partners to address systemic challenges resulting from our colonial history and the current globalisation era. It is also about conserving our intangible heritage for posterity, as well analysing the underlying belief systems of Africa and their interaction with the Global North and Global South, to promote social cohesion and sustainable development. —Ayeta Anne Wangusa, Executive Director of Culture and Development East Africa (CDEA)
What is urgently needed today is leadership which promotes dialogue for new governance, collaboration and coproduction endeavors with civil society and cultural movements. —Lucina Jimenez, Director General of ConArte Internacional
One of the areas we tend to dismiss when discussing arts and culture is the Middle East. We do so out of great ignorance. The regions where war is most commonplace are also homes to great troves of artistic and  cultural importance that have influenced artists, writers, playwrights, and politicians for centuries. Many of these artifacts have been recently destroyed and preserving them seems almost impossible. I found these statements from the discussion paper most interesting.
I n Arab cultural scenes with no or overpowering art infrastructures, small and short circuit networks formulate; friendships sustain some of the bonding. Within these networks, collaborations force themselves on individuals; time is limited, shifting dramatically, and so are the identified resources, therefore sharing or teaming up allows being in and outside of a production process. There is no continuity for those who fall out of these processes. Personal, or collaborative, collections of notes, writings, ephemera, accesses, experiences and interests in miniscule histories are the sites of intervention. There is still a huge discrepancy in sustaining rights; to access, to copy, to say, to stay, to object, to reject, to exit.Â
…
A cultural leader is not a state, but its policy; is not an institution but its dynamic; is not a community, but its bond; is not a social (media) space, not a financial model, nor a future built by forecasts, but their logic of probabilities, that could continue to enhance our working models. —Ala Younis is an artist, trained as an architect in Amman.
The discussion paper is quite full of perspective that should yank us from thinking exclusively about local perspectives and open our conversations more to immigrants bringing their culture and artistic perspective to us. Consider these examples:
In Asian cultures there is a long tradition of artistic creativity as communal, rather than the individual specialist called artist, and in many Asian societies there is no word for artist.
…
Lopsided emphasis on left brain thinking stunts creative imagination. It is unfortunate that many Asian countries inherited educational systems from the industrial revolution of eighteenth century.
…
Cultural leadership, especially in education and official policy, should be able to promote not only the intelligence quotient, but intuitive, creative intelligence and all other intelligences that enrich the creative imagination. —Felipe M. De Leon, Jr., Chairman and Commissioner for the Arts of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, in the Philippines
Cultural leadership is not only the implementation of concepts and theories from the business world into the cultural sector, but – like the concepts of cultural management and cultural entrepreneurship – it has also to do with the creation of social value by artists and organisations and how to balance managerial effectiveness with artistic value for society.
…
Regardless of how and where these challenges emerge, indisputably leaders will be required for the cultural sector. The cultural sector now has little choice but to respond: the present challenges of new media, changing audiences, dwindling public funds, and a decline of historical awareness are merely the next steps in this continuing pathway. —Annick Schramme, President of ENCATC, the European Network on Cultural Management and Cultural Policy
While justing being in Malta this time of year would be nice, what I’m missing are the voices of incredibly talented and intelligent people as they discuss ways to make sure the arts and culture continue to develop throughout the century in the face of numerous obstacles. Participants posting from Twitter give us just a taste of those conversations.
You have to be an activist to become a political artist. – Chandraguptha Thenuwara on #fake political art #artsummitmalta
— Perduta Gente (@PerdutaGente) October 19, 2016
Kelli McClusky: Self-censorship happens all the time. Especially when funding is cut without reason or sedition laws enacted #artsummitmalta
— Esther Anatolitis (@_esther) October 19, 2016
Do artistic interests drive this agenda, or are arts & culture being instrumentalised to achieve other goals? #ASEFculture #artsummitmalta
— ASEF Culture360 (@culture360_asef) October 19, 2016
Yvonne Donders: I believe in the universality of human rights but not the uniformity of human rights. Dignity with diversity #artsummitmalta
— Esther Anatolitis (@_esther) October 19, 2016
“She was so poor she didn’t have anything more than money” @SergioMautone #artsummitmalta
— Lucy Hannah (@LucyHannah19) October 19, 2016
I could, of course, go on and on and on. Â You wouldn’t read them if I did, though. If you’re interested in more, search #artsummitmalta for current tweets coming from the summit.
We have thousands of arts organizations scattered across the US, most of which do absolutely incredible work. We need these larger conversations, though. Art and cutlture is not merely a local experience, but a global one. The questions and challenges are universal. We need to grab hold of these conversations and push them forward.
And maybe next year I can hid aboard a tramp steamer or something and actually participate.
I had difficulty choosing pictures to go with this article. I just finished reading the New York Times interview with William Eggleston that was published yesterday. Times writer Augusten Burroughs calls Eggleston, “The pioneer of color photography.” I’ve also heard of him referred to as the godfather of color photography. Whichever title one chooses to use, the man has done a lot to further color photography. So, choosing images that really match that topic involved a mental argument as to exactly what color photography represents.
Being brutally honest, I’ve not always been the world’s biggest Eggleston fan. I’ve seen the images from his 1976 exhibit at the New York Museum of Modern Art, which the article casually glosses over with little more than a side mention. I understand why critics at the time weren’t impressed. Eggleston’s work has, at times, been the sort that one looks at after a few years and thinks, “Oh, now I get it.” Just casually browsing through his images without taking the time to understand them can, depending on one’s level of photographic comprehension, leave one disappointed and unimpressed.
What Eggleston’s work did, though, was bring color photography legitimacy in a world that was stuck looking at things in black  and white. As color film and processing changed over the years, color pictures changed our perspective of life. We were forced to look at things differently, something that a lot of people don’t find comfortable.
Photographers who have never shot film, and there are millions who haven’t, don’t understand the challenge of having to choose whether to shoot in color or black and white. Digital cameras inherently take color pictures. Even if one has a camera with a black and white setting [which is never a good idea, in my opinion], the sensor still “sees” in color and then makes the conversion. When using film, though, one has to make a decision before the pictures are taken, often before one even stops onto the set. Sitting in art meetings over the years, whether to use color or black and white film was almost always one of the first arguments the team would face. Opinions both directions tend to be strong.
Critical to this discussion is understanding that color changes the emotion of pictures. If I were to set two pictures side-by-side, one color, one black-and-white, your opinion hinges not on different qualities of processing, but on how the different images make you feel. Consider the image at the top of this page. Here it is processed in black and white:
The question is not whether one version is better than the other; both have their distinctive qualities. What matters is which version best communicates the emotion I was attempting to capture with the image. In this case, I prefer color if for no other reason than the striking contrast of red blood in the water.That aspect is so muted in the black and white version that one might miss it entirely if just casually glancing at the photo.
One can argue that either version of the picture is better than the other and be technically correct. Are we shooting merely for technicalities, though, or are we taking pictures that allow people to feel something? When we choose color, we make a choice in how we want to direct viewers’ emotions.
Because photography started out monochrome, there have been, and always will be, those who are strongly adamant that black and white is the only legitimate format for professional photographs. The Times article makes that point when the author asks Eggleston what he thinks of Ansel Adams. Eggleston replied:
We didn’t know each other, but if we did, I’d tell him the same thing: “I hate your work.”
The sentiment runs both directions, though. The article recounts a conversation between Eggleston and renowned photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson in which the latter tells the former, “You know, William, color is bull shit.”
Not everyone wants to see the world in color. Not everyone wants to feel the emotions and challenges that color brings to pictures. Black and white gets straight to the point, emphasizes the facts, and allows some things to become lost in the shadows. We all know people who are the same way. The rules are the rules and either one follows them or they don’t. People who view the world in black and white tend to be very precise in their judgments, they appreciate the clarity of strong, well-defined lines and the clean contrast that black and white affords.
Color brings more freedom to the world, and to imagery. Color opens up possibilities that maybe the rules are bendable, or not necessary at all. Color lets us see what’s lurking in the shadows, enjoy the subtle gradients of light, and feel the warmth, or the coldness, of an image. You almost certainly know people who are colorful, who take chances without regard to the consequences, who explore beyond traditional boundaries, and are very open about how they feel. Their emotions are obvious and their communication often louder than we might appreciate.
If I have a favorite quote from the article, and Eggleston provided plenty of good ones to save for the archives, it would be this one regarding critical discussion of his work:
The only thing one can do is really look at the damn things. It’s just not making much sense to talk about them.
We are guilty, far too often, of analyzing both photographs and life to the point that they begin to lose any meaning. We too often need to justify our reasons for either liking or not liking a photograph, or a situation, or even a person. Some of us are color people. Some of us are black and white. And there are many who cross back and forth, constantly wrestling with the emotional and visual exchanges between the two.
