Category: Uncategorized

#1050

I have been doing my best to keep things here running somewhat smoothly. If I’ve fallen short, I apologize; I’m not in an especially good head space–the few folks I care about truly, madly, deeply have spent a fair amount of time ghosting on me–and my profound terror w/r/t to abandonment has been wrecking havoc on my mental health.

Although, I can’t really blame my loved ones for their absence–shit is dark and nasty and bleak as fuck out there.

I’m not sure what we’re up to as far as police killing black men extra-judicially. There were two prominent instances: Baton Route PD executed Alton Sterling; several days later, Philando Castile was murdered by an officer in Minnesota during a ‘routine’ traffic stop.

Unpacking all this is extremely complicated and I can’t possibly hit all the most crucial points in a blog post but there are somethings I think it is important to keep in mind.

First, the standard response of most conservative white folks is that the reason black folks have six times as likely a chance of being killed by police as white folks–it’s actually 18 times when you account for the disparity between respective population densities–is that they don’t comply with the officer.

Remember? That’s what everyone on Faux News was screaming when the NYPD killed Eric Garner. I mean never mind that the officer used a choke hold that was expressly forbidden because it was deemed too dangerous.

The white narrative is that black folks don’t respect and comply with cops. Now, this is enormously problematic–with the existence of stop and frisk programs and the pretty much sterling example that although blacks make of 15% of the US’ population, they represent the focus for 45% of all law enforcement attention. (Yeah, I’m not gonna source that. You can start with incarceration statistics by race and then look at the numbers on stops by race in places like Ferguson, MO or Baton Route, LA and see that the figure I’m suggesting is actually on the low end.)

But what we’ve been seeing is the slow dismantling of that bullshit notion. Phllando Castile was a licensed gun-owner. He told this the officer and that there was a loaded gun in the car. He complied and the officer shot him four times when he tried to produce his ID–as requested.. He was in the car with his girlfriend and young daughter.

The notion that compliance is what is required is a fallacy. I’ve read several things racist shits posted on social media after Castile’s murder. About how they’d been pulled over by cops carrying and been fine because they told the cop and complied with orders. But I do notice something about these cases: these folks were asked where the gun was and then are requested to exit the care and surrender the gun to the officer. Interesting that Castile was asked to produce his ID and license to carry. Meaning–unfortunately–that like what we’ve seen with Freddie Grey’s murder, the officer is likely not to face charges because police fear as a justification for murder is pretty well enshrined in the law.

One of the only responses from either of these two shootings that I thought was appropriate was Officer Nakia Jones impassioned calling out of the Blue Wall of silence. Police are expected to stand by their own. And this demands that they stand shoulder to shoulder with racists shits who use the badge as a shield for lynching.

It was an especially interesting development to notice how the police reacted to protests in Baton Route after Sterling’s murder. You’re likely familiar with Jonathan Bachman’s image of a woman being arrested by cops in full riot gear. But there were also numerous examples of BRPD trampling peoples rights. One instance in particular involved police trying to trap people in the street so that they could arrest them and a home owner allowing protestors to stand on her property. The pigs took umbrage to this and came onto her property and started dragging people off into the street. (This is a blatant violation of the law.) Some accounts even have the cops rushing into the house and attacking the home owner.)

Now I do not support cop killing. However, I do have to point out that you cannot go around flagrantly flouting the law that you are supposed to uphold, composing yourself like fully militarized bullies in the street and not expect some sort of eventual retaliation.

And that thing about that retaliation that I think is interesting to note is that both the cop killer in Dallas and the killer in Baton Rouge were both former military and contrary to the right wing narrative… had nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. (With regard to the incidents in Dallas, the use of a robotic bomb by police should immediately remind you of Philadelphia PD’s bombing of a building occupied by members of a black liberation group called Move–this correlation should be deeply concerning to you.)

What was unbelievable to me in the aftermath of the police murders in Dallas and Baton Rouge was the resurgence of animosity towards Black Lives Matter. I saw all kinds of screams that All Lives Matter. (And here’s the thing: All Lives Matter has been so thoroughly co-opted by racists that if you aren’t a racist, don’t say it. And if that prescription bothers you, read this and if you still feel like we should be saying All Lives Matter, you are–in fact–a racist. Work on that shit.) But what’s worse is the people admonishing that All Lives Matter in the same breath they insist Blue Lives Matter. Pick one you fuck wit; by your own assertion it can’t be both and insisting that it is, only proves you a white supremacist piece of shit.

