...For What They Are

conveyorblog:

Spreads from Bryan Graf’s Wildlife Analysis — Get Your Copy  Here

(Source: conveyorblog, via fanore)

fanore:

(via Harvey Benge: Auckland - some unanswered questions)

youngnewenglandphotographers:

Come see #Maja Daniels and work by other emerging photographers from Canada, the UK & US at tonight’s opening of the #FlashForward2012GroupShow hosted by the #MagentaFoundation at the Fairmont Battery Wharf from 6-10 pm (at Fairmont Battery Wharf)

greatleapsideways:

“The problem is the medium’s literalness, so the photographer is not only trying to go beyond subject matter and find subject, she has to take her audience with her. Most people, and this can include people quite sophisticated and well versed in other arts, assume that if the photograph is of a white horse, the photographer is talking about white horses rather than loneliness or loss, or any number of apparently unlikely subjects, as well as the more obvious metaphors like strength or grace. Of course, the ultimate task for any photographer is to talk about the most unlikely things and the white horse, in short, to tell the subject’s tale as well as her own.”

— Gerry Badger, writing in his essay “Far from New York City: The Grapevine Work of Susan Lipper”, in The Pleasures of Good Photographs

Photograph from This Russia, (2008) by Irina Rozovsky.

vinkelret:

lisa oppenheim

unseenphotofair:

The Consumystic VIII (Coven), 2011 © Margarita Gluzberg/Paradise Row

photographyprison:

FINDS by @harryphotowatts always perplexed me, but now I see it in print — in frangible newsprint no less — it makes sense. FINDS is images of stuff in its place briefly, and beautifully. Street trash doesn’t stick around like buildings or trees, but if someone with a camera does for long enough then there’s the glimmer of possibility that a fleeting moment of line and form can be recorded. Then shared.

j-carrier:

god damn.

broomberg and chanarin, holy bible (mack) 

Another book I have to buy damn.

greatleapsideways:

“The function of portrait painting was to underwrite and idealise a chosen social role of the sitter. It was not to present him as ‘an individual’ but, rather, as an individual monarch, bishop, landowner, merchant and so on. Each role had its accepted qualities and its acceptable limit of discrepancy. (A monarch or a pope could be far more idiosyncratic than a mere gentleman or courtier.) The role was emphasised by pose, gesture, clothes and background. (…)

The satisfaction of having one’s portrait painted was the satisfaction of being personally recognised and confirmed in one’s position: it had nothing to do with the modern lonely desire to be recognised ‘for what one really is’. (…)

It seems that the demands of a modern vision are incompatible with the singularity of viewpoint which is the prerequisite for a static-painted ‘likeness’. The incompatibility is connected with a more general crisi concerning the meaning of individuality. Individuality can no longer be contained within the terms of manifest personality traits. In a world of transition and revolution individuality has become a problem of historical and social relations, such as cannot be revealed by the mere characterizations of an already established social stereotype. Every mode of individuality now relates to the whole world.”

— John Berger, “The Changing View of Man in the Portrait” in Selected Essays.

Images in order: August Sander, Young Farmers, Westerwald, 1914; Alex Dellow, Teddy Boys, Tottenham 1954; Robert Frank, Newburgh, New York, 1955; Alec Soth, Josh Joelton, Tennessee; Bryan Schutmaat, Perry, Cascade, Montana