let us now catalogue famous people

Really want to get an Izumi Miyazaki tote bag btw

Also love the Vimeo in that pictures from moving cars, how they ran the tape in reverse

!!! i lost my shit seeing there is izumi merch - i didn't have a lot of time & my computer was wilting but the broccoli design was tentatively my pick - & couldn't totally figure out what the deal was; that maybe she has a new site that isn't quite up yet? there was a picture of a covered book, too, that made me wonder if she'd made something. her work is just the freshest thing. i really really want a print of the picture of her waking-&-dramatically-stretching in a messy bed, it's so inspirational to me

http://i.imgur.com/QBMA0Uz.jpg

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/alex-webb-looks-back-in-black-and-white/

killer
think he is actually a way better photographer then!
like martin parr, maybe
even if his trajectory led him somewhere interesting & new

how do i order one of those izumi pins

i think she maybe has a new website online soon, & also did make a book, & sells it at fairs in japan. psyched that there is izumi-mania on ilp, we should group-order her everything once it's available to save on north american shipping (i haven't thought this through)

Whoa now I'm not getting mine shipped to North America ; )

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2014/02/harlem-renaissance-photographs-carl-van-vechten.html

Thought I was over the death of Kodachrome but I cried new tears today

http://www.100ojoslatinos.com/

http://www.fototazo.com/2014/02/profile-100-ojos-latinos.html

Wish I knew Spanish :(

http://icplibrary.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/recent-japanese-photobook-reprints/

I want all these books

http://i.imgur.com/9jKXjVs.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/5dTjHND.jpg

will ingest & respond to those asap - i remember the latino-phots site from years ago! - but oh man those kodachromes ;__;

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/african-american-history-from-family-albums-to-museum-walls/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odgHrU1T9a8

Two great sites dedicated to two great photographers I love, William Gedney and Luigi Ghirri (one by Duke University and the other by Biblioteca Panizzi):

http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/gedney/

http://digilib.netribe.it/bdr01/Sezione.jsp?idSezione=77

"Great sites" maybe should be qualified because each is, in different ways & for different reasons, a pain/ annoying to navigate. (Well, the latter's in Italian.) On the other hand, they make available SO FREAKING MUCH-- almost "everything"-- of the work, viewable/ downloadable at such generous large sizes. Really worth diving in and exploring.

There's a real generosity to sites like this. Their examples bring up questions about the way photographers (or their "estate") may bequeath their work to institutions (e.g. universities/ libraries), to be archived and made available to the public/ future researchers. Analogous to writers (or their estate) who leave their papers/ manuscripts to such institutions. Which also involves questions re the analogue/ digital divide, treatment of negatives/ paper manuscripts vs. digital files. It's harder for an analogue photographer to "edit" his posthumous legacy-- as a film person myself, who keeps each and every negative of each and every roll, I sometimes think it's like a record of a writer's every scrap of paper, silly/ ridiculous scribble, including things that aren't even "drafts" so much as "doodles" or even "coughs." Cf. question of private letters, diaries, etc. And then there are curious cases like Vivian Mayer, a legacy not in the hands of an estate or public institution but distinct private individuals/ collectors.

hey, drash: i really dug this, am just starting to take a look; gedney & ghirri are both a treat, & totally enveloped in their own time periods, & it's really nice to have access to where they they were at, like seeing vivian maier's stuff with the geography of her streetwalking in mind. i kind of think of the gold standard of this type of thing as being the met's walker evans holdings, where you can click through just roll after roll, his visits to robert & mary frank's place (& frank loved evans' picture of his mabou stove), a total enlightening generosity. there's totally something in the posterity of archives, the overwhelming presence of context almost overshadowing single images, that i respond to; it actually feels less pronounced with these guys, because they were so good that you aren't seeing five shaky frames for every good one. but texturally seeing a roll feels like life to me.

these gedney photos almost make me cry
x

these gedney photos almost make me cry

Me too, they're so beautiful. Dipping into his diaries/ notebooks is moving too. (Normally as a superprivate person I have mixed feelings about that kind of thing, but he left-- entrusted-- all this stuff to Friedlander who left it to Duke, so in that sense all that's available to us was granted by Gedney.)

Gedney has one of the most exhaustive online archives of any photographer, but it's tragic he wasn't able to publish any books-- he lacks, deserves them. Browsing the work online, it's so (painfully) clear he had material for a number of (would-have-been) classic books.

Wrote a long post of jumbled half thoughts on Gedney & photography presentation but it vanished (just as well, it was a mess), too lazy to redraft it now. Might try again later. But want to say by the way: greetings from a longtime lurker, love the conversation here, ILP is probably my fave ILX board.

Love the Evans photos!, thanks for the link.

drash do you have any of your negatives scanned??

drash do you have any of your negatives scanned??