I’ve no problem admitting that I am of the latter camp. I find pleasure in both forms of photography and both forms of people. While mixing the two doesn’t always work, I would hate to live in a world where either one fails to exist. What Eggleston’s work teaches us, if anything, is that we need both. One might be more appropriate for a given situation, but fundamentally neither is better than the other. They are, simply, different, and that difference is wonderful.
Life is the same way, is it not? The sooner we accept that both color and monochrome has value, perhaps then we can get on about the business of loving and caring for each other rather than this stupid arguing we’ve been doing. We’ve not been making much sense with our petty picking and fussing. Enjoy the pictures of life. We’ll all be better for it.
This is one of those days where I just couldn’t handle the current topics in my newsfeed. The top five news stories this morning all dealt with the same issue which dominated yesterday’s news. I don’t want to add to that noise. Plus, I’m still tired, recovering from a month of fashion shows and trying to get things in gear for next year. This is typically a quiet time where we don’t shoot as much, but we’re extremely busy with business stuff.
Given all that, today seemed like a good day to show you some pictures we’ve revived from the archive. Rather than put them in a slide show, though, which would be very easy, I want to take you through each of them and explain why they were omitted from their original set’s production. Perhaps this method will be a bit more interesting.
Let’s start with the photo above. This is a picture of downtown Dallas, TX taken from the passenger seat of my brother’s vehicle. I love that Dallas is not afraid of modern architecture. There is a lot to that city that will surprise you, despite the  large number of morons who live there (No, baby brother doesn’t  actually live there). Why was this image not part of the original set? Two reasons. First, the uniqueness of the architecture leaves me uncertain as to where the straight lines are supposed to be. Perspective is a wonderful thing and this image defies it. Second, look in the  bottom right corner and you’ll see my reflection in the snow-covered hi … uhm, I mean, car window.  Rather creepy.
Why I Revived This Picture:Â I love the ambiguity of this frame. We see their arms extended upward but have no reason why they are engaged in such a pose. I had only recently met both girls and they were such good sports to be out shooting on a rather cool Sunday morning. What are they actually doing? Pullups. Â There’s a bar just above them, hence the reason for their arms being in the position they are.
Why This Photo Was Omitted: The very reason I like this image is why we left it out of the original set: it’s too ambiguous. We were doing an article on fitness, had tons of photos, and this one just muddied the water too much.
Why I Revived This Picture:Â Symmetry. This is the tack room at the stables where my niece rides. I was taken first by the color of all the different tack, but as I looked I noticed the symmetry with which they were hung on the wall. I couldn’t resist the photo.
Why This Photo Was Omitted:Â We were on a family vacation. Do you see any family in this picture? No. This happens every vacation. I take a lot of pictures and then never get around to processing the ones that don’t include family members.
Why I Revived This Photo:Â I really love the painting Kelly Oswalt did for this set. Having to cover an entire body in white is a lot more difficult than it sounds. The design she chose was absolutely wonderful and has always been one of my favorites.
Why This Photo Was Omitted:Â At the time we shot this I was cropping everything to a square orientation and this photo just doesn’t fit. I was also dropping in a substitute background and that didn’t work with this photo, either.
Why I Revived This Photo:Â Color. It’s not often we have a photo with such high contrasting color, especially with any level of nudity in the photo. Here is one of those rare instances where it all comes together and looks best with very little treatment to it at all.
Why This Photo Was Omitted:Â Originally, this photo was part of a composite image, hence the blue background. The image was heavily blurred and at a reduced opacity so that the bright contrast of the colors was not evident.
Why I Revived This Photo:Â This sleeve is one of the best examples of detailed color ink work I’ve seen. There are a lot of times I don’t like full sleeves like this because, depending on how the arm is bent or what clothes might be worn, the flow of the image is interrupted. This piece works nicely, though, even under blouses that cover most of her arm. Very beautiful work.
Why This Photo Was Omitted:Â When we first processed this series of photos I really wanted to make sure every image focused on the ink more than a model. I was concerned that the nipple might be distracting because, as the past few hours have demonstrated, the world is full of pigs.
Why I Revived This Photo:Â Because this is one of those sets where we should have done better. We had been shooting all day outdoors and hadn’t taken enough lights to adequately handle shooting after dark. Not many of these photos are worth saving, but this one is.
Why This Photo Was Omitted:Â The whole set was largely buried. I only processed three images when we first shot them. As an aside, since these photos were taken, the model returned to college and is now an RN. A lot of people called her a lot of not-so-nice names and refused to work with her. To those people, we say, “Fuck you.”
Why I Revived This Photo:Â Lines. Look at them. The perspective of the hallway, uniquely shaped by unseen staircases, trailing off into darkness, lends itself to so very many stories. My imagination runs wild when I think of all the adventures that might have had their beginning or ending in this hallway.
Why This Photo Was Omitted:Â This image is not from a public set. We were doing some location scouting and this was one of the images that convinced me we needed to shoot here. However, I typically don’t process photos from a scouting shoot. In fact, it’s rare I keep them at all. I just couldn’t let this one go.
Why I Revived This Photo:Â Nothing from this set has ever been processed. They were shot a few years ago, the middle set in a three-set shoot. First set was processed, third set was processed, these were skipped. Since I was going through looking for photos that hadn’t been seen before, this seemed like a pretty good choice.
Why This Photo Was Omitted:Â I don’t remember exactly, but the set that comes after this is a very popular series involving a pocket watch. Some of you might remember having seen those photos. I think there’s still one in my portfolio. Excitement over that last set most likely led to this set being ignored.
Why I Revived This Photo:Â This poor young woman has had a rough go of it lately. Every time she turns around, someone she cares about is dying. There are other issues as well. This is one of those moments when life is not being kind and there’s not a helluva lot anyone can do about. So, I’m hoping this photo might bring a smile to her day and remind her that someone cares.
Why This Photo Was Omitted:Â At the time we processed the other photos from this set, this one didn’t seem to particularly fit the narrative. We’d had a fun shoot. She had a fun shoot. This image seemed a little too serious to match with all the smiles and laughter. The photo feels a lot more poignant by itself.
There, ten photos revived from the archive. I hope you’ve enjoyed the stroll. Maybe I’ll  think of something important to write by tomorrow.
I’m sitting here still somewhat bleary-eyed, Â despite being on my third cup of coffee. The Chanel fashion show just ended a few minutes ago in Paris. I’m waiting on still images before I begin writing my review for Pattern. This season is almost over. My body can feel it. Relief, and sleep, is near.
Why do I keep doing this? Twice a year, I completely upend my life and my sleep schedule to cover four weeks of fashion show after fashion show. A couple of years ago, I tried watching them all, over 200, and it nearly killed me. I’ve cut back since then. We will have reviewed about 83 shows this season, having watched roughly 180. That number might seem small compared to the marathon of a couple of years ago. Trust me, though, it is still exhausting.
Why do we do this? Why do I continue to put my body through this torture twice a year? Obviously, there’s nothing in any of these shows that I’m actually going to wear. I’m old, set in my ways, and have a total dad bod. There are only three or four looks that are comfortable on me. That’s not going to change. So, why am I looking at dresses and crop tops and, what the fuck, Karl Lagerfeld opened the show with a couple of robots?
Okay, so on one hand, it’s my job. Not bad work. At the same time, though, there are more important reasons to pay attention to a fashion show. There is a relevance here that is important.
A fashion show is something unique to behold, but what we see on the runway doesn’t just appear out of thin air. Every piece that we see starts with a creative idea on the part of the designer. Many designers, including Lagerfeld, still start with a sketch. They consider shape, color, fabric, form, and function among a number of different influences as they decide how to put together something that is wearable but also interesting.
Once they have a concept, designers then create a pattern and a sample. Often, what one sees in a fashion show is that sample, not yet in production. The sample is the designer’s concept come to life, a chance to see how closely reality can match the idea. Designers deal with issues such as fabric weight and elasticity as they try to pull and pin and tack and sew things into place. Sometimes the concept doesn’t work, the fabric won’t do what the designer wanted. They start over. And over.
The average major-label fashion show contains approximately 45 looks. That’s 45 times the designer has gone through the entire creative process. Of course, large fashion houses have a creative director overseeing large design teams. Without them, the fashion show would never happen. Every step of the way, however, there is artistry in what they do. When art museums display major exhibits of fashion work by leading designers, we begin to see all the creative artistry that is fashion. Seeing the work in a museum always feels a bit too antiseptic for me, though. I’d rather see the fashion show, see the work on the runway, moving, flowing, and being the living art that the designer intended. This is where the excitement is.
