Image left of James Worrell circa 1985, Iowa proving that the kids are alright. I am certain of meeting James before circa New York Magazine 1990’s but that feels like a world away. Anyway in the spirit of childhood athleticism he responded to the TFK challenge and made a big contribution to my fundraising. 

Both of us had slideshows in last Thursday’s Slideluck Potshow, you can see his here. 

Week 5 begins today and features an 18 miler sunday.

With apologies to Sugimoto

with apologies to butterflies courting:)

Big post monday coming with shout outs to new TFK contributors. Going to try to deliver some real tasty treats from Ajax to get all the big whales ponying up for TFK. August 15 is the due date for the first half of the $2500 fundraising goal.

Light is to film as rubber is to asphalt. Left, 700 miles. Right, 0 miles. I exist to repave the world in rubber. Sigh.

We all need an August party right now! SLPS to the rescue. 6:30 to 11:30 at Canoe Studios, 601 West 26th Street, suite 1465. Admission is free, but they are going to do a priority line for members who donate. Since there is nuthin going on this week, people are starved for beer, I’d suggest getting on the priority line with a donation to SLPS.

Featuring me-and my mini project Flyover States in full multimedia mode. See you there.

Around mile 6.

Everyone is away, nothing is doing, we are into August. The gallery openings and free booze are a couple months away, the blogosphere is awaiting the next Edgar Martins to grace the stage, and I have just completed week three of training for the NYC marathon.

Week four is a rest week, the idea is that your muscles get a chance to recover a little from the steady overload they have been experiencing the last three weeks, which culminated in a 16 mile run Saturday evening. See above.

In photography it feels like progressive overload all the time. The steady drum beat of what to do next, how to keep the little ship from sinking. But in August, you really can’t do that, no one is around to hear the sound of your one shutter clapping.

For a while I have been tempted to write in bold caps “PHOTOGRAPHY IS DEAD” as the headline to a post. Catch me in a bad mood and I still might. Still photography for me was the defining art form of the Twentieth Century. Do I need a degree to say that? You might even say that the moon landing July 1969 was the culmination of all that still photography could do, to relate the actual imprint (via another actual imprint) of man on a landscape. Somewhere in a vault at NASA, exists the actual frame that was exposed to the 1/500th of a second of sunlight reflected from the boot imprint of Neil Armstrong. He also shot the same patch of lunar soil minus his bootprint, the moment before. It shows a great presence of mind to understand that there is the moon “before” and the moon “after.” And more than film or video, still photography is the exact medium in which to contemplate this. There is the film “before” and the film “after” exposure as well. The silver salts are like the lunar soil. Grains recording our existence. Wow. Pretty existential.

You could also argue, and I will, being that it is August and there is nothing else to argue, that at that moment photography died and the moving image became paramount in the culture. It was already happening, in Vietnam, for example, the shootout as it were between still and motion, I think still imagery won that war, pun intended. But the moon landing as it was shown on TV around the world galvanized the power of the flow of images over the still. A series of stills from an alien planet in real time does not have the same power. I remember when the Mars landers started sending back panoramas for the first time, and while the NASA scientists were besides themselves in the control room, the line by line reveal of the  Martian landscape was pretty ho-hum to me. I have watched a scanner work too long to find what it reveals to be that exciting.

I know I would get a lot of argument over whether stills or film was the defining art form of the Twentieth Century. Motion pictures have shaped our culture enormously. But I feel as a pure art form the still image has evolved the most.

I think we are at the other end of the telescope now, looking back at photography and what it did and meant to us. I say this because almost all of the work I see now is essentially nostalgic, nostalgic of a time or feeling or place or process. Recently Todd Papageorge published “Passing through Eden”, a collection of images from his years wandering Central Park. The work is completely modern in conception, the unrelenting gaze of the camera making what the camera makes, photographs, but the publishing of it is essentially nostalgic. I have read that TP urges his students at Yale to contemplate working in this genre, the lyrical documentarian, camera in hand, and he says he gets no takers. I think that for photography, quote-unquote, this period in the late 60’s early 70’s was the ultimate period, the point at which art photography reached its apogee to borrow a space term. It is hard to get any better than the unblinking, unrelenting, rigourous exactitude of the black and white or colour images of Robert Adams, Arbus, Friedlander, Winogrand, Eggleston, etc.