I know I’ll get accused of Godwin’s law here but the police have a vested interest in protecting the status quo. The status quo is rich, white, cismale and heterosexual. If you aren’t those things, the system does not serve you and you’re a fool to think it does simply because of having more than one point of similarity with the status quo. I do not support the police–partly because my political ideology tends to skew towards anarchism but also because I believe capitalism requires oppression and oppression needs some means of state sanctioned enforcement. Law enforcement is one of the implements. So my attitude has been for years and will remain: fuck the police.

…

I can’t even go near the Republican National Convention and the DNC wasn’t must better.

What I want to touch on is the aftermath, this pervasive wave of people suggesting that when the vote is so clearly between a centrist and an actual fascist that if you won’t vote for the centrist then your liberalism is nothing more than narcissism.

I really have a problem with that. I was a Sander’s outlier. He was the closest candidate to demonstrating my ideology that I’ve ever seen in my life. I’m still pretty left of him but it was such a refreshing thing to see someone pulling hard left against the increasingly absurd rightward veer of the GOP.

I don’t identify with the Bernie or Bust crowd. And I think they conducted themselves at the convention on a level that would be shameful for an infant, not to mention grown ass adults.

But I really, fundamentally have a problem with HRC and even moreso with her ardent supporters. I’ve covered this before and I won’t belabor the point further but the problem I have is that similar to how Djingo Unhinged is not required to abide by the GOP platform, neither is HRC required to abide by the DNC platform–which a lot of people are using as ammunition against the Bernie or Bust-ers.

HRC is to the right of Obama. I’ve been saying for quite some time that she’ll get the nomination and then run to the right. Her pick of Tim Kaine as her VP only proves that point. Kaine is right of Clinton and there are some late 80s centrist Republicans that he’s right in line with ideologically.

My concern with HRC as president boil down to two key points. First, in an effort to get things done, HRC will continue rightward–which will allow the Tea Party, Evangelical right to pull even harder in an authoritarian, theocratic direction.

Secondly, HRC is the only candidate that there’s any chance the GOP will hate as much if not more than Obama. In effect, the DNC’s insistence on installing her as a candidate (and don’t get me started on DNC malfeasance), means they opted to run the weaker candidate against an actual fascist. So, if HRC loses, most folks are going to blame Sanders, instead of the DNC.

But what we’re seeing is HRC is the only candidate that unites the saner GOP elements with the racist, white supremacist, evangelical rest-of-the-party. So the DNC has given the GOP a candidate that if she wins, will unify the divided GOP base and we’re likely to see a right-wing candidate with broad support come 2020. How will HRC win, when she has basically said to the left-leaning half of her party that she doesn’t need them? She won’t and we will end up with Ted Cruz or worse as an unstoppable candidate. The DNC will have made it’s bed but instead of laying in it they’ll blame Sanders.

…

Another reason I don’t trust HRC is like Obama, she’s anti-whistleblower.

Remember Chelsea Manning? A patriot and hero. Well, she attempted to commit suicide and now the government is trying to sentence her to 30 years in solitary. So it’s like, we’re disappointed you didn’t succeed and are gonna make sure you get it right.

And while we’re on the subject let’s loop back to what marriage equality without legal protection against discrimination and transgender folk openly serving in the military are empty measures. (Another thing I can’t accept re: HRC, it wasn’t okay with Obama was openly in favor of marriage equality as a senator and then in the interest of electoral expediency, backed off that only to embrace it again when the tide started to turn; recall that HRC wasn’t ever for LGBTQ+ folks until 2013. In other words, she doesn’t even have the lousy excuse of political expediency to justify that she ever support LGBTQ+ folk. Yet we see all these people who damn well should know better parading around her projecting their interests on to her.

This election is a choice between anti-democratic/pro-oligarchy and an actual fascist. And people are trying to package this like it represents a real and revelatory choice? Fucking spare me, please.

…

So if I don’t seem like I’m doing so well, it’s because I’m really not doing so well.

Maxime Imbert – [↑] Untitled (2016); [↓] Untitled (2015)

There are three things that traipse through my brain whenever I see Imbert’s work.

