Danielle & Hettie

These two images rank among my favorite vintage inspired pics. This is despite the fact that they both kind of violate my own rules for creating a time-honored looking photograph. My steadfast rule is that the details have to be dead on accurate to whatever period I’m trying to replicate, without any deviation. These don’t really make that cut. I doubt that I had a real plan for any particular time period for these. I was just winging it, which is unlike me. Baby doll dresses originated in the early 1940’s, although they had revivals in the early 70’s and late 90’s. She is wearing a baby doll dress, but the make-up is very 60’s. The hair is hard to pinpoint. The overall feel is hard to identify. It all makes for a slightly bizarre combo, but I guess it works. Maybe not? The other image has a 40’s Hollywood glamour to it, but she definitely looks like a cherub from a Raphael painting. Which is weird, because she’s a full-grown woman— not a young boy. The dress strap looks sort of contemporary. My point is that I still definitely like these images— even though they are failures by my usual parameters. Normally, I would reject them completely (either as I’m shooting, or later in editing). But somehow they work— at least for me.

Lady Lazurus

"Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose and imaginative vision against the play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of the ordinary."  ~Peter Lindbergh

J & K

Photography has been stuck being about subject-matter for a long time now. It seems that if it does not represent something then people tend to dismiss it. Painting, however, has not been purely about subject-matter for over a century; it is about paint, surface, color, illusion, many things— but more often not about being pictorial. Yes, this is a little bit of a blanket statement— and, of course, there have been attempts. But seriously, how much abstract photography have you seen versus representational? Even if you live under a rock, you’ve seen many nonrepresentational paintings and sculpture. This image is from a series that I’ve been working on for about ten years. I posted a couple of them here occasionally, but, honestly, I try not to. I think that they are quite original (at least I have not seen anything like them myself, but who knows?), so I’m afraid that it will be copied and imitated. So what do I do? I post my favorite one, of course. I have to say that this one would probably be pretty tough to imitate, as I don’t know if I could replicate it myself. It almost made me want to quit the series at this since I might spend years trying to top it with nothing better to show for. BTW, I think that it works in any orientation (I've actually hung four different versions in a gallery show before), so I'm posting a horizontal and a vertical version here.

Grace

Pin-up style took on quite a few different forms, even though it’s a formula that is actually very narrow and rather easily defined. My favorite style would be Irving Klaw photographing Bettie Page in bondage— which is fun but most definitely fetish & BDSM oriented. It's all pretty much tame compared to today's fare, though. I based this shoot, however, on the friendlier pulp girlie magazines that were published in the 40’s & 50’s and sold from under the counter. They were a bit more toned down compared to the Irving Klaw stuff...

Kacie Marie

To most people, vintage photos are often interesting simply because they're old. There's an other-worldliness to relics of past eras. It's exotic. It's like how a foreign accent makes someone more alluring and attractive. It’s that mystical feeling you get looking at an old castle or cathedral. It's not a part of your general everyday experience and therefore it's enchanting. Likewise, we tend to associate authenticity with the style of a bygone photo because they have stood the test of time. They describe a world past— and, as such, they have earned a sense of importance. In short, this probably sums up why I enjoy making my own images look like they are actually vintage. The key is that they have to definitely look genuinely classic in every way, down to every detail— otherwise, the illusion is broken...

Sienna Luna & Rhodanthe

One of my all-time favorite photography books (and biggest guilty pleasure) is Revenge by Ellen Von Unwerth. It's a little (6 x 8 inch) limited edition book, bound in black linen. I don't like to judge books by their cover- but just looking at this cover, you know that it's going to be a treat inside. I've actually had people see the book among others at my photo studio and say "Oh, what's that?!". While there is a general narrative arc (taken as "excerpts" from the diaries of the nubile young heroines), Von Unwerth primarily uses stylized black and white photography (think Helmut Newton meets Man Ray) to tell the story of how the Baroness disciplines her newly orphaned nieces. It is not a very original story, but Revenge is really not about the story. What little narrative there is, is executed with a tongue-in-cheek flair that sets the saucy tone of the book. And the eroticism in Revenge really does have flair. The models are gorgeous, the clothes (when there are clothes) are gorgeous, the set (a glorious mansion and its extensive grounds) is gorgeous— all in the style of the lovely pornography of early 20th century Europe. The sadomasochistic elements tend less towards real pain and suffering and more towards the discomforts of dominance and submission in a campy, Paris Vogue sort of way. You can't help but laugh, but you also can't put it down— it's just too damn fucking pretty. Though I find the pleasure of reading it to be more aesthetic than erotic, I certainly can't deny that it's definitely a pleasure all the same. Revenge is a sexy little volume, all the more so because it doesn't take it so too terribly seriously. If a book could wink, this one would ;)

Ajaye

A woman who likes her whisky. To the next whisky bar...