Sure do-- each and every one. (Not all well scanned, of course, but every frame/ roll is at least lo-res scanned and catalogued in Aperture, I guess equivalent to contact sheets. Then a select few get the special scanning treatment.)

I'm shy about sharing online, but I'm sure I'll join in with y'all at some point. Actually, I think I finally decided to register as an ILXor (after years of on-and-off lurking) because I had a yen to photo breeze.

William Eggleston's Stranded in Canton (amazing)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1eDzz5fKio

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2014/02/sarah-moon-in-color.html

http://how-we-used-to-live.tumblr.com/post/77894403105/stills-from-how-we-used-to-live-the-new-london

Right up ILX's alley - Saint Etienne!

http://twentytwowords.com/single-woman-spends-14-years-with-mannequin-family-to-make-a-point-17-pictures/

Love Sarah Moon's colors, and gorgeous grain & blur.

My fave fashion photographer is probably Guy Bourdin. There's a selection of his work at this site:

http://www.guybourdin.net/contents.html

I like the "Shoes" section especially.

By the way, this one I hadn't seen before-- http://www.guybourdin.net/beauty_pages/hose.html-- is so very Mark Cohen.

Hey a segue. Mark Cohen!

https://www.lensculture.com/articles/mark-cohen-dark-knees

PS I've always eschewed the use of flash in my own photography.

But Bourdin & Cohen make me want to experiment with it.

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

:)

Photos from Takuma Nakahira's Circulation: Date, Place, Events:

http://www.yossimilo.com/artists/takuma_nakahira/

Tom Wood, in BBC series "What Do Artists Do All Day"

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yODyQjHjKLw

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-FxGFEq3Ro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcJxRYb57_Y

Posting more for the selection of images from Chromes/Election Eve rather than the commentary, which I find a bit wanting

post more on this tomorrow but just wanna say i'm psyched a photo curator ~at tate modern~ thinks it's cool when a photograph has a new thing in the background + an old thing in the foreground

hey so i saw that exhibition
it was okay
i didn't know it was there & to stroll in had that kind of unscheduled eye test vibe that seeing eggleston prints always has. they picked some really good stuff but it had a couple of the dare-i-say-flaws that chromes, say, has, just including a little more of the explicit southern documentary stuff, a cool sign that says MELONS or JOE'S BBQ or whatever, which is just slightly less complicated than so much of his stuff.

http://i.imgur.com/5oeSVKd.jpg http://i.imgur.com/8eGjp6g.jpg

i otherwise thought photography at tate modern kinda sucked though? they exhibited some things upstairs that were too small, & there was a harry callahan exhibition that was only okay. like almost just like they didn't get it. everything the new moma guy is saying, about separating photography from that kinda super-chronological technical aspect, messily juxtaposing it against other media, sounds really neat to me so far. i'd like to see his first show.

just kinda on the same subject: those books that came out are just the greatest. i don't have them but got to just stare hard at them in a couple of different libraries, had chromes on loan for awhile. & the more eggleston i see the more i think the '80s & '90s are just this totally on-point era that's weirdly out of sight, maybe for not having as much of the ~cadillac~/beehive/diner kind of work that the earlier work has. like i love that thing he said about paris, that it was his first truly modern book. i was looking through the book that came out of just various work from the faulkner book & other stuff, when he won the hassleblad award, & it's just so strong, so surprising, each shot so apart from the predictable ground you'd think somebody would be treading by having done ostensibly similar work for a long time.

http://i.imgur.com/Z7QVw9p.jpg

btw democratic forest: the r3mix is out this year apparently

paris is probably my favorite eggleston. the colors are so far from what he normally does, so much purple, pink, and blue, and the framing is very very on-point.

http://i.imgur.com/Q12iGue.png

the drawings are really great. I'd love to see more of them.

yeah they're so beautiful
a bunch are in the aperture article from which ^ this ^ is excerpted, though i forget if any are different from the book
there's another aperture ish with some just lab prints of pics eggleston shot in iirc mexico. they're really interesting to see, eggleston sans dye.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/streetshooter45/7286214580/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/streetshooter45/7294248894/

Always love pictures of Garry

Via Shooting Wide Open

http://www.julianneswartz.com/work_archive/photography/placements.php

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

Aw, Garry. :)

Those Eggleston multi-volumes by Steidl (Chromes & Los Alamos) are so wonderful, NOT too much of a good thing IMO (but they have to be ingested slowly, like a rich feast, I never go through more than one volume per day). Impatiently yearning for Democratic Forest (yep supposedly this year)... and we get Election Eve in 2016, yay.

No photographer gives me as much sheer pleasure as Eggleston-- inexhaustible, for me. Looking at his stuff actually makes me feel drunk/ stoned, cognitively high. Agree w/ schlump, his later stuff just as good, always surprising.

