Buried

Alex (my muse) always tells me that she likes to go places where other people have never been. I agree. But I also always want to know what it is that draws people in to the frequently visited places (the ones that catch my attention anyway).

Today I went to one of them.

During the earlier 20th Century Rochester had a subway system that ran along the Eerie canal (there were pictures of it posted on the 2nd floor of Gannet earlier on this academic year) alleviate traffic in the city above. It got big during world war II but then died down right after due to the heavy commercialization of cars. (just giving a little history but you can read more about it here)

It's torn down and abandoned - a little bit of a thrill for some, but to me was just another one of those things about Rochester. It's such a victim of technology. It brought about great things but, once science started modernizing things more and more, Rochester was left behind. I think it's a very interesting place, and I think there's a lot of potential in this city. Of course the real trick is how to get it back. There's all these illustrations pasted on the windows of the city saying things like "the way it was" in terms of fashion, city life and executive life. I think it has such a great culture of its own, and it's very hidden and frankly, fading a bit.

In any case, we (me and some friends) walked through the whole route. Very interesting. Very dusty. I might die soon (kidding...).

Here are some pictures from the day (and yes I should totally be working on my book, but god knows when we'll have another sunny Saturday in Rochester?)

Thank You Zoe Whittal

I bought a friend of mine an anthology of Queer Girl writings called "Baby, remember my name." We stopped talking, and the book ended up in my house. I read a short essay which I have turned around (and reread) probably about once a month.

"Homo Marriage Redux" is a short piece by Zoe Whittal. Not very clear what it's on, but it's a stream of consciousness with her heroine as the tour guide. She talks about the muse. The inspiration. The editor. Almost like an internal dialog between her, her adventurous self reflected as the girl that's "three hopscotch steps ahead."

In any case there's a line in the piece in which she says that "reporters have you down on Rolodex as Lesbian comma Artist" always asking her what she thinks should be done about gay marriage. She later states in passing, that among other things to do about it, Religion and Politics should go sit in the coatroom and think about the mistakes they've made (the piece climaxes around a marriage-like setting).

This became so visual for the first time within my head; a short film played behind my eyelids, reminiscent of Steven Klein and Vinoodh & Inez's work during the 90's for the Balenciaga ad campaigns with the graphic writings. The headless bodies of Religion and Politics sitting sullen and embarrassed, bold text over their heads in fluoro colored arguments and apologies.]

I tried to materialize it (even though I should have been studying!). Give the idea some form. This came out of it.

Hardly flawless. But I remembered a time where things i would do, once ago, were so distant from what i wanted to see in a photograph I made or had thought up. Perhaps my ideas are becoming more and more concrete. Here's to hoping.

Hello!

If you want some links for inspiration or research for your portraits, here are a couple. I figured I'd share the goods. You might spend hours on this so beware.

Oooooh Classy! Check out some of these guys:

Irving Penn

Diane Arbus

Richard Avedon

Yousuf Karsh

Christer Stroemholm

Edward Weston

Robert Doisneau

+ a few contemporaries.

And then the Art+Commerce site.

Oooooh Stylish!

Check out:

Walter Pfeiffer

Carter Smith

Guy Bourdin

Solve Sundsbo

Nick Knight

and hte M/M Paris portfolio features works by Vinoodh Matadin & Inez Van Lamsweerde. I enjoy them :)

And all the other ones!

Hope it helps!

My mother wants me to call her everyday

More of my mother.

In le studio

Had to do some shots for a publication back home (with the help of Hana, thank you :D ). It was all a bit frustrating since I was pressed for time, to say the least. I always have a strange feeling in the studio - you have the ability to control everything but you don't always have the words, or the clarity to explain it all and for it to come out how you wanted.

But I'm not trying to whine! In any case, this was a shot to satisfy some nerve before I started. I ended up liking it. Not a whole lot, but I liked it.

It's Chris, my friend.

Mother

This is a portrait of my mother and myself on New Years day, at my aunt's house. She wanted a picture of us together. I thought it'd be cute to take it in front of a mirror, once I spotted it on the living room. I told her to look at the reflection of the lens of the camera so we didn't look strange. It didn't work. She became preoccupied with how we looked on the live view display on the back of the camera. I told her to not do it in the following shots, but this one still ended up being my favorite of 5.

She said also in the middle of shooting it: "you twitch your mouth just like your father."

My father:

The family portrait (no, not the Pink song)

Meet my two sisters and my mother. This is one of a few other portraits they asked for. The way people who see you have a camera ask you for a picture. Not just a picture, a good picture.

You suddenly might be inclined to explain to them just what a good picture means to you versus what it means to them. But then you realize what they want. They want to look pretty or good or handsome or cool. Positively. Most of the time you comply with only the bother of knowing that they'd like to see the picture right after you take it (oh! the digital age). But if it's someone you dislike, isn't it a bit funny to take a picture of them? I was going to do something like this once. Take pictures of people I had some tension with. I only have the remains of pictures I may have snapped at some point of them.

But the point I'm brushing is that even those who you dislike, and ask you for a picture with which you comply, you know just how to please in terms of the photograph. You might be gritting your teeth, but you know just how to get them off your back. With that good image of them.

Even children know it. The smile, the little pose. Kids posing like kids do. It's all very formulaic, and yet, there's different results every time. A reason why that snapshot of somebody could always be the same, and at the same time so dramatically different than all the other ones.

Nobody wants to be stolen away into a permanent thing in a bad light (yes I suppose it's a pun, enjoy.) There's a sort of standard portrait.

But does it mean it's not reality? Hardly.

It's more truthful than any portrait that might be taken with reality being forced into it, because when we as photographers try to fabricate as specific reality, we fabricate our reality more strongly than our subjects do. When our subjects tell us to show you their fantasy, we often get more insight into their realities. Which is a vague one, granted, and a general one as well, but you can eventually notice it.

The nervous twitch in my mother's lip. The high-cheek-lots-of-teeth-ARE-YOU-GETTING-THIS? smile of my sister Giannina (to the right) and the look-at-my-hair-look-at-my-hair-look-at-my-hair-look-at-my-hair-okay-look-at-me face of my sister Natalia.

So is the family portrait ever misleading? It could be, but it "always tells a secret" (Arbus).

Family Portraits?

http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/essays/diegotime/time.html

http://www.artnet.com/artist/11072/sally-mann.html

AND a whole lot more. It's a fun thing to Google :P