nice find with the glass pane figures, Joe.
The New York Times adapted an excerpt of sally mann's yet published memoir into an article,
Sally Mann's Exposure. the headline is embarrassing, but it was a worthwhile read. most striking was the alpha justification of her art. when it comes to feminism, i fully support a nice fuzzy ideal. radical talk of of one force having to give for another to rise is unpleasant, and so is sally mann's zealous talk of her "frail" husband and "naive" children accepting sacrifice to fulfill her vision. she recognizes that what is being sacrificed is not hers, but talks about the sacrifice as if she owns it with them. she expresses admiration for their willingness.
that's an article, not a piece of art. so i got one more from the New York Times for you all ...
sorry about the low quality copy; the New York Times no longer hosts theirs and this is the best remaining (online). they'll capitalize on controversial photography, but are huge wimps about it. they published an
oped absolving themselves from an accident made in some chance environment that is no more. the piece is choice pr. the writer won't call out the already published and appreciated photo. instead he embraces the incompatibility explanation as the content, not The New York Times, will be inappropriate by default.
paolo roversi is a dope photographer but applies his signature effects too heavy. the above is one of many great exceptions. over 2,500 notes since i posted it on my essentially unfollowed tumblr. i'm feeling the above photo because the appreciation is rescinded in observing its technical taboo, yet at first glance society can't help but find it beautiful.