Heh at Tate guy's vapid commentary, and yet, poor guy... it really is difficult (isn't it?) to speak/ write intelligently, insightfully about Eggleston. Difficult to find intelligent/ insightful commentary on his photography... on what makes it Eggleston.

Take e.g. Szarkowski, I love Szarkowski, that's a great well-written essay which introduces William Eggleston's Guide. Yes some of it's OTM but IMO much of it is totally off; in the end its characterization seems to me not so much about Eggleston (per se, or as a whole) but rather a narrow sliver/ selection/ interpretation of Eggleston: i.e., it's about the Szarkowski-curated Guide. (So, focus on the local/ Southern/ family angle-- things that are easier to talk about, just as they are for Tate curator.) Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful selection/ curation, but that introduction misses so many dimensions of Eggleston. Dimensions that are in those photographs too, but not as obvious as in other works (e.g. Los Alamos).

Yet I feel foolish criticizing Szarkowski (or any other commentator on Eggleston), because I hardly feel equipped to articulate in words what I see in Eggleston, either.

It's interesting that maybe some of the best "commentary" hasn't come from written analysis, but artwork he's influenced, especially (motion picture) film. For example, I think modern critics on Eggleston now see/ recognize qualities in Eggleston (qualities e.g. Szarkowski didn't really see), that critics first saw/ recognized in (say) David Lynch-- then saw the Eggleston in Lynch, then recognized that quality in Eggleston. So the first to *see* that quality wasn't a critic but an Eggleston-loving, Eggleston-inspired artist. It's like, later art functions as a portal for critics to better see/ understand certain qualities of earlier art (especially original/ atypical/ not already critically conceptualized & categorizable qualities), which later artist was inspired by. Does that make sense?

Which, on the other hand, makes some modern commentary on Eggleston sound like it's more about Lynch than Eggleston. But I'll still take that over another round of Tate guy's "old/ new Southern" thing.

For photography criticism to "get" Eggleston (or find a way to talk about him), it helps to think of other media, like film, of course painting-- and maybe music, too.

Yeah - I tuned out at the Tate guy after he mentioned the (apocryphal) legend that Eggleston only ever takes one picture of any subject. I think that's a myth Eggleston likes to perpetuate himself, but I definitely recall that it's wrong...

To me the most astonishing quality about Eggleston is that, despite the legend that's grown around him, despite the fact that he's often the entry-point for many 'hipsters' & c into photography-as-art (although I feel like Stephen Shore is the other and his share is growing), his work absolutely lives up to everything that's been written about it and more... it's like you want to slag him for being the guy who made color-photography into a serious art form, surely there have been better practitioners to come after in the same way that I'd rate 100000 bands over the Beatles, but it's as if I'm one of those Beatles partisans who literally believes nothing could ever eclipse the Beatles...and I do think that's where I stand on Eggleston

You know, you make the connection between Eggleston and Lynch visually and though I had never thought about it I can immediately make the connection, it seems so obvious now? (insert that famous photo of Lynch / Eggleston)

http://i.imgur.com/zof3XEY.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/X2k1Ocx.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6ygMXqR.jpg

Just... had an urge to see these two images

They're not all here but this is probably my favorite Eggleston work, 14 Pictures

http://www.egglestontrust.com/14_pictures.html

I can't find any mention of this connection anywhere, but the "Lynch-Frost Productions" logo which ends episodes of Twin Peaks--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdOWzq2jPhk

-- has always reminded me of Eggleston's photograph of the open black oven:

http://www.brianrose.com/journal/eggleston_oven.jpg

IMO, that has to be an homage.

Directors who've explicitly cited Eggleston's influence-- Wenders, Van Sant, Sofia Coppola, Korine; case can be made for Malick, Wong Kar Wai/ Christopher Doyle, the Coen brothers, many others. (The other day happened upon Blood Simple on TV; saw so much Eggleston in it-- like, struck by specific shots that directly reminded me of specific Eggleston photographs.)

Of course, once you start looking you (I) see Eggleston everywhere, maybe fallaciously; but he's permeated so much of contemporary visual culture, in large part through the photographers, directors, cinematographers he's influenced. (Can't help seeing him in "True Detective" too.)

And yet, for all that, he maintains his ineffaceable difference/ distinctiveness, the idiosyncrasy, the uniqueness of his aesthetic sensibility. For all his influence, all the things one sees now as "Egglestonian," he's SO NOT replicable. People copy so much about his photographs (often only the most extrinsic of qualities, like: oh here's a picture of an old American car), but no one else in the world has that eye... or something more primordial than the "eye."

http://i.imgur.com/r9Apyao.jpg

Phenomenal high-keyed B&W from Adams

That's great.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/an-inside-view-of-arab-photography/