There wasn't as much "nordic design" as I had anticipated in Sweden. Perhaps it's just because Ikea is ubiquitous that I don't even recognize it any more when I see it, or maybe they're just past that whole thing, but I kind of wish there had been some more. It's like going to Disneyland only to find out that Mickey doesn't live there any more. Kind of a bummer.
In any case, I have some design shots online now. You can see them here, but these ones are my favorites.
[EDIT] Added the link... sorry!
6 comments:
Cool! What's the fourth one down?
Ahh... they were doing glass stuff... I like the heat and the spark coming off...
Ok, I hate to admit it because usually I'm so in love with your people shots, but these are a really, really great batch.
Faves: 8, 11, 13, 19 ("awesome" came out of my mouth) 20, 21
16: love the colors. It has a lot of potential - do you have any other angles that turned out ok?
17: What's with the belly button?! That sculptor looks like he's laughing sadistically: "Here lady, I'll make you a figure that's most women's nightmare - mwhahahaha..."
What a chump.
Hey, thanks - I appreciate that. I think my favorite is 21, the one with the buoys coming off the dock. I saw it one night when I was out walking with Richard and Dorothy, and hoping for a sunset that didn't materialize. But I was these and just loved the shape, like two absurd robotic arms trailing these giant red mittens. Add a nice long exposure (which is why we all take tripods when we go out walking, right?) to smooth out the water and it's just like I wanted.
For #16... yeah, I probably should have thought of that. So no, there aren't any other angles. I think, actually, that I took that when I was out walking with my friend Johan, and I just didn't want to make him wait. The guy loves art, though, and I'm sure he wouldn't have protested in the slightest. Oh well. Next time.
And 17... well, I think it's a pretty interesting sculpture. I don't know if anyone else does this with art, but I got an impression of it and then quit looking in case it turns out my impression was incorrect. I don't do that with everything... but art is about beauty, and mystery, and evocation, and challenge. And sometimes, if you want a super-size helping of one of those, you need to sacrifice a little on the others. In this case, I was willing to give up some aesthetic pleasure to be able to really fully throw myself into the "why" of it. Or, at the risk of sounding like a self-absorbed post-modern art snob, why for me?
I saw it as this kind of dumpy, messy man creating (or trying to create?) the ideal woman. Okay, she's fairly stylized, tending a little to pear-shaped, and, in Stockholm, facing rather heavy competition in the beauty department. But that's the direction he's going.
So what happens next? Is it Pygmalion, and she's so indebted to him for creating her that she falls deeply in love with him? Does she see how he looks, see how she looks, and walk off with an "I can do better than that"? Or is she part of him, a beauty that exists in him but that he has no means to convey to the world? Or is it about creativity itself, and the ability to birth something that is more beautiful than the one it came from?
Yes, that's what I think about when I'm on vacation. I should offer tours, only I'd probably be terrified of the people who would actually be interested in going...
I really love those buoys too. I wondered how you got that glass look on the water... see, one more vote for making things more beautiful because it redeems them and presents them in the best possible way.
As for #17, I'd vote for being more beautiful than the source of the creativity. But that's a rather pointless schtick in my opinion, because it doesn't parallel theology, doesn't give us a place to run with that line of thinking.
I think my interpretation was better.
He's a chump.
I try not to let pointless get in the way of interesting. But, yeah, maybe.
Post a Comment