i like to tell stories

Audio by John | Corpulent Procyon Lotor

the first, at a major museum you have heard of showing a wonderful photographer you have certainly heard of. the show was dark and dramatically lit, which i liked. however if images are to be displayed in a dark or dramatic fashion, one or at least i, would think extra attention would be paid to how the images look in such an environment. this didn’t seem to be the case. cheap, highly reflective and warped plexi was used and i spent the show looking at the awful and warped reflections instead of the image in the frame itself. this wasn’t even the worst part. the plexi was so awful, that even viewing the images from across the room, what should of been a nice rich black in the photograph appeared purple. well done fancy major museum, i paid full price and you gave me half a show that if it weren’t for your piss poor display techniques, otherwise would of been great to see.

the second, which i promised myself i wouldn’t write about or mention to anyone, is now keeping me up as i just cannot believe what i saw and really couldn’t keep a secret if my whole life was on the line, i just cannot do it. (i really hope i am mistaken somehow for the record, but i think i am on target as i spent a lot of time and thought on this at the show).

it was a nice show, i would of been proud to have a show in the space if i was ever so fortunate and the crowd was happy and thick. i didn’t buy the book, but i was impressed at all the hard work and accomplishment of making it all happen, well done, truly. yet as i was waiting for friends, i peeked the book again. it just so happen there was an image right above the reception desk that was also in the book. i first looked at the reproduction in the book as it was done by a publisher you have certainly heard of and i wanted to see the quality since the print and book were only feet apart from each other. the reproduction was decent, but i could see differences. then it hit me, this is a different crop, no wait, the perspectives are a little different. no, it must just be a different crop. the image was relatively abstract so it was hard to see at first, so i kept studying it and looking at shapes around the edges. then it hit me again, the image is upside down. so i spun the large book around 180 degrees, yup, that’s it. either the image on the wall or the image in the book is upside down.

i couldn’t believe it. the perspective leads me to believe that not only is the image upside down in the book, it is a different crop as well. the different crop wouldn’t bother me in the slightest, but upside down, i just cannot find the words for, other then of course, wow, do i hope i am wrong. if i am wrong and if it still seems i could be so certain something is a miss, it’s still not a good thing. my only theory is that since its abstract, the only abstract in the project and not next to the print that often, the publisher/photographer didn’t even notice, liked it better upside down or couldn’t/wouldn’t reprint the book… or i am just wrong, but… um, ?

in the film, the prize of Field’s Medal was tossed around. i thought it was made up as i don’t tend to know science awards as well as i know other random information. i am of course quite wrong i discovered today in researching and fact checking a man i photographed a few years ago that got requested from my library today. i remember going to the ‘Institute for Advanced Study’ and thinking it almost all seemed made up, i mean really, are people this intelligent?

they are, well, this man is, mr witten. he won the fields medal in 1990, the first physicist to win the prize. i knew the gravity of the man when i photographed him, but still, glad i didn’t read too much before hand, sometimes it’s not good to know exactly how much smarter then you someone is. not at first.

i delete more feeds these days then i add, it should be the opposite. lately more and more feeds/sites are linking only what they found elsewhere and claiming it as their discovery or that they saw it first or they take credit for seeing it months ago when whatever it is hits more mainstream. nevermind that whatever is discussed is not their work or creation, it’s just something they saw online and relinked. i could never relate to this. there are fine lines to me about being a creative curator so to speak of good/smart/interesting work and just relinking what was found on another site many of the people reading your site also subscribe to. the noise out there was getting loud, repetitive or otherwise uninteresting.

what got me into flak is that it is exactly as it should be, a place where images/photographers are celebrated and shared without all the noise, condescending attitudes or one-upmanship so prevalent in sites that are about photography. while familiar with some of the work and unfamiliar with much more, it is all presented in a sensible pleasing way. a new image everyday is shared, links to books, shows, smart photographers, it’s all there in a way that is not only respectful of the work, it celebrates it in a way only the internet can share it. all done by a guy named andy in wisconsin who obviously loves photography as much as i do or anyone reading this does.

a couple months after i started reading flak, i got an email one day out of the blue. it was an invitation from andy to share something or make an ad for my stories vol. II. turns out he’d been watching my site as i had been watching his. the internet is as small as it is large so it turns out. i was impressed, flattered and got right on it. i made 8 banners and let him choose which he wanted, it’s up there now, go peek.

there is no still photography permit for this, you need a motion picture permit for your one light on a stand outside in NYC, your proof of $1,000,000.00 of insurance, a ‘key to city’ signed agreement and a form stating where you’d like to put this one stand with a light on it outside in NYC. all typed, all info in the correct box/space/form. one mistake, you must start over.

i need to put a light on a stand soon outside in NYC so i did it all, handed it in and was told to come back in 20 minutes. i gave them over an hour and went back. there was a problem, in all these pages of questions and filled out boxes, there was no space or question or line item where i was asked or instructed to inform them of my need for this one light outside on a stand in NYC, therefore, according to all this paperwork and trouble, i don’t need a permit. while filling out my motion picture permit forms for the second time i was surrounded by production professionals working for actual films and tv shows you all have heard of while i filled out the same papers they were for my one light on a stand outside in NYC.

i was then instructed that i was suppose to state my need for a light on a stand outside in NYC on the form where it asked me the address of the shoot. how i was suppose to know this is quite unclear.

also unclear, why the need for a permit at all, they are free. never mind all the other serious flaws in the entire process or why a camera on a tripod doesn’t need a permit but a light on a tripod outside in NYC requires $1,000,000.00 of insurance.

odd side note, the office is above david letterman’s studio and thank goodness, 2 blocks east and 1 block north of my home.

taking a picture outside on a street with one light on stand in NYC should not be this hard.