Fashion is a $3.3 TRILLION industry. Apparel accounts for a full two percent of the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Nearly 60 million people are employed in the manufacture of textiles and clothing alone. That number does not even begin to include all the people employed by the various fashion houses and conglomerates, the retail store employees, or the millions of people involved in behind-the-scene logistics. There is not a country in the industrially developed world that does not depend on fashion as a significant part of its economy.
Stop and think about this: In New York City alone, fashion accounts for some $11 billion dollars in salaries and $2 billion in tax revenue. What do you think would happen if all of a sudden the fashion industry there just up and moved across the border to Toronto? Granted, that’s not likely to happen, but if it did the economic effect on the city of New York would be devastating! Imagine, then, how entire countries such as France and Italy are affected when fashion hits an economic downturn such as it has been experiencing the past two years. The financial scene isn’t pretty.
A fashion show is an indicator not only of how a particular brand is doing, but the overall industry as well. Looking across all the shows we’ve watched this season, we see an industry desperately trying to attract the attention of the world’s largest buying demographic: Millennials. Styles and fabrics have changed. We’ve seen less leather and a lot less fur as Millennials are more likely to care about animal rights. We’ve seen more natural fibers. These are economic decisions as much as they are artistic. We watch a fashion show and we see how global economics affects our lives.
More than anything else, what we wear expresses who we are. Ask any cultural anthropologist you happen to come across (they’re out there, somewhere) and they’ll tell you that how any given group of people dressed says a lot about their environment, their economy, their values, their level of innovation, their mythologies, and their lifestyles. Fashion isn’t exactly a new invention, after all. From the moment someone figured out that animal hide was good for keeping a body warm, someone was there figuring out how to best shape those hides and then decorating them for various purposes.
What we see in a fashion show is more than a creative vision of one designer. A fashion show puts our entire culture on display. Take, for example, the gradual move we’ve seen over the past few years toward more sexually androgynous looks. As younger generations grapple with the whole concept of gender and its fluidity, their journey is reflected in the clothes they wear. Androgynous fashion reflects a change in traditional concepts of gender roles and expectations. At the same time, we see more designs that are loose-fitting easy to wear, and more accessible to people as their bodies change. Those looks reflect a change in our overall lifestyle and our attitudes about our bodies.
When I watch a fashion show, I’m not picking out a new wardrobe for Kat or styling future photo shoots. I’m looking for trends that represent sometimes subtle and sometimes significant changes in our culture. These changes are important because if we are to relate to each other at all we have to understand that those coming behind us see life quite differently than those of us who are older. They have different values, different expectations, and different goals, all of which is reflected in what they choose to wear.
I will be very happy to not wake up at 2:00 AM Thursday morning. As much as I enjoy fashion weeks, the toll it takes on my body is grueling and it doesn’t help my family relationships much either. Kat says I’m especially grouchy when watching a fashion show. Even the little ones are happy when my schedule is back to normal. Yet, come February, we’ll do it all again.
As the face of fashion is constantly changing and the methods and spectacle of putting on a fashion show continue to morph, I fail to see any point in the near future where a fashion show isn’t important. We need that runway. We need to see the artistry, the economics, and the culture. Fashion is important to all of us, to our world, to our lives.
Why would I want to ever not be a part of something so very important? Â As long as I can stay awake, we’ll be there. Every season.
Life is hectic this morning. We’ve already completed three fashion reviews for Pattern. I’ve read about the suspect in yesterday’s Chelsea bombing, the five devices planted around New Jersey, Â and gas shortages as the result of the Colonial pipeline spill. While you’re having breakfast, I’m having lunch. I have a brief period of time before the next fashion show. I have enough hours in the day, mind you. They’re just not grouped in a convenient manner at the moment. So, for this morning’s article, I had little choice but to run to the garage.
By “garage,” I mean my L drive. This is the backup drive where I keep stuff done prior to 2010. Last decade. Old stuff. You know how it is, every ten years or so you go through and clean everything out. While you don’t really want to throw anything away, you want new pictures on your walls, you’ve found a new author whose books you’d rather have out, or you’ve bought some new clothes but you know the old ones are going to be back in style soon enough. This is why we have a garage, even in the digital world. Some files we just don’t need to access as often.
When looking for something I could pull together quickly, it made sense to select a few images from one of my books. Those are all neatly compacted together, RAW files and finished photos, so I can pull from that source quickly and easily. I go to the garage, grab what I need, and add appropriate copy. No extra research is necessary.
I decided that it might be fun to pull from my 2009 book, Gravity. You can still buy it, if you like. With the book, we were going for a very specific, classical look. The images there are done in black and white, cropped, framed, and finished in a very specific method to convey a particular time period and a certain set of emotions. The blurb for the book reads:
The Law of Gravity is immutable. Without gravity, the entire world would break apart and float off into the cosmos. Yet, while holding everything together, as Sir Issac Newton discovered, gravity can cause unexpected things to happen. Sometimes the result is only a bump on the head. Other times, one’s eyes are opened to a whole new perspective on life, love, and the earth in which we live. In this beautiful set of images, Lisa Marie and Carrie Kellar explore an unexpected gift that has fallen upon them. But the same gravity that brought them this gift also keeps them bound to the earth, unable to become immortal. Ah, if only the goddess Aphrodite would help!
This book is special in part because of how the models responded when they saw it. Neither had shot with another girl before and both were a bit anxious about the whole experience. Yet, when they saw the finished product, both were amazed. One even cried because she never expected to be portrayed so beautifully. This is a truly unique book. You should buy one.
As beautiful as the images in the book are, when I pulled them from the garage this morning I thought they might could use a little work before making them public. Not much, mind you. We did no airbrushing, no body modification, not even any cropping or horizon balancing. You can still see the garage walls where we shot, you can see spider webs, the elevated platform, and other such things that we would normally crop out. We left the images rather raw. All we did was provide a little cross processing to keep them from feeling too washed.
There are only ten images in the slideshow below. The book contains over 100 photographs. Who knows, maybe we’ll pull some more of the pictures from this set the next time our schedule goes nuts on us. In the meantime, enjoy the re-processed pictures and don’t forget to buy that book.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
When one visits the Louvre, there are certain rules one must follow. Actually, there are a lot of rules one must follow. No smoking, drinking, eating, raising your voice, touching artworks, or running in the museum exhibition rooms. The museum houses some of the world’s most fantastic pieces of art and curators there are adamant that guests respect the art. They even put up signs to remind visitors how to act. They look like this:
There are times when I wish I could put a similar label on my photographs. I find it interesting that when a photographer puts any kind of identifying or security mark, such as a watermark, on their photographs people complain that the mark “interrupts the aesthetic value of the picture.” At the same time, though, those same people fail to show any respect for the photograph in the way it is treated and displayed. Comments are brutal and insulting without having any knowledge of  all the photographer went through to create that image.
The Internet, and especially social media, thrives on photography. Whether professional or amateur, the Internet needs photography and video or else it quickly becomes boring. Few people realize that early editions of the Internet didn’t have photographs. The first browsers had no way to display images. Everything was text. The Mosaic browser changed all that in 1993 and the Internet has never been the same. But with all those pictures out there, we’ve lost our respect for the pictures and the medium.
Photographs appeared on the Internet a full decade before digital photography became a reasonable alternative to film. Before digital photography, the path from camera to Internet was long and trying. The film had to be developed, processed, finished, and then scanned into a digital format. Scanning was unreliable and often multiple scans had to be created before a usable copy was obtained. It was the fallacies of those early scans that necessarily gave rise to tools such as Photoshop.  The digital image had to receive further processing and editing to make it ready for online use. Weeks could pass before a  photograph was ready.
Today, even professional cameras come wi-fi equipped so that a photographer can instantly publish a photo to Instagram or other application if they desire. Still, that immediacy does not take away from the skill, talent, and effort the photographer put into that photo. More involved photographs, such as the ones at the top of this page, can take several hours over the course of multiple days before they are ready for public exposure. Months of planning may take place before the frame is even snapped. Nothing about a professional photograph is easy or accidental.
Respect for the process shows respect for the hours of training, the multiple specializations brought to bear, the difficulty of knowing which adjustments to make  and when a line has been crossed. Just because one can see a photo instantly after it is taken doesn’t mean that the photo is done. Raw images are seldom as perfect as they might appear on the back of a camera. A lot of hard work and creativity goes into almost every professional image.
One of the biggest disgraces of the Internet are those mean-spirited people we refer to as trolls. The problem has become so severe that Time magazine saw fit to devote a cover story to the topic. Writer, Joel Stein describes the problem thusly:
…if you need help improving your upload speeds the web is eager to help with technical details, but if you tell it you’re struggling with depression it will try to goad you into killing yourself. Psychologists call this the online disinhibition effect, in which factors like anonymity, invisibility, a lack of authority and not communicating in real time strip away the mores society spent millennia building.
