![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sep. 4th, 2008
The Scottish National Portrait Gallery’s featured exhibition for the festival is Vanity Fair Portraits - a large collections of photographs from the glossy magazine Vanity Fair.
The exhibition is in two parts, reflecting the history of the magazine: from 1913 to 1936, when the magazine stopped, and then from 1983 to the present, the publishers realising they actually had a marketable brand.
That is a long gap in the middle – nearly half the 20th century – and it is reflected in the pictures.
I found the first half of the exhibition far more rewarding than the second half. It features a surprising number of major figures in photography in the first half of the last century, and they produced some startling images. Most notable was the work by Edward Steichen – there were several of his photographs in the show.
There was also work by Man Ray, Cecil Beaton, Arthur Steiglitz and Charles Sheeler – these were big names in art, not just photography. Their portraits concentrated on the subject, and in developing photography as an artform: working in black and white, these are pictures that set a standard. They communicate the personality of the sitter – you feel you know a bit more about them.
I felt that the focus shifted in the second half of the exhibition. The photographs became glossier, in colour (although I still preferred those that were black and white) – and it was as if it was the photograph and the photographer rather than the subject that had become important.
The photographs became more and more complex, and the technology to produce them makes such complexity easy. The subject is diminished.
There are some brilliant photographs from this latter period, but looking at the pictures I found myself thinking, “wow! How did they do that?” rather than “wow, that really brings out the humanity in the sitter!”
The exhibition is in two parts, reflecting the history of the magazine: from 1913 to 1936, when the magazine stopped, and then from 1983 to the present, the publishers realising they actually had a marketable brand.
That is a long gap in the middle – nearly half the 20th century – and it is reflected in the pictures.
I found the first half of the exhibition far more rewarding than the second half. It features a surprising number of major figures in photography in the first half of the last century, and they produced some startling images. Most notable was the work by Edward Steichen – there were several of his photographs in the show.
There was also work by Man Ray, Cecil Beaton, Arthur Steiglitz and Charles Sheeler – these were big names in art, not just photography. Their portraits concentrated on the subject, and in developing photography as an artform: working in black and white, these are pictures that set a standard. They communicate the personality of the sitter – you feel you know a bit more about them.
I felt that the focus shifted in the second half of the exhibition. The photographs became glossier, in colour (although I still preferred those that were black and white) – and it was as if it was the photograph and the photographer rather than the subject that had become important.
The photographs became more and more complex, and the technology to produce them makes such complexity easy. The subject is diminished.
There are some brilliant photographs from this latter period, but looking at the pictures I found myself thinking, “wow! How did they do that?” rather than “wow, that really brings out the humanity in the sitter!”
The Scottish National Portrait Gallery’s featured exhibition for the festival is Vanity Fair Portraits - a large collections of photographs from the glossy magazine Vanity Fair.
The exhibition is in two parts, reflecting the history of the magazine: from 1913 to 1936, when the magazine stopped, and then from 1983 to the present, the publishers realising they actually had a marketable brand.
That is a long gap in the middle – nearly half the 20th century – and it is reflected in the pictures.
I found the first half of the exhibition far more rewarding than the second half. It features a surprising number of major figures in photography in the first half of the last century, and they produced some startling images. Most notable was the work by Edward Steichen – there were several of his photographs in the show.
There was also work by Man Ray, Cecil Beaton, Arthur Steiglitz and Charles Sheeler – these were big names in art, not just photography. Their portraits concentrated on the subject, and in developing photography as an artform: working in black and white, these are pictures that set a standard. They communicate the personality of the sitter – you feel you know a bit more about them.
I felt that the focus shifted in the second half of the exhibition. The photographs became glossier, in colour (although I still preferred those that were black and white) – and it was as if it was the photograph and the photographer rather than the subject that had become important.
The photographs became more and more complex, and the technology to produce them makes such complexity easy. The subject is diminished.
There are some brilliant photographs from this latter period, but looking at the pictures I found myself thinking, “wow! How did they do that?” rather than “wow, that really brings out the humanity in the sitter!”
The exhibition is in two parts, reflecting the history of the magazine: from 1913 to 1936, when the magazine stopped, and then from 1983 to the present, the publishers realising they actually had a marketable brand.
That is a long gap in the middle – nearly half the 20th century – and it is reflected in the pictures.
I found the first half of the exhibition far more rewarding than the second half. It features a surprising number of major figures in photography in the first half of the last century, and they produced some startling images. Most notable was the work by Edward Steichen – there were several of his photographs in the show.
