Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: New to me  (Read 979 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19563
New to me
« on: December 26, 2017, 03:07:59 PM »

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3373
Re: New to me
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2017, 02:58:38 PM »

I like. A bit of Helen Levitt in there IMO.

-Dave-
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19563
Re: New to me
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2017, 03:25:58 PM »

I like. A bit of Helen Levitt in there IMO.

-Dave-


Yes, it's difficult for people today to avoid such references. What has surprised me quite a bit is seeing rather a lot of cross pollination with people of the same era. I saw some pictures this morning by William Klein - fashion shots, of a girl getting out of a car with an OOF yellow cab or similar rushing past and forming the base of the picture... so very Leiter in its way. I guess that we may tend to imagine that the first time we see an image has to be its birth, its first publication, whereas who really knows the chronology?

Of course, that's not the case with the younger man in our link!

Rob

Riaan van Wyk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 783
Re: New to me
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2017, 07:55:01 AM »

Thanks Rob, another one to add to the list.

You must know of Ferdinando Scianna? I came across his work during the week while staring at black and white stuff of Maria Grazia Cucinotta and wondering who shot the pics.

https://pro.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?ERID=24KL53ZX4A&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&VP3=CMS3


RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11141
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: New to me
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2017, 08:14:09 AM »

Another guy with the eye.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19563
Re: New to me
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2017, 02:53:16 PM »

Riaan, Russ: yes, a lot of Italians at the end of WW2 found themselves taking steps into the brave new world both in stills as in film. There was freedom, politically (well, sort of), and not too much money around to corrupt aesthetically. Most importantly, from my way of looking at the thing, there was a burgeoning marketplace and cross pollination about to happen with both magazines and Italian movies, (a long-established practice in America), all of which gave work and a workplace with few Roman rules as to how it should be done. Creative minds flourished and everbody found some niche within which they could find themselves doing their thing. The photo book became possible even if folks might have had to look a bit further abroad for that pearl. Venice was subject of one such seminal production, shot by an Italian who couldn't find a publisher until financed from Switzerland, if I recall. But hey, Robert Frank and William Klein were not alone in finding the domestic US a tough market to crack, both getting books published abroad before the States would take a chance...

Rome was vastly important within the movie structure, with big foreign movies being made there, both because of talent and far lower labour costs. Hollywood stars were as at home on the Via Veneto as they would have been at Ciro's. A spate of inspiring directors took their turns at making movies like they had never been made before; the fashion industry, mainly up north, also put Italian creative talent most firmly on the world map. But, nothing stays the same, and the movie industry is today but a soft shadow, more memory than reality, with tv shows keeping bits of it alive. It's easy to blame Hollywood, but hey, people vote with their wallets.

Rob
Pages: [1]   Go Up