“The catalogue is especially remarkable because WikiLeaks is not quite an organization; it is better described as a media insurgency. It has no paid staff, no copiers, no desks, no office. Assange does not even have a home. He travels from country to country, staying with supporters, or friends of friends—as he once put it to me, “I’m living in airports these days.” He is the operation’s prime mover, and it is fair to say that WikiLeaks exists wherever he does.”—Julian Assange profiled in New Yorker - Boing Boing
“On a good movie set, everybody’s very talented and good at their jobs. The director’s the one person who doesn’t really… do anything. Everybody else has some specific task to fulfill, and the director theoretically is, in some cosmic, alchemical way, shaping everything. But it’s very unclear what the job really is. Ultimately, it’s just about channeling other people’s energies and then taking the credit.”—Andrew Bujalski via 3quarksdaily
“Candid street photography and military aerial reconnaissance may seem to have little in common, but they’re both examples of how the camera has made us more distant from each other and from the world around us, according to Sandra Phillips of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, who is the exhibition’s curator.”—New Scientist: How the camera has made us all voyeurs | Street Reverb Magazine
“I suppose our group’s situation is a microcosm of a much wider societal condition as more and more of our daily contacts take place through monitors. I know many people through various online communities, but without meeting them I will never feel like I really know them. And I think that is probably true for society as a whole. In some ways the world is getting smaller as interconnections multiply. But the essence of community I think will always be actual human contact. So with this trip I’m doing my part, or at least that’s how I justify it.”—B
hotographs are more like mirrors than they are like paintings. photographs, because of their optico-chemical origins, are transparent to what they represent. Scruton drew the obvious conclusion from the transparency thesis: —-photographs are transparent to their objects, and so are not themselves of aesthetic interest.
The obvious flaw with this kind of reasoning is that a photograph shows us ‘what we would have seen’ at a certain moment in time, from a certain point if we kept our head immobile and closed one eye and if we saw things with the equivalent of a 150-mm or 24-mm lens and if we saw things in Portra NC and printed on paper or published on the web. So we have the photographer’s interpretative role in photographic picture-making and photographs don’t show us precisely what our eyes would have seen.
Charles Cushman was by all means nothing more than a snap-happy amateur photographer. Looking through this collection of his photos, you realize that the vast majority of his photos are forgettable. There are snapshots of flowers and ducks, multiple shots of the same scene, poor compositions and so on. But what he lacked in photographic skill he made up for by traveling to much of the United States and many parts of the world in the mid-century decades, and photographing nearly all of it in colour before it was the norm. He also kept detailed records of everything he shot, from when and where to sometimes even what the camera settings were. You have to look for quite a bit to find the real nuggets, but they are certainly in there, hidden in this archive of some 14,000+ colour photos from 1938 to 1969.
I think snap happy amateur is a bit harsh. And he certainly had plenty of photographic skill. Make 14,000 images from any photographer available and your perspective on their work will change drastically. If Cushman’s work would have been tightly edited and only distributed as a book, he’d probably be praised as a pioneer of color photography.
“An artist today is forced to choose whether to aspire to be a corporate or Superclass art start, or to cleave to a meaningful and difficult procedure towards personal excellence that has almost nothing to do with what one is pushed to believe constitutes legitimate excellence.”—Exploring the Art Blogosphere - MutualArt
From: “Nicolas Chartier” Date: May 15, 2010 2:30:30 AM PDT To: [redacted]@[redacted].com Subject: RE: Hurt Locker lawsuit
Hi Nicholas, please feel free to leave your house open every time you go out and please tell your family to do so, please invite people in the streets to come in and take things from you, not to make money out of it by reselling it but just to use it for themselves and help themselves. If you think it’s normal they take my work for free, I’m sure you will give away all your furniture and possessions and your family will do the same. I can also send you my bank account information since apparently you work for free and your family too so since you have so much money you should give it away… I actually like to pay my employees, my family, my bank for their work and like to get paid for my work. I’m glad you’re a moron who believes stealing is right. I hope your family and your kids end up in jail one day for stealing so maybe they can be taught the difference. Until then, keep being stupid, you’re doing that very well. And please do not download, rent, or pay for my movies, I actually like smart and more important HONEST people to watch my films.
best regards, Nicolas Chartier
Voltage Pictures, LLC
“Photography is also well placed to benefit. Cory Doctorow has argued that the more copies there are in the digital era the more valuable the non-reproducible becomes. This means that as digital copies of images proliferate – making both the image and the photographer better known and creating a community of interest in the process – the more a small but significant number of people will pay for “talismanic items” like signed, limited edition prints. This was borne out by a recent remark from Ben Burdett, director of the Atlas Gallery in London: “we sell to people who fall for individual images, especially well known images people recognise. They sell most easily because when people see them, they know and love them already.”—Thinking Freely: New Business Models for the Digital Economy | David Campbell — Photography, Multimedia, Politics
“But I have a take on that — people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone! Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone. So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn’t. - Mick Jagger”—Daring Fireball Linked List: Mick Jagger Goes Back to Exile