Such overwhelming disregard and complete lack of respect for both the creators and subjects of photographs is why you are not allowed to comment publicly on my pages. I would love to hear kind thoughts and might even entertain technical questions. Unfortunately, opening up comments to allow for any intelligent conversation on a topic is an open invitation to trolls who, by their very definition, don’t know how to control the tongues.
I am especially likely  to lose my temper when someone shows a lack of respect for a model. Disparaging the physical appearance of a young woman has caused me to block more than one person. I can tolerate questions about a pose or whether a highlight is out of gamut, but insult a model and were it possible to reach through the Internet and punch someone, I would.  People who risk their self-esteem and personal identity to pose in photos don’t need anyone tell them they’re too short or their head is awkwardly shaped. Shut the fuck up.
Not all that long ago I would occasionally give someone a signed print as a gift. I would carefully choose a photograph, perhaps one from a set they claimed to really like, go through the trouble of additional processing necessary to pull a print, and then sign and date them for authenticity. After all that effort, only once in the past  eleven years have I seen one of those works actually hanging anywhere. Instead, they’re put in the back of closets, forgotten and unappreciated. In one instance, I found a print torn, mangled, and shoved behind a file cabinet. The recipients of those gifts not only showed disregard for the gift, but failed to show any respect for the work.
Image theft, which has been a constant problem on the Internet, also exhibits a lack of respect for the work. Doing a google search for a photograph then copying it and using it for your own purposes, whether online or in a brochure is theft and lacks respect. Failure to credit photographer in the work is another form of theft and disrespect. Cropping out the photographer’s watermark is a sign that one fails to respect the image and its source.
I would be tempted to say you wouldn’t go into the Louvre, take a picture of the Mona Lisa and then try to pass it off as your own work, but, astonishingly, I can’ t. People have so little respect even for masterworks as to think that they can claim some right to misuse whatever they see.
Failure to show respect for others ultimately reflects back on yourself. A lack of self-respect causes a failure of respect for others. We do not value in others what we do not value in ourselves. No one is fooled. All the mean-spiritedness does not hide the self-loathing. Trolls are more transparent than they realize. Photo thieves are merely trying to make up for their own shortcomings. No one is fooled.
I don’t blame photographers who feel acrimonious about the misuse of their photos and pull back permissions. The person who posts photos on Facebook without tagging the photographer disrespects both the photo and the person who took it. Â After suffering that slight more than a few times a photographer has a right to say, “No more.”
I grow tired of seeing people who know absolutely nothing about photography disrespect my work. I know many other photographers feel the same. If you enjoy the pictures a photographer presents, please say something. If you don’t, there’s no need to say anything at all. Please, respectfully, keep your mouth shut.
We are one year away from an incredible experience. On this date in 2017, a total solar eclipse passes over the United States on a path from Oregon to North Carolina. The premium viewing point is in Southern Illinois. Here in Indianapolis, though, we might actually see something more spectacular. Instead of a complete blackout in the middle of the day, we will be left with just the tiniest sliver of light. Granted, it will still be pretty freaking dark and you do not want to look at that thing with bare naked eyes. Optometrists don’t need the business that badly. Still, I’m anxious to see the effect of that tiny sliver of light.
Mythologies surrounding a solar eclipse are many. Several ancient cultures believed the sun was being eaten by one animal or another. Others believed a god was decapitated and obscured the sun. Ancient Greeks were all about doom and gloom and were certain that horrible, horrible things were about to happen. They were right. They would have been right without the eclipse as well. Ancient Greece was just screwed no matter what.
While we must have light, and lots of it, to live, there are benefits to using limited light, especially when it comes to creative matters. Working within those limits can be challenging, especially when what light exists comes from the wrong direction or a very weak source. Yet, when we take that challenge and bend it to our will, the limits we work within can result in wonderful creativity.
My friend Keith allows me to borrow his creative space from time to time. There are some concepts that really need the tools and effects of a studio, but shooting in any indoor environment comes with some inherent limits. The lights are a different temperature than natural light. There are walls and a limit to how the light will spread. Backgrounds don’t always match the concept as well as we might like. Ceilings, ugh, are never high enough. Yet, there are benefits to working within those limits.
Where we stretch the limits of sanity, and of my camera, are when we reduce that light down as low as reasonably possible. Keith always looks at me like I’m crazy when I ask him to turn off all the lights but one. When working with such a limited light source, it doesn’t take much to generate a misfire and a photo that is unusable. Getting it right takes some experience, some precision, and no small amount of luck.
It’s one thing to employ this tactic on a still object. Doing it with a live model is even more challenging. Every time she moves risks putting her outside the light’s premium arc. We’re looking for highlights we can exploit and her range of motion is bound by the limits of where we know the light is going to hit. Not every frame is going to be usable. Am I crazy to put someone through these limits? Probably, but I’m doing it anyway.
The effectiveness of such limited lights depends on the camera one is using and the settings one chooses. Both the Nikon D750 and the Canon 5DS have insanely high ISO ranges which allow for settings near 3,000 without experiencing a lot of digital noise in the image. To take the pictures below at such a setting would defeat the purpose. The highlights would be totally blown out and the rest of the image would feel off, cold, and awkward. As it turns out, though, I don’t have one of those cameras so I don’t have to make those choices.
The images below were shot at a standard ISO 100 with an aperture of f2.8. Again, more limits. At that setting, only the brightest of light is getting through. Focus is challenging as hell. Composition becomes guess work. We might have ended up with a complete mess. Yet, despite all the limits, or perhaps because of them, we came up with a collection that I like very much.
I have to admit, these photos were taken three years ago and I’m just now processing them. There were others in the collection from the same studio session that were more important. I’m not so sure but what waiting serves the best interest of the photographs. The processing method we used on these wasn’t possible back then. Sometimes waiting is worth the frustration.
Below is the end result. After all the limits came to bear, we still ended up with a set of images I really like. I hope you enjoy them as well.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
What if I told you that the bra shown in the picture above was the latest style from Victoria’s Secret and we got a look at it months before it is scheduled to hit stores. Would you believe me? Some of you would without question. Some might think it a bit odd but would go along with the story. A few, definitely the minority, would know that I was full of shit because you were there when we shot these images.
The truth is that the bra is the creative work of one Sasha Starz, along with both the hair and makeup (if I remember correctly). She took one of Taylor’s old, ugly bras and completely revised it so that it would be photo-worthy. Pretty good work, isn’t it? So good, many of you would have no problem believing that it came from a major lingerie retailer. Cool, huh?
We find it easy to believe a lot of things, from who made a bra to the practicality of building a defensive wall along our Southern border. We like to believe things such as walking on water, that wafers become human flesh (ICK!), and a zombie apocalypse. We’ll believe a politician’s nonsense, that Wall Street predictions come true, and that anything the Internet says is unrefutable. In fact, we’ll even believe that aliens provided NASA with special secret technology. When you stop and think about it, we’ll believe some incredibly stupid shit. Are we just brainless about some things or is there a reason we believe such nonsense?
We were in the car yesterday when the TED Radio Hour came on our local PBS station. I enjoy the TED Radio Hour because of the way they explore a topic from many different perspectives. I always end up learning something. Yesterday, they were talking about lying and one of the segments was a conversation with Michael Shermer discussing why we believe unbelievable things. Here, take nine minutes and listen:
Shermer is a professional skeptic. In fact, he is so involved in using science to challenge what people believe that he created a quarterly magazine on the topic. One can do much worse than spend some time on their website. He has delivered TED talks twice, but it is his 2006 appearance that is most appropriate to our topic this morning. In it, he makes a statement I find quite amusing in summing up some belief systems. He says:
Anyone can talk to the dead. That’s not a problem. The problem is getting the dead to talk back.
So, why do we believe in things like people rising from the dead and seances and fortune telling? Where do we get such nonsense?
The science, Shermer explains, is that our brains are hard-wired to believe everything. Believing things that we have not experienced, things we have not seen or heard for ourselves, is largely a self-defense mechanism. He uses the example of ancient hominids who hear the grass rustle nearby and have to make a quick decision: Â is it just the wind or is there a creature nearby waiting to eat them? To investigate increases the risks of becoming lunch. Therefore, they believe that the grass is hiding predators to keep safe. That belief system then spreads and might possibly become part of a larger religious system.
Listening to Shermer, I immediately think of the 1980 movie, The Gods Must Be Crazy. The premise revolves around a Coca-Cola bottle dropping from an airplane and hitting a bushman on the head. The bushman does not see the airplane nor does he have any concept of commercial flight. Therefore, he assumes that it is the gods who must have hit him on the head with this strangely shaped glass object. The consequences of that belief are what fill the remainder of the movie, often with humorous results. But no one from his tribe challenges his initial belief. A bottle fell from the sky. A god did it.