This power comes from that sense that you are seeing the trace or existence of something real. Like the lunar footprint, or the image of Lincoln in the Smithsonian, you look closely and it feels as if you can touch reality just on the other side of the glass. But this necessarily limits photography to what actually exists. As soon as you admit fabrication, the power ebbs. And for me the last couple decades of photography have been bouncing along in the nostalgic, either borrowing from painting, or borrowing from the history of photography itself. Sort of like current Broadway musical theatre, a recreation of a long gone heyday.

As I said, we started this trek away from photography during that moon landing. The essential difference between a still photograph and a motion film is that one exists and the other doesn’t. You can hold a photograph in your hand, see it, understand it, confirm it’s existence. You can only apprehend a film, it exists only in your brain as the joining of 24 frames per second by persistence of vision. To see the physical film, there is no motion. It exists only in projection. And you can’t even hold one moment, except as a still, a broken fragment of the whole. This makes motion film the idea medium of what might be, of fantasy. Nothing is real, so it needn’t be. You might argue that the power of documentary film suggests that we still value the real in motion film, but I think we equally value being tricked in film, the willing suspension of disbelief, the surprise twist, the Kaiser Sose at the end. It doesn’t bother us in motion to find out it was all made up. But in still photography, it does. You feel let down. Edgar Martin’d.

Photography is dead. Slowly dying since the 70’s, on life support the last decade or so, I think you will see motion film (video) in many of the applications where the still was used formerly. And I believe the internet is the natural home of the video as print was to the still image. Stills on the internet are not as compelling as motion is. Bandwidth is the only obstacle, otherwise we’d be there now. With youtube, we mostly are there.

Of course there are those that point out that Radio didn’t kill live music performance (although how many of us now know how to play an instrument?) that Television didn’t kill Film, or Print Journalism, and that the Internet will not kill Print. But this does not mean that different mediums have not had to adapt to different, altered or reduced roles. What we are seeing now is the decline of the still image and print. I don’t see any way that it will have in the Twenty First Century, the impact that it did in the Twentieth.

But it is August. Ask me again in September.

edit: another take here on fin de siècle. My opinion, Talk was no George.

Commentary to what happened here-

Edit: ok so this is what I should have written-I did say off the cuff…there were so many errors I did not want to perpetuate any misunderstandings-it was the Magazine, not the paper, in which this ran. I had that wrong. So I rewrote the post.

The whole thing struck me as odd-”long exposures but no manipulation”-why exactly are you telling me how these pictures are made-it is like when they do a panorama-”a panorama is a series of photographs put together”-I wrote about this before, about the little girl in the Microsoft ad who is 4 and an PC, and how she sends a photograph to her family, she knows more about digital imaging evidently than we are giving the rest of society credit for…

It is ham-handed, and when someone lies, you get stuck with your hand in the cookie jar as has happened here.

What they should have done was run Edgar Martins own words, his own artist statement:

With artful composition and controlled framing—but no digital manipulation—Edgar Martins creates sublimely beautiful views of often un-beautiful sites. Minimalist nighttime beaches, forests ravaged by fires, and Iceland’s stark terrain have all served as subjects for his large-scale color photographs. He also explores the unexpected impact of modernism on the landscape, including startlingly graphic airport runways and colorful highway barriers that, at first glance, read like abstract murals.-Aperture

Nothing more. Then when it hits the fan, you turn on the author and say, you were telling the truth no? Like Oprah got caught vouching for James Frey-there is ambition on both sides of that equation, and it is not pretty.

Why is NYT running explanations of the ins and outs of digital photography? It is not their place. You can’t fact check a photography, even in film. It could be staged. All you have are trusted sources. How do you have trust? You establish relationships with photographers over a period of time and assignments and then they don’t lie to you. This also means you might not want to run with the flavour of the moment, the MFA grad who just had a sold out show. Because you never know.

Update

An interview here with the person who called it first (evidently). Thanks Simon.

