I like this shot. I like the patterns, the colour the shapes, but as a piece of Art does it show me anything more than the original idea that was on the sketch pad of the architect/designer? Unlike a lot of other Aeriel shots it seems to show me nothing more than what the original creator intended, so as anything more than an illustration of park design what's it's point? Discuss.......
Images copyright John AngersonJohn's chosen to carry out the work on 5x4 which gives the work a whiff of Soth, (yes I know Soth shoots 10x8 stop splitting hairs) particularly with the portraiture, nowt wrong with that it's just an observation. Power's work is decidedly bleaker. It's a hell of a brave confident task making a series about a subject so large as a country, especially one with as much history (and baggage) as England, I wish them well.
Read an interview with John over on Ben Roberts blog
What we need now is another drunken pamphleteer, ( a pamphleteer, that's just an olde worlde blogger ain't it?) to draft us out a constitution and start a brave new world in British politics. 
One of the bestest things about this blogging lark is that sometimes you get free stuff. A bit like MP's do but without the fear of being branded a thieving c##t.There's 500 of these beauty's gone out there and I've got #200 and I feel blessed. I got a feeling about this book, it feels special It's a lovely thing, It's a first class example of The photo book as an item of Art in it's own right. The actual images inside are like no other images of California I've seen and it's shown me something and made me think about things that are new . RJ has his own vision, something that is all too often missing from a lot of the work I see being made. Tip Top!
Image copyright Alice HawkinsA timely film by longtime friend of Manchester photography,
Reality TV by David Dunnico
Screening on the BBC Big Screen
Exchange Square Manchester
All times are approximate
Sat 16 May 10:10am 2:10pm 5:25pm 7:00pm
Sun 17 May 9:10am 11:10am 6:40pm 9:40pm
Mon 18 May 9:10am 11:10am 2:10pm 5:10pm 9:10pm 10:50pm
Tue 19 May 9:10am 11:10am 2:40pm 5:10pm 9:10pm 10:50pm
Wed 20 May 9:10am 11:10am 2:10pm 5:10pm 11pm
Thurs 21 May 9:10am 10:55am 2:40pm 5:10pm 9:10pm 10:50pm
Fri 22 May 9:10am 11:10am 2:40pm 5:10pm 9:10pm 10:45pm
Film also be shown the following week at times to be arranged. Or see it at: http://vimeo.com/3956204
More about the Big Screens at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bigscreens
Image copyright Glen Erler
Image copyright Mark PageThis is a follow on from the last 3 posts, and it goes like so.
I'll be looking through a photographers portfolio, traditional documentary work usually about something "urban" by fantastic artists, powerful thought provoking work, original takes on gritty realism and then dunk like one bum note struck by an otherwise flawless Halle Orchestra an image of a dead pigeon appears. Why are photographers of our inner cities so prone to drop in an image of the poor dead birdy? Is it because in our sanitised society it's our only experience of raw death? Is it because it's an easy metaphor for so much that's wrong, of rot, filth etc?
And so it's there, another big screaming (or perhaps cooing) photo cliche,
But wait just a mo, this one is different than the 3 previous listings. This is one born out of accident out of not enough thought, out of taking your eye off the ball, at worst out of laziness.
It's different than the other cliches below and here. They are born out of cynicism, out of a desire to produce what the art establishment tells folk is good and therefore sells. Nothing more than pointless copies that have nothing to say and that end up devaluing the work of the artist who had the original thought, and in turn the art of photography as a whole.
So I accept that there maybe "no such thing as an original thought" we can all have "Dead pigeon" moments but as far as the Cliche crew and purveyor's of taste go, you're just fucking knobs.....
Image copyright Nigel GrimmerI've tagged up Nigel Grimmer under "Artists" rather than "Photographers" I couldn't decide. I almost put him down under "Photographers" coz he does take photo's clearly. Sometimes though he doesn't, he makes things, or arranges them. but then he photographs them. Sometimes he gets people to wear furry animal masks and directs them almost like performance, but then fuck, he photographs them.
Blurry boundaries, a look at popular culture and having some fun with Art/Photography smashing......