There was also work by Man Ray, Cecil Beaton, Arthur Steiglitz and Charles Sheeler – these were big names in art, not just photography. Their portraits concentrated on the subject, and in developing photography as an artform: working in black and white, these are pictures that set a standard. They communicate the personality of the sitter – you feel you know a bit more about them.
I felt that the focus shifted in the second half of the exhibition. The photographs became glossier, in colour (although I still preferred those that were black and white) – and it was as if it was the photograph and the photographer rather than the subject that had become important.
The photographs became more and more complex, and the technology to produce them makes such complexity easy. The subject is diminished.
There are some brilliant photographs from this latter period, but looking at the pictures I found myself thinking, “wow! How did they do that?” rather than “wow, that really brings out the humanity in the sitter!”
Armageddon Days Are Here (Again)
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:37 pmBy chance, I found myself listening to Sarah Palin’s speech to the Republican convention in the early hours of this morning. I’ll admit that she didn’t have my complete attention: I was trying to get back to sleep, and I hoped that listening to 5Live might help me.
What surprised me was the complete adulation by the crowd gathered to hear her. Sure, they were there because they are fans. But I have just heard one member of the audience tell BBC news how the speech felt like a normal conversation – how Ms Palin talked like someone in her town.
It must be an odd town to have one’s every phrase greeted by huge applause. Even things that clearly didn’t warrant it. She could have read the phone book and that audience would have applauded.
It was also a very partisan speech: perhaps she does know her audience. But it didn’t go down well with me. It made her sound a bit crazy, frankly.
So I wasn’t really surprised to read this post on Liberal Conspiracy and this one at Harry’s Place about Palin’s beliefs and allegiances: she appears to be of the fundamentalist “last days” camp. And she may one day have the power to bring about the last day.
Maybe time to start praying for Obama?
What surprised me was the complete adulation by the crowd gathered to hear her. Sure, they were there because they are fans. But I have just heard one member of the audience tell BBC news how the speech felt like a normal conversation – how Ms Palin talked like someone in her town.
It must be an odd town to have one’s every phrase greeted by huge applause. Even things that clearly didn’t warrant it. She could have read the phone book and that audience would have applauded.
It was also a very partisan speech: perhaps she does know her audience. But it didn’t go down well with me. It made her sound a bit crazy, frankly.
So I wasn’t really surprised to read this post on Liberal Conspiracy and this one at Harry’s Place about Palin’s beliefs and allegiances: she appears to be of the fundamentalist “last days” camp. And she may one day have the power to bring about the last day.
Maybe time to start praying for Obama?
Armageddon Days Are Here (Again)
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:37 pmBy chance, I found myself listening to Sarah Palin’s speech to the Republican convention in the early hours of this morning. I’ll admit that she didn’t have my complete attention: I was trying to get back to sleep, and I hoped that listening to 5Live might help me.
What surprised me was the complete adulation by the crowd gathered to hear her. Sure, they were there because they are fans. But I have just heard one member of the audience tell BBC news how the speech felt like a normal conversation – how Ms Palin talked like someone in her town.
It must be an odd town to have one’s every phrase greeted by huge applause. Even things that clearly didn’t warrant it. She could have read the phone book and that audience would have applauded.
It was also a very partisan speech: perhaps she does know her audience. But it didn’t go down well with me. It made her sound a bit crazy, frankly.
So I wasn’t really surprised to read this post on Liberal Conspiracy and this one at Harry’s Place about Palin’s beliefs and allegiances: she appears to be of the fundamentalist “last days” camp. And she may one day have the power to bring about the last day.
Maybe time to start praying for Obama?
What surprised me was the complete adulation by the crowd gathered to hear her. Sure, they were there because they are fans. But I have just heard one member of the audience tell BBC news how the speech felt like a normal conversation – how Ms Palin talked like someone in her town.
It must be an odd town to have one’s every phrase greeted by huge applause. Even things that clearly didn’t warrant it. She could have read the phone book and that audience would have applauded.
It was also a very partisan speech: perhaps she does know her audience. But it didn’t go down well with me. It made her sound a bit crazy, frankly.
So I wasn’t really surprised to read this post on Liberal Conspiracy and this one at Harry’s Place about Palin’s beliefs and allegiances: she appears to be of the fundamentalist “last days” camp. And she may one day have the power to bring about the last day.
Maybe time to start praying for Obama?