Since we are programmed to believe pretty much everything, we are often hesitant to challenge what we are told or what we read. Skepticism is something that has to be developed. If we grow up in an environment where we are encouraged to believe fantastic things then we are much slower to develop that skeptical need to step back and ask questions. In fact, within many belief systems, skepticism is actively discouraged. “Accept what we tell you on faith,” we are told. This early learning habit delays our ability to think critically and to apply reason to things we might not immediately understand. We create religions not based on factual information, but because we want to believe something even if there is evidence what we believe is not true.
Extrapolate that need to believe out to modern media. Why did our parents trust what Walter Cronkite told them each evening? Because in their need to know what was going on in the world they needed to believe what the man on the television was saying. When the Internet came along, we immediately applied the same need to believe and a huge problem was born.
Since we are hard-wired to believe everything, re-wiring our brains requires some intent and intervention at an early age. When we encourage fantasy and fiction as a form of early childhood entertainment, such as fairies and Santa Claus, we discourage critical thinking, putting it off to an older age. There is little harm in believing a myth or two as toddlers perhaps but when we perpetuate mythology on top of mythology we end up with a tremendous lack of reasoning skills. As a result, people are likely to believe in the efficacy of electing someone as President whose corporate debt exceeds half a billion dollars. We might also believe that funding public education is wrong because it somehow defies freedom of choice. Someone might believe one race is inferior to another. Another might belive in rigid gender roles. The nonsense grows out of control.
At the bottom of it all, we’re not all inherently stupid, we just want to believe desperately in Santa Claus. We want to believe that everything is going to be okay. There are presents at the end of this life, aren’t there? Call it heaven, call it Nirvana, what it all comes down to is hoping there’s a giant Christmas tree on the other side of this life that is full of presents.
Maybe some people need that belief system. They need to believe that there is a reward for putting up with such a crappy shit-filled life. We believe in a Presidential candidate based on their ability to fashion the Santa Claus we want. People need to believe that life can and will be better, safer, and more comfortable. We believe in deity because we need to know that someone has a handle on all the fucking chaos.
Being skeptical is healthy. People who don’t believe, who have developed a lack of trust in the face value of any statement, don’t make the same mistakes as those who do believe. Skeptical people don’t invest with Bernie Madoff. Those who question everything are less likely to strap a bomb to their chest before attending a wedding. We live longer because people question things and are careful about what they believe.
Not that we shouldn’t believe anything. Believe in what can be proven. Vaccines work. Genetically modified foods save lives. The earth revolves around the sun. The speed of light is 299792458 meters per second. I like coffee. And scotch. And a good cigar. There is imperialistic evidence to support those claims.
But we need to not yell and scream, as I am prone to do, when a child asks “why?” for the 456,978th time this morning. We need to discourage the belief in myths that lead to unrealized expectations. There is no Santa Claus. There are no presents waiting for us after death. Person A is not better than Person B.
Don’t be just another hominid. Stop believing stupid shit. Evolve.
An article earlier this week in Business of Fashion discusses the changes in fashion as “Fashion’s Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Everything from how material is made to how clothes are purchased and consumed is changing in ways that a decade ago would have been impossible. What we’re experiencing is a seismic shift that redefines the most basic concepts of fashion.
Burberry and its creative director, Christopher Bailey, have put themselves at the center of that change. Earlier this year Bailey announced that the label would be combining its men’s and women’s wear runway shows, shifting to a straight-to-consumer strategy, and showing current season fashion rather than next season’s, which is traditional. Any one of those changes on its own would be significant. To bring them all to bear, with much more, at the same time changes the landscape not only for Burberry but for every other British fashion label, if not the entire industry.
What Burberry announced today is that their fall presentation is based on Virginia Woolf’s 1928 gender-fluid novel Orlando. If you’ve not heard of the work don’t feel surprised. Critics has long attempted to downplay the story of gender-fluidity as they felt it was too far out of step with society.  However, as gender-bending androgyny has become a major theme in both society and fashion, more people are giving the book another look. Additionally, Burberry is changing the time, place, and duration of its presentation.
Bailey’s choice of inspiration may challenge the non-Oxford educated members of fashion society. When one thinks of Virginia Woolf, one typically thinks of her novel, Mrs. Dalloway. If one experienced Ms. Woolf’s writings, it was most likely in college and that only if one was truly attending a forward-thinking liberal arts institution. While Orlando is not unknown, it has only recently become more socially acceptable as attitudes toward gender fluidity, gender identity, lesbianism, and androgyny in general. Still, especially in the United States, Orlando is banned at more conservative-minded schools. If that doesn’t make you want to pick up a copy immediately I have to question your humanity.
Orlando is based on Woolf’s dear friend and frequent lover, Vita Sackville-West. Sackville-West frequently slipped between male and female identities, which was much more shocking in 1928 than we might think now. In fact, Woolf’s elegant telling of her friend’s life and exploits is so fantastic that censors of the time may not have even recognized much of the eroticism in the book. These are not characters who hold back on their feelings or desires. In a word, this book is hot.
We tend to see Orlando now as a must-read for women’s studies. Woolf champions not mere gender fluidity or bisexuality but a complete separation of gender from identity. In Orlando, we find a character that is neither male nor female, but both and either at the same time. Gender does not define personality nor characteristics. Everything is fluid and dependent upon the needs and desires of the current situation.
There shall be ruffles. Lots and lots of ruffles. Orlando covers a 400-year time period, which is rather unusual for a biography. This gives Bailey plenty of room to play with the history of British fashion, however, and adapt it to serve his own needs. Will we be able to tell the difference between men’s and women’s wear? Does it really matter? Expect there to be an emphasis upon the androgynous aspects and plenty of sets that could reasonably be worn by either gender. Certainly, the gender of the model at the presentation is not indicative of for whom the garment is meant.
Burberry has already announced that they will be introducing a new bag, The Bridle, for both men and women. The bag emphasises equestrian and outdoor themes that are also likely to be found in several of the clothing styles. Equestrian themes are not uncommon among British fashion and the utilization of those characteristics is almost inherently gender neutral.
Burberry’s overcoats have long been without gender specification, at least from a practical standpoint. While there might have been some minor tailoring differences between men’s and women’s coats, they’ve always been practically insignificant and more than one chap has complained about a girlfriend absconding with his favorite Burberry trench. To a large degree, Burberry is well positioned to take on this shift in fashion and style.
What may shock Burberry fans the most is that they’ve given up their afternoon showtime. This fall’s show, scheduled for September 19, doesn’t start until 7:30 PM London time (2:30 PM EDT in the US). What that time change might mean for local traffic I can only imagine. Getting to the Burberry show on time has always been a challenge with many guests arriving two or more hours in advance to avoid traffic congestion. The late time puts the show at odds with London traffic, so the typical 30-minute delay might stretch several minutes longer.
The Burberry show is also abandoning its traditional Hyde Park location for a place called Makers House in London’s Soho district. In addition to the presentation on the 19th, Markers House is open September 21-27 to showcase the works of the craftspeople involved in helping create the Burberry collection. Ceramicists; potters; leather, textile and jewelry designers; woodworkers; silversmiths, and illustrators are all part of the week-long presentation.
Then, to top everything off, the company plans to unveil a consumer app later in September to help make those instant as-you-see-them purchases easier. The impact of this development alone has the potential to send shockwaves throughout the industry if it is successful.
There is a lot going on with Burberry’s Virginia Woolf collection this fall. Perhaps this is the beginning of separating gender from fashion and fashion from seasons. Everything is different from this poinforwardrd. I’m sure this is just the beginning.
Welcome to World Photo Day 2016! This is a day in which we’re going to play along nicely and pretend that the organization behind this day isn’t just trying to sell their book. We like this day because it celebrates something we feel rather passionate about: photography! I mean, who doesn’t like it when someone captures a good photo of you? Granted, for some people that is excessively more difficult than for others. I will also admit that there are times, even when the photography is good, we don’t especially like how we look. I mean, that whole passport photo quote above is way too accurate.
Still, we like to celebrate World Photo Day. Mind you, we don’t celebrate because this was the day photography was invented. The date was determined based on the Daguerreotype, which showed up in 1837. Even that wasn’t really the first photo process. The first fixed-image process was the Heliotype in 1826. What this date actually celebrates, though, is your access to photography. The French government purchased the rights to the Daguerreotype on this date in 1839 and made them open to the public. This allowed for further development of the camera so that you can take selfies with your phone.
Photography has come a long way since 1839. Photography will go a lot farther. This has never been a static industry. Change is constant as someone is continually trying to find a way to take a better, more real photo. Every time someone snaps a shutter, they capture both a moment in time and a moment in photographic history.