Difficult to tell at this size, but

getting pretty close to perfect. Yesterday I had most of the factors working in my favour, a steady stream of jets overhead, some puffy clouds, the right vector, victor.

Still not there though. He’s not centered on the pin, the cloud is a little too big in the frame, it feels heavy on the left. But he is “on” the pin, there is no overlap, no space. At least in the pixel realm of 400% enlargement, you cannot tell.

And a reminder that for a small tax deductible donation to Team For Kids, you can have a print from me. $50 gets you whatever you want from me. Smaller donations are also welcome. 18 weeks to the New York City Marathon…

Couple weeks ago I got an email from NYCphotoWorks:

Greetings Photographer,

I’m writing to you today to tell you about a new Manhattan based
company, headed by photgrapher Marc Asnin, that is working for
photographers.  NYCPhotoWorks is a company that is designed to help
photographers on all levels become better photographers, gain
professional insight and exposure, and eventually get work.  We offer
services in many different aspects of professional photography, from
consultations on personal branding to meeting face
to face with the top editors in the magazine world, to workshops taught by
working professionals.

NYCPhotoWorks will be hosting Portfolio Reviews in the fall that are
certain to provide photographers with unprecedented opportunity and insight.

On October 22nd-24th, NYCPhotoWorks will be hosting a Portfolio Review
event at the newly renovated Sandbox Studios in lower Manhattan that will
bring together more than sixty of the top photo editors in the business.
Participating publications include Time, People, Stern, Vanity Fair, Conde
Nast, Details, Forbes, ESPN, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, National
Geographic Adventurer, Redbook, and many more.  Photographers must apply
to be accepted into the event in order to ensure quality of work.  If
accepted, the photographer will be given the chance to meet with 14 photo
editors 1-on-1 over two days, plus a third day of workshops taught by the
Directors of Photography for Conde Nast Traveler, People and Redbook.
This is an unprecedented opportunity for talented photographers to
personally show their work to top photo editors and build lasting
professional relationships.

In a world as competitive and dynamic as editorial photography it’s not
enough simply to drop off or mail in your portfolio.  Meeting the editors
in person lays the foundation for a working professional relationship.
Don’t miss this chance to personally present your work to the top editors
of the magazine world.  Spots fill on a first-come-first-serve basis and
you must submit your work prior to being accepted into the event.

For more information about NYCPhotoWorks please visit our website at
www.nycphotoworks.com

Thanks for your time and please feel free to contact me with any
questions.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Is it me or do they go out of their way NOT to mention money?

So I apply and get taken to a very nice website with a lovely list of editors. Two weeks later, voila, I am accepted and get a login to register.

WHAMO!

$699-599-499-399-Just like iPods, one for every size…

I’ll do the math for you, that’s roughly $45 dollars a sitting.

Ok so you say, Robert…everyone knows it is pay to play…what is your problem? This is no different from paying for LeBook or a promo piece or portfolio pages.

Well, it is different. It is like the wheel has finally come around full circle. Really? Really?

It’s not like I am not already paying out of pocket to do editorial. You know my views on that. But now I really am paying out of pocket! Have we all forgotten folks that we used to drop portfolios off at magazines and have meetings and actually sit down in conference rooms and lobbies and show work to editors for free? This was how business was conducted, the editors need to meet you to get an idea of what you were like, they needed to see prints, they wanted to form a relationship so that you could work together. It was part of their job. Some even liked it! And if it went well, it was not some cherry pick one time assignment where because you shoot waterbuffalo on painted backdrops with a ringflash in your MFA portfolio they just knew it had to be you? But after that, via con dios…

So apart from the efficiency aspect of being able to deliver 200 (? I have no idea the size of this cattle call) culled photographers to 50 editors for example-because, we really are doing them a favour-the magazines, getting their editors all on site on two days for a blitzkreig portfolio review-they are going to come away with something don’t forget-I just don’t get it. Yes, it is highly efficient to be able to see 14 editors in two days, literally, something that would take weeks or months to do conventionally-now. But do you really have a portfolio that is suitable for Business Week, ESPN, Field and Stream, Popular Mechanics, NYTimes Style, Lucky, Prevention and Redbook? Does it make any sense? So right there, out of 32 publications represented, just how many are you really suited for? And if you respond, ‘all of them’, then I think your portfolio needs some cutting…