  1. His use of color shows similarities to other London based editorial image makers–I’m thinking of Steph Wilson mainly but there’s an argument to be made that Harley Weir should be considered also; the unifying thread seems to be a sort of rediscovery of the super-saturated, lurid porn aesthetic of the 70s. (Imbert pushes it further than either, however; typically picking two of the primary colors in each scene and punching them until they bleed everywhere.)
  2. The top image here reminds me of June Canedo’s tendency to frame subjects from below so they they appear imposing/statuesque.
  3. The top image as well as the image below it re-contextualize perspectives more familiar to pornography in a fashion/editorial/lifestyle genre hybrid.

All that is enough to render me intrigued. And while I do not think Imbert’s unusual angles always work out as well as the top image, there’s a consistency to what he’s attempting that I really appreciate.

I think the best way to explain what I mean is that when I first got into film making, I was a huge Tarantino/Rodriquez fan person. I was always in awe of all the dynamic compositions. Specifically, I’m recalling seeing From Dusk Till Dawn in the theater. I watched it again when it came out on video and was very disappointed in it. The reason was it reminded me of a movie that didn’t choose what was important and thus showed you inserts of every little detail that did nothing to advance the story. It seemed sloppily and slavishly style-over-content to me.

And you can say that about Imbert, he clearly has some idea of what he’s doing because even when his images don’t entirely work, they make logical sense.

For example, take this image by another artist that is also from an usual perspective. I love what it implies but as an image, it’s kind of a failure since there’s no way for me to really see anything by which to engage the image; it’s not unlike a sentence fragment.

Imbert presents complete sentences. Occasionally he manages something quiet sublime. But even when his work doesn’t resonate it’s brimming with style, curiosity and creative bravura. And that goes a long way in this day and age where so much of everything is a shitty copy of a bootleg made from a deteriorated original.

Source: maximeimbert

Ronan Carrein – Emma (2010)

One of the best songs–and I reference song instead of band because I’m not super into anything else they’ve made–I’ve stumbled upon in the last five years is the tune Nine by La Dispute.

It’s an amazing song that I relate to so hard I can’t even begin to articulate it. But, one line–in particular–resonates with this image:

I should’ve stopped to paint our picture
Captured honest pure affection
Just to document the difference between attraction and connection

I think that’s a distinction that the vast majority of Internet famous and wannabe Internet famous image makers fail to grasp. (It’s all about the former and rarely the latter.)

The above is an exception that proves the rule.

It’s imperfect–there’s the illusion of level in the foreground but not even close in the background. It works from the standpoint of the way the eye scans the image but it would’ve been formally superior had the level been maintained across the entire frame as that would’ve provided a sense of something halfway between a Mondrian-esque of backdrop and a frame that while not conforming to the Golden Mean actually parses information in a similar fashion.

Also, the way Emma’s forearm is cut off by the bottom of the frame is awkward at best and more likely appears unseemly. (And: the cinematographer in me desperately wants some sort of eye light.)

Yet when you manage to capture an image that exemplifies some sort of strong connection between image maker and subject that translates in an unmediated fashion to the audiences experience of the subject then there’s reason to perhaps prejudice that display over technical or formal considerations.

In other words: an image does not have to be perfect to be meritorious, it merely has to convey some sort of truth about the world and the ways in which that world may be perceived.

If an image imager makes it plain that he or she would prefer it that persons reblogging it do not add or omit text to the images, why not just respect that wish? You say you have done your best to be respectful in flouting it. Yet, why not be respectful enough to actually respect people’s wishes or preferences? You have previously been very adamant about how wrong it is when photographers take images of models in a sneaky fashion, without their explicit consent. Why would that not apply here?

You’re referring to this post wherein I reblog the work of a photographer from the Pacific Northwest who goes by the alias f2.8 mentioning that I went against his stated wishes that content not reblogged with any additions or deletions.

Subsequently, you implicitly refer to another post wherein I take photographer Art Shay to task for taking a nude photo of Simone de Beauvoir without her explicit consent of the subject.

Then by virtue of the transitive property you suggest that I’m contradicting myself.

I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or if you really don’t see the category mistake you’re making in  your inquiry. I’ll assume the latter.

Consent between a photographer or image maker and a subject is not one size fits all. I was referring specifically to consent in the context of the relationship between a photographer or image maker in the context of nude photography. (Also, I would point out that from the standpoint of Art History, the lack of consent has sort of been the sacrosanct point of street photography. I have mixed feelings on this topic, which I’ve discussed in passing here.)