I’ve taken hundreds of thousands of photographs over the years. From the first time until today, I still get excited when I look at the finished product and find that I have captured something special. Of course, there are times when I’m the only one who thinks a particular image is special, but many of them hold a lot of meaning.
Your pictures are the same way. Sometimes the pictures we hold most dear are those that are not technically stellar. It’s that picture of someone special, or that moment that gave you an incredible feeling, or the last time you saw the person who gave you life. Photographs tell our life’s story. They mark the moments of highs and lows. They remind us that we’re human.
So, we’ve chosen a group of photos for today that spans a range of events and emotions worth remembering for different reasons. Some pictures were chosen not because of the photo itself but because of the people involved behind the scenes. Danelle French did make up for some really great make-up on several. Some are special because of where they were taken. And several are of Kat. That’s a good excuse on its own.
We’ll take more pictures. It’s not always convenient or easy, but we keep going. Some we share. Many we don’t. Â What follows is a mix of both. And if you want us to take your photos, just ask!
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
We’re on our third pot of coffee this morning. There was, admittedly, a cup of orange juice between the first and second pots because I’m old enough to really need the vitamins and stuff. There’s no replacement for coffee, though. Our lives would be but a shell without it. For that matter, I’m pretty sure some lives would be shorter without it. This drink makes us stop and think a moment before taking any actions. There are times when that’s the only thing preventing homicide. Coffee saves the day.
A lot of the best people I know are coffee enthusiasts. One colleague goes out of her way to explore new coffee shops and coffee drinks. Many of my best friends are rarely seen without a coffee cup in their hands. I consider a coffee stain on one’s clothes a sign of intelligence and deep thought. After all, had they not been thinking so deeply about something else, they probably wouldn’t have spilled coffee on themselves.
I’m also excited by the fact that our friends at Calvin Fletcher’s Coffee Company finally completed the installation of their bean roaster this week. Now, like any other new piece of delicate equipment, roasters take some time to calibrate and get to know. We’ll give our friends a couple of weeks to work out the kinks, but I’m looking forward to my next visit. Coffee people, real coffee people, are the best people in the world.
Those who indulge in this dark essence of warm delight are often as obsessed with making it as they are with drinking it. I can’t wait until I’m awake enough to get Kat awake enough to drive me somewhere to place an order. I need to make my own and if I’m making my own I want it to taste good.
Like many people, I grew up with percolated coffee. Some of you children have likely never experienced such a thing. Percolators are devices where the ground coffee is placed in a basket at the top while the remained below is filled with water. Water is then brought to a boiling temperature at which point it is forced up a tube and over the grounds, exiting the basket at the bottom and mixing with the remaining water below. The whole process takes about 15 minutes for a standard home-use percolator. Percolated taste is passable, but the longer the machine percolates the more the coffee is poured back over the grounds and can make the results bitter.
Then came Mr. Coffee. A home version of the commercial Bunn machines used in restaurants, these nifty new devices heated the water, poured it over the ground beans, then deposited the filtered results into a glass carafe waiting below. Think of it as a multi-cup pour over. There were a couple of inherent dangers, though. One was that the thermostats heating the water were less than precise. As a result, one might find a carafe of lukewarm garbage barely drinkable, or something so hot it threatened to eat through the glass. Â The other was that many people would leave just a tiny amount of liquid in the bottom but leave the warming plate on. Burning, horrible burning, would occur. The smell was enough to turn stomachs.
So, what is the best way to make sure your morning starts right? What tools does one really need to make a drink that is not only passable but worth stumbling through the house in the dark and stepping on three Lego’s? Personally, I prefer french press. We use a 20-ounce carafe. I know exactly how to grind the beans, the exact amount, and just how hot to let the water get. My method is so rote I can almost do it in my sleep.
Understandably, not everyone agrees. In fact, I was quite amused when Business Insider published an article on the six things we all should have to prepare this most necessary drink. Their list is, shall we say, a bit pretentious:
Even though we drink a lot of this stuff, there are still times we have leftovers. I hate waste, I really do, but I can’t stomach anything that’s been sitting out on the counter for the past three hours. Fortunately, the good folks at Death Wish Coffee Company have some ideas for how to deal with leftover coffee. Here, they even put it in a video for you:
This whole writing about what I’m drinking has become exhausting. I need a break, and a refill. You’re more than welcome to join me. After all, it is Saturday. And it’s raining. Do you really have anything better to do? No, you don’t. Sit down and pour yourself a cup. Enjoy.
My youngest son, the 18-year-old, has taken to wanting to watch horror movies on Netflix before going to bed at night. There is a severe dichotomy to his reasoning for choosing the last moments of the day to watch something that frightens the subconscious. He likes the emotional intensity of horror and suspense, but the movies give him nightmares.
Last night was a perfect example. I’m sitting elsewhere, reading, when I get a text message:
Why you leave me alone out here in the living room wanting to watch a horror movie?
When I didn’t respond quickly enough, he sent another message asking if I was almost done with my reading. He wanted to watch a movie, but was too frightened to watch one by himself. I stayed up to keep his mind occupied with other things while he watched some tale of creatures that live in the woods. Then, he had to watch something more fun before he could go to bed. Some dreams can be terrifying.
Dreams are strange beasts that we don’t understand in any great detail. For all the studies that have been done, scientists still don’t know why we dream. Neither does anyone really know why some dreams seem to have cognisance while others are nothing more than collections of random nonsense. If there was a failing to Dr. Jung’s research, it was the presumption that all dreams must have meaning. They don’t. Yet, without them, our lives get messed up in a hurry.
Quick biology lesson: There is a part of your brain that, primarily, manages your impulse control, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). This is a very important part of our brain, especially when it comes to social skills. The DLPFC is that filter that stops you before you call your mother-in-law an old cow in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner. The same fold in your brain also prevents one from murdering everyone who is slightly annoying. We really need this part of our brain to work, and work well.
Care to guess what part of your brain gets shut off when you sleep? That’s right, the DLPFC shuts right down and takes a nap of its own. Actually, the entire prefrontal cortex takes a much-needed break. We work some parts of our brains harder than others when we’re awake and the prefrontal cortex uses that time to essentially catch its breath so that it can keep us from doing something stupid tomorrow.
Without the DLPFC in operation, however, our minds are free to roam. There is no inhibition in our dreams. All the creative mess on the right side of our brain, including the part that makes connections between bits of information, are allowed to wander at will. As a result, our dreams become full of really random and surreal thoughts as things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other begin to collide. At the same time, though, this uninhibited state allows us to find solutions that we otherwise wouldn’t consider.
Dreams have always fascinated us. As a result, scientists have attempted to study them for years with varying success. While there has been a lot of speculation, only relatively recently with the use of fMRI have we been able to begin to really understand what our brains are doing when we sleep, and specifically when dreaming. There are a number of different portions of our brain that are turned on and more active when we are asleep. Equally important, though, are the parts that stand down and let the creativity flow.
What may be most interesting is that we don’t have to dream all night to receive the creative benefits. Studies show that a good nap wherein we achieve REM sleep can boost cognitive association and creative problem solving by as much as 60 percent.You might want to let your boss in on that bit of research the next time you get caught sleeping at your desk (Ulrich Wagner and Jan Born in Nature, 2004).
Chances are you’ve experienced this phenomenon before. You have a problem to which you cannot seem to find a solution no matter how hard you might try. Then, you go to bed and in that foggy space between being awake and asleep the answer suddenly comes to you. Eureka! Problem solved.
Our minds can be at their most creative when we’re asleep, as well. Rocker Keith Richards tells the story of falling asleep on a night in May of 1965. Near his bed were a guitar and a tape recorder. When he woke up, the tape was at the end of the reel. Upon rewinding the tape, Richards found the opening of a song, along with an entire verse, followed by forty minutes of snoring. The song? (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction.
Life can be cruel sometimes and one of them is a nasty disease that specifically affects the DLPFC. While shutting that thing down during our dreams is a good thing, losing it completely kills us. However, before we die, we can get very, very creative even if we’ve never shown an inkling of artistic interest or ability before.
The disease is frontotemporal dementia. There is neither a known cause nor a cure. Like many forms of dementia, the process can be slow and doesn’t present itself the same way in every person. However, one of the things that happens as the DLPFC deteriorates is that people suddenly develop a tremendous artistic interest and ability they have never shown before. People might suddenly develop an interest and ability to paint, or sculpt, or write, or compose music when they’ve never had any training or even any overt exposure to the medium. Their skills develop more quickly  than normal because that part of the brain that tells them they can’t, or shouldn’t, is no longer there. The creativity flows unabated right up until the point of death.
Yeah, creativity can be a killer. I’m sorry, did no one mention that to you before?
