State of the Art

Annals of Fashion: Meisel+Mendez=Art

Steven Meisel has done it again, this time shooting actress/model Eva Mendez for a story in Italian Vogue. In the various images, she wears corsets, sucks her toes, and exposes her breasts. No doubt "Access Hollywood" will be all over this story, which I suppose is justification enough for the photos. But they don't need any other justification--they're pretty great, period. Is it me, or is Meisel getting better and better? Mendez has  already bared her bottom for a PETA ad. She's also signed on to be the face of Calvin Klein Underwear--so we're wondering what's left for her to show?--David Schonauer

Question of the Day: Should Retouchers Get Photo Credits?

Yesterday I bumped into the inimitable Laurie Kratochvil, photo editor par excellence, who told me to make sure and read the profile of digital retoucher Pascal Dangin in this week’s issue of The New Yorker
   The profile is interesting, in the thoughtful, thorough, and long way that New Yorker articles tend to be. But it raises some important points about the art of photography now.
     Dangin is the owner and resident genius of Box Studios in New York, the place where lots of big fashion photographers, magazines, and advertisers get their images perfected for print. “His success lies…in his ability to marry technical prowess to an aesthetic sensibility: his clients are paying for his eye, and his mind, as much as for his hand,” writes the article’s author, Lauren Collins.
     At this point I think we’re all aware of how important retouchers have become to the photographic process. Often, as the article points out, it is Dangin who creates a successful image by altering the work a photographer has already done.
     So I have a question I’d like to put out into the world: Should retouchers like Dangin be given photo credits when their work results in something useful? If it truly is his artistry that makes an image work, shouldn’t we know that? Of course that might upset lots of photographers. But what do you think?
     (Above: A photo of Dangin for the New Yorker by Josef Astor. I don’t know if it was retouched.)—David Schonauer

Moscow in May: Why So Serious?

Maybe the partying came later, I don't know. But the stage looked pretty dreary in this photo as Dmitri A. Medvedev spoke after being sworn in as Russia's new president. At left, of course, is Vladimir V. Putin, the former president, who has already been named prime minister by Medvedev. The two pale power brokers don't look like this arrangement is going to be much fun for either of them. The space between them is odd, at least to my eyes, suggesting some emotional if not political distance. (On the other hand, if Putin had been standing right next to Medvedev, it might have looked as if he were working a puppet.) As it is, both men seem to be striking identical rigid stances, which might be reassuring to Russians who prefer a strong and closely controlled state. Still, Putin's the man here--the darker coat and hands clenched for a fight. (Maybe it was just cold there.) Meanwhile, Medvedev has those furry microphone breasts. The press pool image, which ran on the front page of today's New York Times, was taken by Dmitri Astakhov. I suppose this is what they call red carpet photography in Russia.

This Day In Photographyy, 1937: The Hindenburg

On May 6, 1937, the German zeppelin Hindenberg exploded while attempting to moor in Lakehurst, New Jersey, killing 36 people. The disaster resulted in the death of the commercial trans-Atlantic zeppelin service and the rise of the mass news media. On this date, still photographers, filmmakers, and radio broadcasters put together a perfect storm of coverage that set the stage for the future of communications.
     At least it seems that way to me, but I’m no historian. Yet I can’t think of any event before the Hindenburg explosion that equaled it’s multi-media coverage.
     There are a couple of angles here that are interesting for photographers today.
     (And lots of interesting trivia: According to this article, the Hindenburg was to have been filled with non-flammable helium; however, the United States owned all the world’s helium and had placed an embargo against selling it to Nazi Germany. The Graf Zeppelin Company, which built the Hindenburg, turned to hydrogen as an lifting agent. Kapow!)

Where to Go and What to See

There are lots of good shows going up this week (Bruce Davidson at Jackson Fine Art, Saul Leiter at Howard Greenberg, Jerry Schatzberg at the Rizzoli Bookstore...). But it was a no-brainer to decide which I was most interested in, since my photo is part of the show (what? we editors are allowed to be self-interested occasionally).

Jose Picayo found out about the demise of Polaroid a little ahead of the curve and immediately began buying up every box of 8x10 Polaroid film left on the market. Then, with about 900 exposures compiled, he began making mug shots of New Yorkers. The brown-toned, split images will be displayed unframed and "edge-to-edge" at the Robin Rice Gallery starting May 7.