The relationship between the artist and audience does not enjoy the same dynamic as the relationship between image maker or photographer and subject. To follow this path is a little like arguing that since racism and sexism are both forms of oppression that they must operate with identical mechanism. (Spoiler alert: they don’t.)

I have a great deal of empathy for artists who put work out there and have it work stripped of credit, turned into perverse vehicles for expressing personal fantasies and/or appropriated for self-promotion. In a perfect world, Tumblr would do far more than they do to support creators.

I’ve posted previously about my thoughts on this and I’m linking it here because it very much relates to this conversation. I hard core support responsible Tumblr-ing. But I do start to take issues when creators get pissy about the format of their attribution. From the standpoint of curation, the minimum shoudl be artist, title of work, date of creation and link to artist’s primary website. No self-respecting gallery is going to include your formatted links to Instagram and your personal website. It’s an act of hubris that anyone expects that.

I’m conflicted when it comes to anything beyond that. If it’s an artist statement, I tend to err on the side of including that whenever possible. I try to respect the context of the work. (And I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t always get it right.)

However, I take issue with lazy artists who try to keep an ironclad grasp on their work once they’ve released it into the world. I do think artist’s deserve recognition for their work but I object to anyone who makes work primarily for recognition–in my experience these are the same types who like to argue about creatorial intentionality and other pretentious, meaningless BS. (One of the prerequisites for understanding is the ability to be misunderstood. Any misunderstanding is just as much a part of the work as any understanding.)

My justification for posting the image by f2.8 was in good faith. I like the image and as I said wanted to celebrate it and point followers in the direction of his work. I don’t always succeed but the point of this project is to introduce people to art that matters to me. And while I don’t think f2.8 doesn’t want people to like his work, I do think his stance is misguided in that it centralizes the ability to meaningfully connect with work entered into the public circulation solely through the mandate of the author. If I’d obeyed that I wouldn’t have been able to post the image here to point people in his direction. So I did what I did in good faith. If the artist feels my endeavors we’re in bad faith, I’ll respect his wishes and remove the image.

Cameron Hammond – Becky Billman (Cake Magazine #14, 2014)

Browsing Hammond’s work I’m reminded of Elmer Batters.

That’s not the most straight forward association, at first blush. However, both produce work that employs a limited but sharply honed visual grammar as well as never attempts to hide the fact that it’s driven by obsessive preoccupation with specific paraphiliae–with Batters it’s stockings, feet and low riding undies, with Hammond it’s sun-drenched summer scenes with swimsuits, water, the utilitarian re-purposing of waist bands and bra straps in lieu of pockets and a sort of hedonistic preoccupation with stereotypical summer/beach foods (popsickes, hotdogs, ice cream, etc.).

What’s interesting is despite Hammond’s limited palette, he does actually make remarkably distinctive work. And what I like about this image in particular is that it’s a good bit more flagrant in it’s coy flirtation than the rest of the work–which presents it more in an off-hand, casual voyeurism sort of mode;whereas this is more confrontational.

But what really works is the synergy between depiction and technique. This image feels very bright to me and I find myself squinting at it to take it in–much as I probably would if I was standing more or less where the camera is. (It’s too contrast-y to be an Eggleston but it uses color to a strikingly similar effect.)

There are other indications in Hammond’s work that this effect isn’t an accident, rendering the accomplishment quite the feat of technical ingenuity.

Source: philook

f2.8 – Title Unknown (2016)

This is a fabulous image.

If one were inclined one could comment on the diffuse lighting (how the viewer reads a window beyond the right frame edge even though it remains unseen; the directionality of illumination is opposite the Dutch baroque tradition–right to left as opposed to left to right, and etc.), the soft focus situates the scene very much in the room that feels both charmingly lived in, a bit cluttered by the decor but it does not detract from the primary purpose of the image–the woman standing in such an evocative yet ambiguous pose (does she have a headache, is she sad?)

The use of space and illumination is reminiscent of one of my all-time favorite paintings, van Eyck’s Arnolfini Wedding Portrait. Except van Eyck favors a much deeper focus. (If an apples to apples comparison, I’d posit the insanely talented Paula Aparicio.)

The antlers and marlin on the wall evoke associations with Artemis.

I’m a little worried about posting this. The image maker is fairly adamant that no one should add or remove anything when reblogging.

