Austinist: It Takes Two To Make A Thing Go Right

ol'pappy

Thu, 17 May 2007 14:36:09 -0600

This site, http://www.amber-online.com/exhibitions/weegee-collection/exhibits/lovers says that photo was taken in 1943. I like old photos a lot better than the digital photos of today. Just the talent that went into getting a good photo - the light, balance, lens speed, all that shit - makes me more appreciative because with digital photos it's so easy to correct mistakes.

iloveleibovitz

Thu, 17 May 2007 13:23:10 -0600

you guys, i'm loving the mashup! commenters rule. emily, i think we're kinda of the same mind on this topic. but craig, your response is completely legitimate. when i chose that photo for the post, it wasn't cause it was the best or most worthy. it was just cause i was playing on the idea of pairs, the power of two, and the wisdom of Rob Base. but as for your questions/comments, there is someone who can address them much better than i. anne tucker, the photographic curator at the houston museum of art -- she's the expert who singlehandedly built this collection -- will be speaking at AMoA on saturday at 3. hit her with your best shot, and report back! xo, b

Emily

Thu, 17 May 2007 11:02:44 -0600

I was thinking more of Lange and Steiglitz than Fellig.

craig

Thu, 17 May 2007 10:36:01 -0600

Ah, so I notice that picture was taken by Arthur Fellig, who used a 4x5 speed graphic for most of his work. A staple camera in his era, in the 1950s, when photography was hardly new, so theres no technological novelty there. And teenage shennanigans weren't terribly new either (now, if it had been an interracial kiss...). But, Arthur Fellig does have his own wikipedia entry. And theres the answer to my question. So who knows. Perhaps some cell-phone picture taking beauty bar patron will get his own wikipedia entry and showing in 50 years.

craig

Thu, 17 May 2007 10:16:15 -0600

Oh I appreciate the process more than you know ;) But how much does the difficulty or chronological novelty of the process factor in to the worthiness of the work being displayed is what I am asking. Take the picture posted on this very entry. It is sort of the older equivalent of a beauty bar picture. Though you're right, it would not be as easy to take, process etc. But how much should that matter?

Emily

Thu, 17 May 2007 09:43:02 -0600

You should really read up on the history of photography before saying something like that. It wasn't always as easy to take pictures as it is now, nor was it affordable to the general public to own a camera and set up a darkroom. I mean if you can't appreciate the process, at least understand that these are significant moments in American history (the Depression, for example) being visually represented, and not just some party at the Beauty Bar on a Tuesday night.

craig

Wed, 16 May 2007 18:28:07 -0600

cool photo shows. though i sometimes wonder about the merits of so many old photographs being mainly because they are in fact, old. The exact same photo today would be just another flickr post in time. Hence the need to style-it-up to get noticed.