American Photo's editor, David Schonauer, and I both sat for mug shots (see above) -- but my interest in the show is not solely personal. First off, I'm fascinated by portrait photography and was excited to be part of a portrait shoot. But I quickly realized that in many ways this mug shot project creates anti-portraits. Picayo gives his subjects no direction, changes nothing about their appearance, and does absolutely no post-production manipulation. As the show's press release states, "Picayo seeks to revive the concept of  pure and unadulterated beauty, spontaneously captured."

I also love the idea of capturing a moment in time -- both the end of Polaroid film as it has been known and the few months in the history of New York City during which the images were made. Aside from the 8x10 mug shots, Picayo also made smaller Polaroids of each subject and pasted them in books where the sitter was asked to record their thoughts, especially about their ethnic and cultural background and what brought them to New York. I love the idea of recording a slice of New York through the faces of its inhabitants; and the use of a disappearing medium to do that underscores the constant mutability of those faces, and the city, and thus the ultimate impossibility of recording either.

~Miki Johnson

(Photo: © Jose Picayo)

Follow the link below for details about these and many more photography events around the country.
 

ICP Infinity Award Winners Announced

Award season continues apace, and the next big show will occur one week from tonight when the International Center of Photography presents its coveted Infinity Awards for 2008. But the word is already out about who’ll be receiving prizes this year.
     I’m happy to report that the Young Photographer award will go to Mikhael Subotzky, whose documentary work depicting life in South African prisons (below) also earned him an American Photo Emerging Photographer award in 2007. A portfolio of the work that appeared last year in Aperture was nominated for a National Magazine Award as well….so this has been a big year for Subotsky.
     The award for Art this year goes to Edward Burtynsky, whose large-format work explores the connections between landscape and industry. His pictures from China (above) have achieved a kind of cult status at this point.
     The photojournalism award will go to Anthony Suau, who has covered a number of important stories over the past 20 years, including the war in Chechnya. He has recently worked on a project documenting the US during the Iraq war. Suau won the Infinity Award for Young Photographer in 1986.
     The Applied Photography award this year will go to fashion photographer Craig McDean. Photographer Taryn Simon wins the Publication award for her book “An American Index of the Hidden and Unfamiliar.” (Read an interview we did with Simon here.) The Writing award will go to Bill Jay for his 2007 book “Bill Jay’s Album.” The Trustees Award is going to actress Diane Keaton, who is also a longtime photography enthusiast. And the Lifetime Achievement Award will go to Malick Sidibe, the renowned Malian photographer.
     I’ll be at the awards show and post on all the goings-on from there.—David Schonauer

Should Lindsay Be the Drunk-Driving Poster Child?

Last Friday marked the debut of this ad, featuring a mug shot of Lindsay Lohan after her arrest last year for drunk driving. I finally saw it today in the New York Post. Somehow it doesn’t seem right to me to use this kind of image in this way. I’m not sticking up for Lohan and her repeated arrests and serial-rehab ways. But does she deserve this?
      The ad is not an anti-drinking-and-driving ad. In fact, it is paid for by a restaurant and liquor group that is campaigning against the mandatory installation of ignition interlocks. These devices analyze a driver’s breath, and if they detect alcohol they won’t let the car start.
      These would be great for drunks like Lindsay, says the ad, but bad for all of us who want some wine at lunch. “No more toasts at weddings,” we are warned. “Let’s stop drunk driving without eliminating our traditions.”
      That’s a shaky argument—the ad wants us to eat our cake (beer at the ball game before the drive home) and have it too (remove drunk drivers from the road).
      The deft use of symbolism is the key here: The ad creates a two-tiered system of drunkenness—an “us” and “them” in which “us” are responsible imbibers and “them” are pretty much without redeeming value—a position that Miss Lohan now finds herself in. A certified cultural scourge, she becomes in this ad a convenient foil, staring at us from the police photo and inviting us to feel ever more virtuous about our own behavior.
      Lindsay Lohan doesn’t have anyone but herself to blame for her life. But this ad let’s the rest of us off the hook when it comes to our own responsibility.—David Schonauer