Claire

No, I don't mean ESP or anything like that.

I mean those situations when you make eye contact with someone and know that at that moment they thinking or reacting exactly the same way you are. Isn't it great when that happens? That vivid feeling of a bond with another human being occuring out of the blue?

Here's an example-

I had met up for some drinks with a group of comic geeks I've started hanging out with. I was having a really intense conversation with two guys from this group that get along particularly well with.

Then I noticed the most amazing girl walking across the room. She was gorgeous. Quite short, but with an imperious way of carrying herself. She looked south east Asian; tan skin, prominant cheek bones, soft round nose, half closed bedroom eyes and beautiful glossy black hair cut in a long bob. She was wearing a great outfit, all black but lots of different layers and textures, wool, lace and leather, all inviting to be touched, then slowly removed item by item. And to top it off, as she walked by she combed her fingers through her hair in one the sexiest gestures I've ever seen. Not like she was working it either, it was unselfconscious, as though she was unaware how beautiful she looked.

Then I realised, with a start, that I completely ignored the two guys I was talking with to blatantly check out this girl. I ashamedly turned back to them, hoping they had not noticed my rudeness, and desperately trying to recall the topic of conversation.

And, of course, it turns out the two of them are doing exactly the same, just as flustered as me and for just the same reason. So we all stare at each other red faced for a few seconds before I say what simply has to be said, "Fuuuuuck, that girl was hot!".

Now let's hear your stories.

Retina issues or screen related eye strain, I'd say it's unlikely to be anything to do with losing your mind.

Wolvy, are you spending long stretches of time focused (both mentally and eyewise) on a single task? Because I know when I spend too long on the computer or in dark room printing photos I get a similar thing. Specifically seeing figures run or float through my field of vision, and seeing Max Schrek (sp?) from Nosferatu standing off to the side or just behind my shoulder.

I can pretty much echo the sentiments of everyone who's already posted, so instead of my full reaction here's a couple of things that struck me in particular.

The script demands a sense of otherworldliness, and Routh conveys it perfectly.

Absolutely agree. This movie was the first time I've ever really 'got' Superman as an alien. I was reminded of the angel characters in Wings of Desire, particularly when Superman watches Lois in her home which for me had the same feel as scenes of angels moving through human lives in Wings of Desire. Without any angsting it got across the deep underlying saddess of living in the gulf between being able to help everyone briefly, and being to able know and truely relate to anyone in particular.

I also loved the flying scenes, which I found incredibly sensual (anyone else think this, or just me?) I think many films recently have put too much whizz-bangery in their flying scenes, loosing the simple wonder of being able to fly. The quietness of some of Superman's flight scenes, the lack of urgency, the gentle rippling of his cloak, the gymnastic rather than action oriented flight poses, all created a timelessness and sense of joy in movement, a renewed amazement at the idea of moving through the air without falling.

Lastly, did anyone else find the scene where Kitty remarks that there used to be two dogs, while remaining dog gnaws on it's former compainions bones hiliarious? Because I was the only person in the theatre who laughed. And by 'laugh' I mean 'laughed hysterically well into the next scene'.

Then some children turned around to stare at me and I felt like a sick, sick person.

I guess a life time of being a straight forward sort of bloke, one without pretention to "Art" or "Intellect" or "Recieved Faith" has sort of produced an asymetrical mindset in me.

 

If I look at a photograph, I don't see all sorts of hyperbole, flights of fancy, I tend to see a representation of an object, a slice of life, a sliver of time .

 

But can't representations of these things (in images, preformances, literature) move people? And be purposely selected to evoke thoughts, emotions, associations to their own life etc in an audience?

 

Sometimes it might be a picture of a ballet, or a floor exersize at the olympic level, or the highshool level for that matter. I DON'T automatically think " Oh, how great the artistic skill of the photographer". I usually think " WOW, what dedication in that performer, think of the skill earnt by the sort of determination that is not in me ".

