More PJs!

Just a few days after my post on pyjamas as outdoor wear, I got an
e-mail from the photographer Justin Guariglia announcing a book signing at ICP this coming Friday for his new book “Planet Shanghai”. The book, which is essentially about the look and style of Shanghai, features dozens and dozens of pictures of people wearing pyjamas outdoors, as well as close-ups of Chinese footwear, Shanghai shoppers, and futuristic looking motorcycle riders.

Taken mostly in 2005, the rapid development in Shanghai is already changing how the city looks and feels and so the book is as much about a moment in time as current Shanghai style, but the images are nonetheless mesmerizing.

The prevalence of pyjamas, Guariglia explained to me, was due to both the extreme summer heat and the lack of plumbing. Most Shanghaians share outdoor communal toilets and thus the boundaries of what was considered one’s home have expanded past people’s houses to the public bathrooms. Once that relaxation of the dress code became acceptable (starting around the 1980s) the perimeter for p.j.-wear just kept expanding until many people were wearing them day in day out.

In addition to the inherent quality of Guaraglia’s pictures, one of the things many readers of this blog will naturally notice is their similarity to The Sartorialist’s photographs. What is equally interesting is the ways in which they differ. While superficially almost identical, in spirit and intent the two photographers are worlds apart. Guariglia is observing, Sart is editing. Guariglia is a photojournalist, Sart is a fashion photographer. In John Szarkowki’s parlance Guariglia is a window, Sart is a mirror.

What never ceases to be a source of wonder is how a mechanical instrument like the camera can produce images that in the hands of different photographers are so distinctly and personally expressive. It’s a miracle! And it’s why people like me have been involved and committed to photography for such a long time.

Puzzled

Worth noting - Kent Rogowski’s new work, currently on show at the Jen Bekman Gallery through June 14. Rogowski creates surreal pictures by combining pieces from different puzzles into his own original compositions. Because each manufacturer tends to use he same die cuts on different puzzles, the pieces when kept in their proper position are interchangeable within different puzzles of the same brand.

Mixing flowers, blues skies, puffy clouds, and idyllic scenery, Rogowski creates his own alternate fractured universe, one that undergoes yet another transformation when he photographs the finished object. Humorous and cheery, they are not without their own sly commentary on the commodification of happiness and idealism.

Whether they’re photography or re-photography or collage is beside the point. Kent Rogowski’s work points out yet again that although it may be increasingly hard to come up with new ideas, where there’s a will there’s a way.

Somewhat buried in the back of today’s New York Times was this terrific photograph by Chris Carlson of the Associated Press. It’s of Barack Obama at Sunday’s rally in Portland, Oregon where an estimated crowd of 75,000 came out to hear him speak. I think it has to be the best photograph of the campaign so far and I’m surprised it didn’t make the front page.

Because of the Times’ production, however, it appeared in black and white in the paper while online the original color version appeared. So it was not an aesthetic or design choice, but I think it may be just a hair better as a color, largely because of the red, white, and blue bunting. Again – your thoughts ….?

75,000

Somewhat buried in the back of today’s New York Times was this terrific photograph by Chris Carlson of the Associated Press. It’s of Barack Obama at Sunday’s rally in Portland, Oregon where an estimated crowd of 75,000 came out to hear him speak. I think it has to be the best photograph of the campaign so far and I’m surprised it didn’t make the front page.

Because of the Times’ production, however, it appeared in black and white in the paper while online the original color version appeared. So it was not an aesthetic or design choice, but I think it may be just a hair better as a color, largely because of the red, white, and blue bunting. Again – your thoughts ….?

The Greatest

The photographer Flip Schulke, who I had the honor of representing for many years, died last week at the age of 77.

Flip was a wonderful guy and a photojournalist with the soul of an artist. When the job called for it, as in his coverage of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement, he was a powerful witness to history. But when the opportunity presented itself he would use his imagination and resourcefulness to create situations out of which he could draw memorable images.

The best example is his famous image of Muhammed Ali training underwater which is perhaps the most successful image I ever represented as a gallerist. The story behind the image is as striking as the photograph itself. Schulke was introduced to Ali in 1960 and mentioned that he also did underwater photography. Hearing this Ali confided to Schulke that his secret training routine involved a strenuous underwater workout. The boxer would allow Schulke to photograph him if he could guarantee that the pictures would appear in LIFE. Schulke got the O.K., the session proceeded early the next week, and the pictures dutifully ran in the magazine. It was not until decades later that Ali confessed that it had all been an elaborate ruse on his part to get into the magazine. But with Ali’s flawless showmanship and Schulke’s artistry the picture is not only completely convincing but a great and iconic photograph.

href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFDp9I8DQXd0ZhHMbefq7NA8KDhcL_FzsTgMkvNhYtrNLPvKf6KeOpAtAUQiC5gj8_3uso-bIQs77FKGOv2S4Ux-QM21y3qqVdIFBZ0Tc7jnlPo6QXBfypP13-QDjpQPgLt3qxABw3NmhS/s1600-h/f3.png">
Mrs. Gordon Cooper watches her husband pass overhead in the Gemini 1 spacecraft. 1965.