I have mixed feelings about such an admonition. On the one hand, I understand. With all the DD/lg blogs adding self-promoting links on other folks work or worse swine who feel by virtue of the fact of having a phallus that their opinion about women and their bodies’ is enough to make most decent folks more than a little gun shy.

Alternately though, I vehemently disagree with such prohibitions. It smacks of a sense of control-freakishness that I think is actually detrimental to work. You make the work. You edit the work and before you put it out there you do as much as possible to inform the eventual context. But once it’s out there in the world, it’s no longer yours. Not in the intellectual property way–it still very much is in that fashion; but the image takes on a life of its own that frequently becomes just as interesting for what the creator meant as what’s misunderstood and misconstrued.

I’ve done my best to be respectful in flouting the prohibition because I think this image deserves to be celebrated–and unlike the tens of thousands of self-same reblogs as a statement of personal aesthetic, I do curate here and with that comes a certain standard of admission (proper attribution where possible in a consistent form and commentary to the best of my abilities.)

I hope no offense is taken by the creator. None was intended. I just wanted to feature this image with proper credit–I’d really like to credit the model too, however I couldn’t find that information anywhere.

Source: cloudedfilm

Source unknown – Title Unknown (201X)

From the standpoint of technique, this image is garbage-the composition is illegible, the cant muddles an sort of visual flow and considerations of inclusion vs. exclusion by the frame edges are irredeemably random.

But, there is at least one positive thing I can say about it: I’m feeling the tone.

I’m not entirely sure I can articulate what I mean. It has a lot to do with personal context.

The last several weeks have been difficult.

I won’t get into all of that, just what’s relevant to this post: witnessing the religious right’s response to Black Lives Matter & Djingo Unhinged the lack of consistency in application of beliefs, lapses in reasoning and application of basic logic has been intensely triggering for me.

I attended an Evangelical Xtian high school. It was every bit as heinous as it sounds–probably more so, to be honest. The current climate transports me back a quarter of a decade and I feel just as confused at trapped.

I don’t think you fully understand the capacity for evil, the gravity with which hatred blooming from a misguided sense of Xtian duty motivates these evil and venally corrupt ass hats. I’ve seen it. I still bear far too many scars from it.

And like that I’m back in the thick of the same shit I’ve been trying to outrun for most of my adult life.

I feel like I always thought escaping would be enough. I never thought it would come to a point where I would need to stand and fight. I feel so clumsy and ill-prepared. For all my articulation w/r/t this project, I’ve not made that much progress is my life as far as communicating my thoughts to my peers, being open and forthright with regards to my sexuality and desires.

I adore the simple openness of this image. Yes, it’s most likely a prelude to a group sex scenario. (I think that’s part of what appeals to me about the notion of group sex is a safe space where you can perform your sexuality instead of reducing it to labels or incomplete verbal descriptions.

I feel so much of who I am is tied up in that morass. And I struggle with knowing the line with where withholding it is dishonest as opposed to necessary/appropriate.

It reminds me of something a follower told me recently. Apparently Dan Rather interviewed Mother Theresa for 60 Minutes or something. He inquired what she said when she prayed.

She responded: Nothing. I listen.

Taken aback, Rather followed up: what does God say then?

Nothing. He listens too.

Source: balcon6

Zvaal – Nettie Harris, Philadelphia, PA (2011)

As someone who believes that whenever possible you should strive to present bodies in context, I very much appreciate Zvaal’s respect for the women with whom he makes pictures.

Like if you want to know when and how to employ the frame edges to crop out part of someone’s body without it being disrespectful or objectifying, you could do much worse than studying Zvaal’s work.

I’m much less fond of his use of vertical orientation. I don’t think I can successfully make a case that his work is #skinnyframebullshit; however, I do strenuously object to like 85% of his use of it. In other words: I won’t argue that it serves a logical compositional purpose but the use more often than not undermines the conceptual vivacity of the work.

I’m primarily posting this because there’s been a dearth of B&W images lately. (If you haven’t noticed I’m super OCD about alternating B&W and color images.) And counter-intuitively, I think the black pinstripe on white sheets are a fascinating texture in monochrome–look at how the sheets almost look white in places where there’s overexposure but how prominent the pin stripes are otherwise.

(Also: Nettie was the first Tumblr model I followed.)

Source: zvaal