 

Well in that context the skill of the photographer lies in showcasing the subject, in focusing your attention absolutely to that subject. I'd say most documentary photographers and photojournalists would appreciate your reacation (with maybe a rider a few minutes later of "Gee the bloke that took the photo did a good job. Good on him for being there at the right place and the right time to take it, too").

 

Ben is going to feel like I slight him, maybe, and it isn't my wish at all. HOWEVER. He will admit the truth to my pointing out that photographers

(a) seek out photographic subjects.

 

Maybe there is some SKILL involved in that, but I think it can be taught as a CRAFT.

 

Until modernism all arts were taught as craft. All arts have some kind of craft component. That something can be taught as craft doesn't stop it being art as well.

 

A craft INHERENTLY adapted to hit and miss because of

 

(b) Every photographer I have ever heard of, read books about, or see lauded, takes a HUNDRED shots for each one he might frame as his "art".

If it was really ART, they wouldn't NEED to take more than the one.

 

So if painting was really art, the painter wouldn't have to make prepatory sketches right? Or make different compositional studies or try different colour schemes? representing the subject MAYBE the art lays in the choice they make between the photographs they take, or the choice of subject. And YES sometimes photgraphs are art, but to me, it will always be a sort of mechanical immitation of art. They capture an image, and maybe they have a idea of a series of images meaning something "Artistic", but to me it is just journalism, observation.

 

Well a lot of photography is intended primarily as reportage. So is a lot of writing. So is a fair bit of drawing/painting i.e. court sketches or biological and botanical drawings. That doesn't invalidate written comunication and drawing as arts. I get your point though. Photography is uniquely contingent on a real world thing/event/scene for it's existance. But then all representational art depends, to some extent, on it's subect for meaning.

 

As to "capturing an image" it's vitally important to remember without the photo having been taken the image would never exist. Sure something like the image existed for moment in time but we do not see in flat, static images, we do not see in black and white or fujichrome colour, or wide angle or telephoto. We don't see the contrast between light and shade that a photo picks up or the change in colour from different light sources. Think of Ben's night photography- those images are of things that a human being cannot actually see. How can that be a talentless, thoughtless, mechanical capturing of a image? Although the subject of a photo has to exist, the photo itself is the creation of the photographer and his/hers awareness of the tools at their disposal.

 

 

Probably not a popular opinion, I fear.

 

Well, if you'd said that in person my response would be "thems fightin' words"

 

(Jokingly, as I'd be too scared to fight you, and you're too much of a gentleman to fight me.)

Well, maybe they just dont think more about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I suppose that's why it annoys me so.

This has really been bugging me lately. I keep noticing presumably well educated, smart people who fail to grasp what an average is. Most recently someone claiming that in a historical period with a life expectancy of 40, mid 30's would be considered old age!

An "average life expectancy of 40" doesn't mean everyone obligingly turned up their toes and died on their big four-oh, it means an awful lot of babies and kids died very young while those who reached adulthood (and, if female, survived child bearing) had a good chance of seeing their 60's, if not 70.

The only person I could stalk would be Sophie Calle. Hopefully she'd see the funny side.

They're pretty expensive, the models there are mine and I have a lady doll on the way from Korea.  When she gets here I'll put a blonde wig on her 8-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought those dolls looked familiar! I used to work as an art tutor for a couple of Korean families, and one girl (I say girl but she 20 years old) had one of these dolls. She absolutely adored it. It was all done up in a late Victorian outfit with little lace up boots, and it gave me willies whenever we used it for figure drawing and I'd suddenly catch a glimpse of it's sly little face.

By the by, Anita is the spooky sister in Carey's the Gift.

I can honestly say I did not see that coming.

Go Mina Go!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh my, that was my favourite issue in ages. Now I'm really, really excited.

Emotional in what way?

Most of Doom Patrol was just riveting and fun! Playing on the English language. It is comics answer to Joyce's "Ulysses"! I absolutely adore.

I'm not gay, but if I was, I'd have sex with Morrison's Doom Patrol comic! :lol:

 

The story of Crazy Jane was very emotionally moving, but outside that, I don't think emotion was exactly what Morrison was playing at with "Doom Patrol".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I generally found Dorothy pretty heart breaking as well.