Coretta King at the funeral of her husband, Martin Luther King. 1968.

Martin Luther King and his son. 1965.

Comfort and Joy

A year ago when I was a judge at the Hyeres Photo Festival, one of my fellow jurors was Simon Foxton – the Fashion Director of the magazine Fantastic Man. I'm sure that like many of you, this was not a magazine I was familiar with, although I particularly liked the name as it sounded like something you would make up if you were caricaturing a men’s fashion magazine! Anyway, when I finally saw Fantastic Man for the first time, somewhat to my surprise, it was a very good magazine – accessible, original, creative, fun - in spite of being as insidery as you can get.

I bought the current Spring/Summer issue because it featured a long interview with my friend and colleague, The Sartorialist. But the feature I liked best was a fashion story on wearing men’s pyjamas outside. I’ve always liked the idea and been impressed with Julian Schnabel’s predeliction for P.J.s (as opposed to Hugh Hefner’s). I think the basic rule is that P.J.s should look preppy and rumpled, not shiny and boudoiry! Anyway, the photographs by Daniel Riera, and the styling by Jodie Barnes are natural and unaffected and present a completely convincing case for how to mix comfort and style this summer!

Please feel free to send in your pictures of outdoor P.J. dressing. A bottle of good champagne will be sent to every entry published!

Weekend Video

It’s been a good month for Jersey boys. On Tuesday, the U.S. Postal Service released a new stamp featuring Frank Sinatra, one of the state’s favorite sons. The week before, Old Blue Eyes and Bruce Springsteen were among the first group inducted into the New Jersey Hall of Fame.

Sadly it was not televised, but these days there’s always someone with a camera, so thanks to “Backstreets208” we see (or perhaps more accurately we hear) Bruce not only introducing Frank’s award, but then receiving his own (from Danny De Vito).

Truth and Beauty

Another day, another controversy involving Annie Leibovitz although she seems above reproach to me on this one. This time it’s the Dove “Campaign for Real Beauty” ads. To sum up, the women’s cosmetics company Dove has been running an ongoing multi-million dollar ad campaign decrying the unrealistic depiction of women being perpetuated by the beauty, fashion, and media industries and especially the rampant use of photoshop. The campaign has garnered prizes and been rightly lauded as a brilliant, empowering, and necessary corrective.

Then last week, in a fascinating 6000 word profile of industry leading retoucher Pascal Dangin in The New Yorker by Lauren Collins, was this passage:

"I mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual 'real women' in their undergarments," Ms. Collins wrote. "It turned out that it was a Dangin job. 'Do you know how much retouching was on that?' he asked. 'But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone's skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive.'"

Shortly after the piece hit the newsstands, the beauty cream hit the fan (so to speak). With denials, counter-denials, etc.. We have just begun to hear the beginning of this debate.

The New Yorker is standing by its story -- with one small correction. The publication acknowledged that one of the 6,308 words in the piece was inaccurate -- the word "undergarments." So while the story suggested that a Dove ad showing real women in "undergarments" was retouched by Mr. Dangin, the women in the ads he retouched were nude. These were the photographs shot by Annie Leibovitz, and as you can see from the images below, the Leibovitz images were pretty gutsy pictures. And credit is due to Dangin for keeping the integrity of Leibovitz’s photographs.

Annie Leibovitz's photographs for Dove

An earlier campaign with photos of “real” women in their underwear which received a lot more publicity was shot by the British photographer Ian Rankin. I think people are getting the two campaigns confused. But in any case, I am 100% sure both campaigns were retouched. It is simply inconceivable that any major ad campaign would appear today without some kind of digital help. The novelty was more in the women's weight.

Rankin's photograph for Dove.

In a joint statement provided by Unilever, Annie Leibovitz, and Pascal Dangin all deny "substantially" altering images. Dove's "real beauties" were not airbrushed says the statement but their photos were treated to eliminate dust from the film and provide "color correction".

So what does this all mean? If anyone were ever to doubt that we are living in a digital age, this should be the final proof that all this is not a conspiracy but a reality. Note the word “substantially” in the statement above. A photograph can never be assumed to represent reality, but nor has it ever – from the 19th century collages of Henry Peach Robinson to the artfully retouched glamour shots of the Hollywood stars of the 1930s.

Any photograph used in a magazine, a billboard, an album cover, whatever – can only be presumed to be a photo-based illustration. The issue, which Dove's well-intentioned campaign addressed, is the effect these illustrations have on the psyche, self-esteem, and well-being of women (in particular) not to mention the unrealistic view men might have of women. It brings to mind the shock the eminent Victorian art critic John Ruskin experienced upon discovering his wife’s pubic hair, after which he was unable to consummate the marriage. Divorce followed shortly.

The hypocrisy that Dove is now being accused of is compounded by the fact that the product their ads were pushing were skin firming, cellulite reducing creams. Oh the double standards! So perhaps we should agree that we are living in both the digital age and the age of hypocrisy.

The relationship between truth and beauty, reality and idealization, has always been fertile but tricky ground. That these “scandals” create attention and debate is not a bad thing.