Sure you could spend $699 every quarter and do a very nice printed Z-fold of new work and blanket all your contacts and I know that might have zero results. But this is no different. Except for the fact that it is something that used to be free, and now, or going forward, probably will not be. File this under “blame commoditization…”

On a secondary rant, part of this has to do with the myth of “personal work.” I guess now that no one is working we all have time to do “personal work.” I’m doing it as fast as I can…have you noticed yet? Perhaps someone with a little more history in the business can corroborate this, but to my recollection, this little bit of slight of hand came up in the 90’s. It was a differentiation tactic. Pure marketing. It said, “you are not just a commercial photographer.” Well I ask you, for example, when Ad agencies are looking for a TV commercial director, and they are shopping reels, do they ask-”hey, where is the personal work? Lemme see his friends half naked at the beach?” Sounds ridiculous huh?

The situation is comparable to the rise and fall of indy cinema, first as outlier, eventually as profit center, with no investment-does this sound familiar-and now as undifferentiated from the rest.

To be “truthy” there is nothing wrong with hiring a photography to do what they do if all they do is shoot to assignment (brilliantly?). You see the perversity of the logic when in the last couple of years we have seen what I would term the “exploitation” of artists in the commercial realm, being hired to reproduce on assignment what they do for themselves. Can anyone put that logic right-side in? How is it any different from hiring an assignment photographer to reproduce what they do on assignment?

If anything, I trust the assignment photographer who has had to deal with more crises on location than the photographer hired to reproduce personal work, which by definition, is work made under the circumstances of the photographers choosing.

Can you imagine asking an Avedon, a Penn, a Meisel, etc, so, where is the personal work? Like the assignment is not good enough?

Various from Flyover States.

I am not opposed to providing prints from other work. Yeah the demand is that great…

UPDATE!:

Let the love flow! I wonderful generous First Donation from my friend Emmet Malmstrom…thank you!

Emmet Malmstrom

…Well…I did not get in to the NYC Marathon via the Lottery…where was that little puke “lil bit O’ luck when I needed him? Off working his combover for the NYS lottery I guess…

Soooo…the alternative is to wait until next year when I know I will get in because of the 9+1 entry system that I am 3 races away from completing. Or charities. The official NYC Marathon charity is Team For Kids-dedicated to alleviating childhood obesity by providing funds for access to physical education for those with little or no access.

I grew up with good schools, we had phys-ed, outdoors summer and winter! While I was not a jock by any stretch, I was a band geek, we had a great music program too, I do have a very detailed memory of wanting to die the first time we had to run four laps of the 400m oval. Plus our school had a long history of various all-school athletic challenges, one being the Harrier, I believe a 5k run through the streets. At least a great way to get out of class…

But I watched more than my share of TV, was addicted to Pepsi, and chocolate milk, but somehow managed to avoid what is called an epidemic now, childhood obesity. I believe genetics played the major role, but also our family eating habits were pretty conventional, meat and two veg as they say, and kids were allowed to go places on their own riding bikes, walking, running. I do not remember being strapped into anything resembling a car seat or stroller, perhaps I would not remember this anyway. It seems we shepherd our children everywhere now, from cars to strollers to buses. And just looking at my own lifestyle, the amount of time spent in front of a screen, I fear that our future is some version of Wall-E.

Sooo…floating a balloon here folks, I can register for RunForKids but I must commit to raising a minimum of 2500 smackeroos for them. Taking a page from Jen Bekman’s outrageously successful 20×200, I thought, why not do a print sale for RunForKids-50×50? I will produce a print (50 prints x 50$ea) and take donations via Paypal towards the charity. I’m not taking anything for the prints or the shipping costs, this is 100% charity. I have not done the research yet, perhaps RFK has it’s own payment system, however it gets done, ya’ll will get a print from me, have the pleasure of hearing me complain about training in the heat of August, and know that the money raised is going to make sure the ‘kids are alright.

Does this have legs?