I don’t think too many of us really want to die for our art. Being creative is wonderful and we love it when the ideas are flowing freely. However, few of us are willing to trade off longevity to capture a new photograph or develop a new style of painting. Is there a way to be so creative without winding up in a pine box?
Turns out, there is. We can actually teach ourselves to temporarily turn off the DLPFC so that, for a moment, we can experience the creativity found in a controlled dream state. The practice is most frequently found in forms of improvisation, especially jazz music and improv comedy. Artists such as John Coltrane, YoYo Ma, John Baptiste, and Steve Martin all learned to develop that ability to let go, turn off the part of the brain that says, “No, don’t do that,” so that nothing stands between them and the pure flow of creativity.
Not that such spontaneous creativity comes easily. Years of practice are involved. There are basics to be learned so that when the creativity begins to flow the mind automatically knows what to do with that information. When it works, though, many artists describe the effect as being in a dream state. Many don’t even realize that they’ve completed a performance. With the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex shut down, it’s like being awake and dreaming at the same time.
What do we take from this? Perhaps we need to take Kierkegaard a bit more seriously when he asserts, “Sleeping is the height of genius.” For some, that may mean breaking up our day so that we have shorter periods between dream states (aka frequent naps). For others, perhaps taking an improv class to learn how to let go of our inhibitions might be appropriate. Everyone is a little bit different, so each solution is going to be somewhat unique.
No matter which path you might take, though, the power of dreaming is real. Let’s tap that source and get creative.
The photographs above are not art. The photographs below are not art. We’ve covered this topic before and those who are long-time readers know exactly where I’m going. Adding a bunch of filters to a photograph to make it “look cool” is not art; it has never been, it never will be. All we have here are heavily and spontaneously manipulated photographs. The whole batch took no more than an hour to process from RAW files. I spend more time processing a single portrait.
So, what has set off this latest artistic angst that has me gnashing my teeth? The use of online filters by people who I expect to know better. When the average pedestrian Instagram user applies some stupid filter to their picture, I typically roll my eyes and chalk it up to a certain level of ignorance; they don’t know better. I don’t say anything about horrendously filtered online photographs for the same reason I don’t correct everyone’s grammar: it’s socially rude, even though both are likely to have me banging my head on my desk.
Yet, what I’ve noticed over the past week or so it the frequent use of a new online filter that gives images a sort of stained glass effect. The filter divides the image into a vertical mosaic, blurring out details but keeping just enough information so that one can infer the basic contents of the photograph. Some impressive math work is behind the filter, to be sure, but it still does not make a photograph a work of art.
Here’s what has me irked: the filter is being used by professionals who should know better. I’ve seen the filter applied by photographers whose portfolios are impressive. I’ve seen the filter used by designers whose normal work is quite amazing. I’ve even seen one graphic artist who applied the filter to one of his works and then tried to sell it as unique.
Why would a professional engage in such cheap and lazy effects when their other work is of such high quality? How does a professional, especially those whose artistic opinions I normally trust, find such corner-cutting applications acceptable? Is this a sign that we are losing our footing in understanding the difference between art and digital doodling?
Artistic integrity has always been a bit of an oxymoron, but when I see professionals resorting to a free online filter and then presenting the resulting image as though it has any artistic merit is extremely disappointing. I expect, fans and patrons of one’s work expect, an artist to present original work, not something that is duplicated at the touch of a single button. I fully expect artistic professionals to have better judgement.
Mind you, in the right hands and administered correctly, there can be an appropriate use of filters. Graphic and digital professionals understand how to manipulate filters in conjunction with other processing and artistic techniques. Filters are generally applied only to a specific portion of an image to generate a specific effect. Dozens of layers and masks blend a touch of one filter here with another effect somewhere else until the whole work comes together as a single piece. I have absolutely no problem with carefully considered and detailed use of filters in this way.
Art, however, is not a global application of a single effect. Art is something conceptualized by its creator, even when it doesn’t turn out exactly as one envisioned. There is purpose, there is intent, and there is reasoning behind every brush stroke, every method, and every experiment. The value of art is in the individuality of the work, even if there are others created in similar fashion. That each piece was given its own concept, was separately planned and carefully created is what separates art from cheap wallpaper,
Globally applied filters  are fun at a pedestrian level, perhaps, but they serve no purpose other than as entertainment. A dog’s snout placed over the image of a toddler might be amusing. Rainbow-colored vomit coming from your mother-in-law’s mouth might generate a chuckle or two. Everyone likes to be entertained, but no one in their right mind would confuse such mindless pastimes with art.
To illustrate my point, I took a collection of images from the archives that share some commonality. They were all shot in the same place, under the same conditions, with the same concept and intent. The models were even posed similarly. When we processed the images for their original intent, I painstakingly worked with each one to achieve a careful nuance and style consistent with the project. What we did here, though, was exactly the opposite. There was no plan. There was no conceptualizing. There certainly wasn’t any over-arching purpose. Instead, I took the approach of, “Hey, what happens when we apply this filter?”
Each image has at least five global filters applied. We partially masked some of the filters so as to make comparison and contrast between them a bit more evident and also to keep the images from becoming boring, which was a real and present danger. We didn’t worry about details, we didn’t correct any problems the filters might have caused. We just pushed buttons and giggled. Well, okay, not really giggled all that much. Actually, we just rolled out eyes and drank more coffee.
The results are, perhaps, mildly entertaining. Sure, the images are different and some people might even find them rather cool because they’re not the normal photograph. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I’m not going to bother defending them if you don’t like them. I’ve nothing invested more than a  few minutes of time.
Playing with filters is just that: playing. These are not works of art. You can do this at home. You certainly won’t find these in my portfolio. I expect to not see anything like them in others’ portfolios, either.
There are so very many different methods of expression that no two people would ever need to express themselves in the same way. Such diversity is wonderful and the creativity with which some people choose to make a statement is sometimes more noteworthy than the statement itself. Technology we have now gives everyone the opportunity for self-expression. Everyone gets their chance to yell and scream. Open your mouth. Say what you want. See who listens.
One of the challenges, however, is that with so many people trying to express themselves at the same time, not everyone is heard. Sometimes we do well to employ alternate means of expression just to gain attention. Once we have someone’s attention, then we can get down to the real message. Expression sometimes needs a little advertising or at least a little teasing.
Getting attention is a risky thing. I’ve thought about printing a bunch of stickers with my website address on them. I could place them in conspicuous places around town to raise awareness that I’m here and talking. The downside to that particular form of expression, though, is that, in many cases, it could constitute vandalism or defacement of public property. I don’t need a large fine of any kind.
So, I’m thinking maybe yard signs might be an alternative form of expression. Surely, you would let me put a sign in your yard, wouldn’t you? We decided to make some mock signs to test our theory. We went to BuildASign.com and played around a bit. What we created is a different form of expression.
This year hasn’t been exactly stellar up to this point, and I really don’t see it getting any better. There have been too many deaths of really talented people. There have been too many deaths of totally innocent people. The level of stupidity found in politics around the world has reached unprecedented volume. I’m rather of the opinion that 2016 needs to be put in time out until it learns to behave. Our most simple yard sign is an expression of this sentiment.
I understand the plight of the single person. I was one for several years and didn’t particularly enjoy large parts of that existence. Being lonely sucks, especially on the weekend when everyone else seems to be out on a date. However, there is a tendency on the part of some single people to make feeble requests for sympathy by overstating how horrible life is as a single person. Not every single person is like this, mind you. We know several who embrace their singleness and make the most of it. For those few who just don’t get it, though, we have a special sign:
Yes, this is yet another gratuitous mention of that silly phone game that has been wreaking havoc all over the world. Apparently, there was a really big stir in Central Park last night over a rare Pokemon sighting. Then, the servers went down and chaos ensued. Obviously, I don’t play the game, but my youngest son does. He tells me there have been mistakes where people’s private homes have been targeted as PokeStops. The result is homeowners look out their window to find people standing around staring at their cell phones. I can only imagine how unnerving that must be. So, we created a sign to express how we feel about the issue.