So we're cool then? Excellent.

Oh, and Debbie Harry has a lovely smile.

Hating women seems to have become our national pastime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's "hating young pretty sucessful party girls". That way alot of women can join the hate/evny fest aswell.

Actually, if you knew me or read my earlier post in this thread you'd know that:

 

1) I'm attracted to Lohan (my deep dark secret), so I'm hardly a Lohan-basher.

 

and

 

2) I joke around a lot.  So don't take offense, and if you do, feel free to ignore me.

 

How can you take people to task for cracking on Lohan, then praise dogpoet for his "gutted" comment?  Bit hypocritical, that.

 

 

Do I know you I Love Dogs Unconditionally?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unknownsoldier, I wasn't singling out you or your comments for criticism.

As for 1) I also find Miss Lohan attractive, although alot less now that she's so skinny. I don't find my attraction to her something to be ashamed of.

2) I like to believe there is a middle ground between whole heartly endorsing everything someone says and ignoring them.

3) I took dogpoet's post as sarcasm. I.e. "Like she really cares that a internet user she doesn't know no longer thinks shes hot"

4) I have no idea I Love Dogs Unconditionally is.

It might take me whle to track down the Anakin doll page again, but I promise you I'm on the case.

It also had a lovely 'first night' photostory with Anakin doll as a geisha and Obi Wan doll as an enamoured client.

Edit: Found 'em!

And I was wrong, it's not Anakin it's Obi schoolgirl. It was the graduation photo that your work reminded me of.

The other 'highlight' is "story of the oiran and his master"

Well I thought we were all better than to slag someone off for the crimes of

a) being in a crap movie

b) becoming less attractive than they used to be

c) admitting to using some drugs

...but I guess I was wrong.

Although I doubt that, for example, Keith Richards would cop as much vitriol for similar flaws.

Hear, hear Dogpoet!

Also, kudos for your earlier "I'm sure she's gutted" comment.

The lighting in 3,4,6 and 7 is especially effective. It adds such a tactile, warm, flesh like glow to the plastic. Combined with the tight framing it really sucks me in to responding sexually to the images for a split second before the "ew they're not people" kicks back in.

For me that response distills the ambiguity and creepiness of dolls- that they're objects but you can't help thinking or fearing that they're some how human- in a very viseral way.

Goddamn I love them!

They're like an unholy mix of Hans Bellmer, a fashion shoot, and that Japanese website of Anakin dolls dressed as schoolgirls.

I've just spent a month shelving books in the library of a university which specilises in visual arts and design papers.

It was, at times, fucking torture. I.e. "Oh here's the book of Sally Mann's landscape photography I spent three years down in Christchurch looking for! Oh well, on to the shelf it goes!"

By the last week I was taking five minute "coffee breaks" every half hour to get some browsing in.

The only examples I can think of offhand of the guy playing a different role are Fear and Loathing and Ed Wood.

Donnie Brasco, that film set in Cuba where he played a drag queen.

Hey Bonnie can we see some more of your photos? There's something about dolls/manniquins and photography together that always seems to work.

Claire Harris

Bachelor of Fine Arts major in Photography

Currently unemployed

Artists: Sally Mann, Gustav Moreau, and Clementina, Lady Hawardon

Comics: Hellblazer, The Walking Dead, Doom Patrol

(Off the top of my head without looking at anyone elses answers.)

Edit: Now I look at everyone elses and realise I'm too late. Darn.

Mean Girls

and as a consequence

Linsay Lohan (almost)

Not only that, but her acting career has also gone to hell. Need I remind you of "herbie fully loaded" That movie was fully loaded...Fully loaded with shit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Geez, cut the girl some slack, she had a three movie contract with Disney to fulfill.

And after the post-production digital breast shrinking fiasco I'm hardly suprised she ended up with a eating disorder. To be a sucessful child actress and be told after your first adult role that your now womanly body is, by it's nature, obscene? That would make me want to shrink away to nothing too.