Miranda July, author, director, actress, photographer, master of capturing pre and post pubescent awkwardness, and as a character who has risen to status somewhat similar to that of a cult icon…has done it again. Our friend Graham at Future Shipwreck has written a nicer summary of her project than I could ever…so here it is! “In the language of cinema, extras are designed to be forgotten. Miranda July’s recent series of photos (a collaboration with Roe Ethridge), in which she unthinkably excavates background players from historically popular films and poses herself in homage to these bygone human props, is a declaration of war on the finality of culture. She dares to reverse the mandate of natural selection.” I wonder though, how she chose the particular films and extras that she did. Were they just arbitrarily picked? Or did she think aesthetically about which movies and which scenes from those movies that the most interesting looking extras?
I know that Democrats are supposed to be hip and that most artists “Baracked the vote” but I was blown away when I stumbled onto the photography of Tipper Gore. Am I crazy or are these really great photographs? I could see these images in Time (maybe even National Geographic) magazine any day of the week. My hats off to Tipper. I’m truly impressed. More images after the jump.
I came across an article on Reuters the other day detailing the French government’s proposal of a law that would require all digitally modified images to come with a warning stamp/disclaimer stating: “Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person.” Valerie Boyer, French parliamentarian, alongside some 50 other politicians, proposed the law to fight what they see as a warped image of women’s bodies in the media & popular culture. Boyer stated, “These images can make people believe in a reality that often does not exist.” They believe that these “false realities” could lead to various kinds of psychological disorders, most prominently eating disorders within young women.
What’s interesting is that this law would apply not only to the glossy spreads of fashion mags, but all press photographs, political campaigns, images on packaging, advertising, even art photographs. More before/after digital photoshopping after the jump. I wonder in the Renaissance if people were upset that fair duchesses and dukes were painted with a smokey-sfumato to hide their big noses….at any rate, this holds some strange implications as far as how we view photography as some sort of implement of “truth”– seems to me gone are the days the photograph will be considered as any sort of factual record…
What do you guys think? Regulating altered realities good, or detrimental to creative expression….? (Also, is it me or is there something strangely visually satisfying about these photos…)