We like people who think. We like people who take information and give it a proper hearing, even when it challenges their own belief system. However, not everyone feels that way. There are plenty of people out n the world who think that their opinions and their version of the truth (which isn’t truth at all) is the only acceptable perspective on any topic. Worse yet, once the next two weeks of political conventions have ended, we are at risk of those closed-minded people invading our open-minded space. They’ll be out campaigning for one candidate or the other, insisting we see their point of view. The problem is, we’ve already considered their point of view and discarded it as dangerous. So, before those people open our front gate and try to ring the doorbell (assuming the dog doesn’t think they’re Pokemon and eat them first), we have a special sign:
We’re still rather bummed that Killing Kittens isn’t throwing a sex party in Indiana this summer. We just don’t have time to go jetting down to Melbourne for the big summer sex bash down under (take that however you wish). We’re not ones to complain too terribly much, though. Instead, we thought it might be fun to begin planting the seeds of sexy thoughts into the minds of those around us. Who knows, we get enough people thinking about sex parties and they’re likely to start popping up everywhere! We think that would be a much better use of people’s time than talking politics, don’t you? So, here’s the sign we’re considering:
There is a potential downside to this form of expression. A large number of home owners associations regulate how many signs one can have in their yard and where they can be placed. Personally, I don’t see how such agreements are not a violation of the First Amendment. I should be able to express myself however I want on my own property, right? But for some stupid reason, the damn laws manage to be upheld. Communism is what it is. Still, if you can put even one sign in your yard, we think it should be one of self-expression, not something that a political party has conceived.
Besides, expression should be fun and meaningful. You’re not going to get anything like that from a political party. Draw attention to yourself. Be expressive!
Take a look at the image above. Maybe you like it, maybe you don’t, or maybe you’re not sure. Any of those opinions is acceptable. What’s important, though, is that I did not ask you to look at a photograph. I asked you to look at an image. Photographers understand the difference. What you see here might have started with a camera, but the offset double exposure was manufactured in Photoshop® as was the processing. What you see above barely resembles the photographs at all.
Are we still photographers? I’m speaking specifically of those of us who consider the medium of photography our profession, or at least more than just a casual hobby. British fashion photographer turned media specialist Nick Knight doesn’t think so. Â In an interview published this morning in Business of Fashion, Knight makes the case that we do so much more with images today that we can no longer put modern imagery in the same class as that produced by legends such as Richard Avedon and Robert Mapplethorpe.
While I found the interview itself rather gratuitous and was annoyed by Tim Blanks anointing of Knight as some kind of creative god, there are some valid considerations. What we do with imagery now can be considerably different than what we were doing 30 years ago. But does that mean we are not photographers? If we’re not photographers, what are we? How do we define ourselves and our work?
Perhaps the question of whether we are photographers wouldn’t such a volatile issue if people would just stop asking us, “what is it you do?” Replying with, “I’m a photographer” has been my answer for more than thirty years. Identifying as a photographer is a role that people understand. Regardless of how manipulated an image might be, publishing entities still give credit to a photographer. We simply can’t think of any other way to accurately describe our work without launching into a detailed diatribe that hits the boredom point after 15 seconds.
Knight refers to what he does as “image-making,” for lack of a better term. His justification is that the end product might include sound or 3D or any number of other elements he might include. He also thinks photography is dead in traditional terms. He refers to his website, SHOWStudio, as “the home of fashion film.” Â Nick is very good at what he does, but when we strip it down to its core, the base product is still the same: photography.
While what we do with a photograph has changed, however, the base product hasn’t. Nick’s not carrying around equipment that’s any different from the rest of us. The base product of a still camera, even if it’s housed in a phone, is a photograph. Â If the base product is multiple images strung together so as to infer motion, then it is a motion picture, or film. Therefore, the people who create those photographs or films are known as photographers. We can add additional titles on to that, but for public identification purposes to call ourselves anything other than photographers is just silly.
At the heart of this issue is whether and how we modify an image. Now, let’s be clear: photographers have always modified images. The type of toner being used is the most basic form of image manipulation. Toner changes the base color of an image. This is why some older images are different shades of brown or amber, while others have a more silver or blue hue. To say that photographers didn’t begin manipulating images before 1985 is disingenuous at best.
What has changed, though, is the ease with which image manipulation is done. Global filters are everywhere, even on your cell phone. All one has to do is touch a button and the image is altered in any number of ways. More advanced software allows us to add and remove objects as well as change the shape of things and people. Sometimes those modifications are necessary and welcome. Other times, though, the results are nothing short of a disaster.
Nick mentions his amazement with what people are doing on Instagram. Yet, over the past couple of years, one of the most-used hashtags on the social media site is #nofilter. People are proud and happy when the photograph they take is of sufficient quality, in their opinion, to not require any form of filtered distortion. Much has been made in the media about magazines altering the shape of models’ bodies. A growing number of prominent models are including riders in their contracts that prohibit any physical alteration of the pictures for which they’ve posed. While there are many modifications available, they are often not well-advised.
Nick makes an interesting statement that not only reflects his views of photography but of its relationship to society. He says:
… we must be creating new things. We must be evolving as a species. We can’t be the same physically and emotionally as we were 500 years ago. We’re no longer chimpanzees, but we’re not where we’re going to be. Although they are the same stories, we’re not exactly the same people.
I don’t think anyone would question that the equipment with which we take photographs has changed dramatically. Photography has been in a constant state of evolution, if one wants to continue misusing that word, from its very inception. Wet plates, copper plates, film of various sizes and quality, digital development and everything else has kept the medium of photography in a constant state of flux.
Photographers have always been agents of change. We are constantly looking for a different way to use this tool to express ourselves. While the rate of change has sped up thanks to the technology brought to bear, and the number of people involved, to infer that the medium has ever been stagnant is misguided and, quite honestly, insulting to the photographers like Avedon and Mapplethorpe who helped push the medium forward.
While there is plenty of reason to get all excited over the new and different ways one can use digital images to create things never before imagined, we cannot let go of the fact that all the cool and creative things people like Nick Knight and others do is the exception, not the rule. The primary use of a camera always has been, and still remains, to capture a moment. We see it in the selfie obsession that has consumed the Internet.  We see it in the volume of pictures people post to various social media sites.  Filtered or not, what matters is that photographs remind us of something we did or something we saw or someone we loved.
A lot has been written about how Millennials are an experience-based generation. They invest less in physical objects and more in doing things. As a result, they are less interested in hiring someone to create a distinctively new and different digital image and more interested in hiring photographers to capture those experiences that mean the most. From weddings to diving expeditions to parachute jumping, photographers are much more frequently asked to capture those experiences than create something cold in a studio.
Not that there isn’t a place or demand for what Nick Knight and others do. There is. But the global demand for their work and innovation is nowhere near being strong enough to warrant completely redefining the entire medium. At the end of the day, all anyone wants is for us to take their picture.
Our medium of capturing images continues to change. We all know that. There are some incredible and mind-altering advancements coming in the very near future that could well change, again, the way we look through a camera and decide what to capture. How we process those images continues to change as well. Wonderful things are coming down the road.
Perhaps, someday, when we gain the ability to take recognizable pictures in the dark, we can refer to what we do as something other than photography. The word means “writing with light.” As long as there is still the transfer of light onto media so as to capture an image, we will still be photographers. There’s nothing in that word to cause us shame. Embrace it rather than run from it. We are photographers and damn proud of it.
June 30. The year is half over. While the month has had its happy moments, such as the wedding of two dear friends, June has also seen a lot of death, a lot of turmoil, and an incredible amount of global stupidity. We’ve suffered the largest mass shooting ever in the US. We’ve laughed about secret sex parties. We’ve mourned the death of a real champion. We even tossed Kat in the water. For a mere 30 days, a lot happened. Our world has changed dramatically from where we were at the end of May.
To some extent, today puts a half-way marker on the year. We look back and see all we’ve lost, all that happened, and we dare the rest of the year to be better. We’ve had enough suffering. We don’t want more bad news. We don’t need more nonsense. We need new champions rising to the cause. We need faith restored in our governments. We need to feel that the entire planet is not hurtling out of control.
Of course, none of us can predict the future, and I’m not sure we want that ability. What we might see there could be too frightening to imagine. We’re also too early to start writing obituaries for the year. We can’t yet give up hope when so many good and wonderful things could yet happen.
Midst all the activity of this month, chances are you might have missed a picture or two along the way. In fact, we’re pretty sure you did because we know which articles received the least amount of attention. So, before we totally close out this month of June and proceed forward with our year, we want to give you a chance to catch up on the pictures. There were some new ones this month, which is surprising given how busy we’ve been. So take a moment, enjoy the view and we’ll look forward to July.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
The Best Cure For Election Stress Disorder
Election Stress Disorder is a real thing plaguing at least half of US citizens.
The American Psychological Association’s advice is to stay away from politics and find a distraction. We have your distraction.
You can read more about ESD here.
10/8/2009, 8:50:28 PM
10/1/2006, 10:57:38 PM
9/11/2005, 10:06:40 AM
10/8/2009, 8:50:29 PM
11/29/2013, 8:01:17 PM
10/8/2009, 8:50:28 PM
10/8/2009, 8:50:28 PM
10/8/2009, 8:50:28 PM
10/8/2009, 8:50:28 PM
11/29/2013, 7:59:05 PM
Share this:
Like this: