Published July, 2010
|
|
THE PHOTO ISSUE 2010
Cover photo by Roe Ethridge
|

 ny occasion where I get to use bad English makes me glad. “Still Lifes” should be wrong but it’s not. Wouldn’t “Still Lives” sound very Lifetime channel. And rather than rereading Susan Sontag or Roland Barthes who have written great books about photography I just want you to know that I know about those books, I own them and they are someplace. But I have definitely read a great many essays and articles about photography or some and I know a couple of things. Basically that photography started with pictures of naked bodies and pictures of dead bodies. Isn’t that interesting. I think film started with a sneeze so the apple doesn’t ever fall very far from the tree. I’m disappointed in general that no one offered Vice a photograph of puke on the sidewalk which for me would be a very fine still life. It was hard to resist offering my own photographs here. Tea balls with tiny bears hanging off their chainsdangling over the edge of an overdecorated cup. Actually not a bunch of such bears and cups but one. I have a photograph of exactly that. Face it, everyone’s crazy about their own stuff. I’m seated here in the mausoleum of Eileen and I am filled with love for things everywhere I look. Red sheets, the big painting, the funny little card of Shirley Temple smoking. A home is certainly a crappy little museum and when I look at these still lifes (the photographs here) I think about all the dead bodies these photographers have offered usI guess I’m thinking each picture is sort of a corpsebut sort of a tomb too.
Supposedly some of the first still lifes were painted or mosaics on the walls of tombs and those little pictures were intended to magically transport the object to the afterlife for the departed. I don’t know if they would be sent ahead or you know come after you got there but either way it would be pretty nice. Imagine sitting on a hill in wherever and along comes a bottle of wine and a gun, or a lute. Hopefully you set your own terms, otherwise people would probably make assumptions about your desires and perhaps the things you had only pretended to like in your life would now be your playthings for eternity. So I guess the moral is you should always be honest about what you like. Politicians of course deserve the shit they will be posing with forever. I mean if you are in a lying profession like politics or what else is a lying professionbanking, what else… oil executives… naturally you would probably prefer not to die at all. But that’s not an available choice on this screen. People like to place skulls in still lifes because of course a skull is supposed to keep you honest. What is a skinned animal supposed to mean. A dead fish. Everything was meaningful in early still lifes and all the meaningful things were dancing behind god because all the paintings were religious. So at first the pictures were a means of transporting shit and later the things were a warning.
Over and over it seems Christianity was a big mistake. Still is. Wouldn’t a man on a cross be a still life. What’s the message there? People seem to know. It’s time for the air conditioner to wind back on. Does yours have a mind of its own like mine does. It seems it’s cool in here so it stops. But it’s hot. Things are good for things. Nothing in my apartment seems to mind but me. Supposedly the still life came to the fore when religion and the state became replaced by the middle class. Do you know when that was. The world began to be run by people who just wanted a lot of shit. And would go anywhere to get it. The Dutch who invented our own dear New York and this is why it is this wayfull of people who want stuffthey were the stars of this moment, collecting shit from around the world and putting big piles of it on shelves, in boats, taking it somewhere else. And making paintings of it. And really this moment never ended. They would paint marketplaces, and the thing that’s funny is that if you were a painter and you weren’t being paid to paint someone rich you would just probably paint some stuff and sell it in the market and so the place where all this was happening of course got painted tooit’s dizzying. It’s all an early home movie, so much less stupid than the people I saw with camcorders at Yellowstone waiting patiently for a geyser to go off and then standing there patiently filming it.
What does it mean when someone takes a photograph of their own beloved pile of shit, or a remarkable thing in the world. See, I think the trick to capitalism and all that it entails, like the dog running round and round after itself, is that ultimately what you’re loving and owning becomes a form of worship. I love David Armstrong’s big naked man statue holding a little naked fella. That is some kind of god. That is David’s church. That a snowman is doomed, that a chewed pile of gum looks like a brain, that a gaping hole in an old tree is lopsided and looks like a talking tree in a fairy tale or a cunt, that the worst kind of fake diorama with tiny trees and doleful instructions or directions, that this pile of things was at one time someone’s ambition, now moved or left to rot in the right or wrong place and someone else saw it… it’s interesting that a picture of a person, usually a woman, is generally a thingdistorted, turned on her edge. And presidents quickly become cardboard figures or masks. Presidents like women can be things.
Actually I was thinking todaythis is completely unrelated but I’ll share itif the web was initially part of some weapon system for defending this country and the idea was that there couldn’t be a top to that system (like the Pentagon or the White House) because then it would become a target so this system, the web, was designed for information to travel on in all directions so that “our leadership” couldn’t be located exactly… so the presidency is evolving into a kind of reverse monarchy where we elect someone to “sit” in a position of power that is untrue because of course for example the corporations rule the world, not the government, so we have no way of knowing what BP is doing, and certainly the president doesn’t either so like a guy like George Bush or Ronald Reagan was perfect, whereas a guy like Barack Obama is flawed, antique because he thinks he’s someone and we want him to be someone but instead he’s in a spot where he’s just a pile of things like a copy of himself. The presidency is not a hard job. It’s not even a job.
The position of the artist will only get better when the possibility of saying anything true, of doing good for the world in a grand way, has been at last put away for good, and the small local efforts of private religionists, artists, will come to be known as the only thing left, that is, to continuously erect something new and place it in the position of the dead, like a little tiny altar or a shrine so maybe each of these still lifes is actually alive in the best possible way. Each one of them lives though nothing moves. I’m thinking the artist, here the photographer, moves toward it and arranges it. And it’s not that I’m so crazy about puke. It’s just what it means is so true. For so many people who come here, who come anywhere and run madly around, it tends to be their message to the world. It’s a kind of speech. It’s their sophisticated way to make something, to leave something here for everyone even if it’s only a pile of half-digested food and booze. It’s what they’ve got. At least they didn’t die.
BY EILEEN MYLES
CONTRIBUTORS
| Berenice Abbott, Nobuyoshi Araki, David Armstrong, Bamford, Ash & Trotter, Tim Barber, Patterson Beckwith, Harry Benson, Annika Berglund, Tanyth Berkeley, Colby Bird, Angela Boatwright, Melanie Bonajo, Moyra Davey, Jonnie Craig, Baron Adolph de Meyer, Dennis Duijnhouwer, Jeanne Dunning, Per Englund, Charlie Engman, JH Engström, Roe Ethridge, Martin Fengel, Naomi Fisher, Seth Fluker, Vito Fun, Nick Gazin, Stuart Griffiths, Jerry Hsu, Spike Jonze, Richard Kern, Sandy Kim, Carl Kleiner, Les Krims, Justine Kurland, Bruce LaBruce, Maggie Lee, Hanna Liden, David Lynch, Milos Mali, Jim Mangan, Robert Mapplethorpe, Ari Marcopoulos, Mirabelle Marden, Stacey Mark, Ryan McGinley, Sam McPheeters, Annabel Mehran, Marilyn Minter, Slava Mogutin, Sophie Mörner, Santiago Mostyn, Aliya Naumoff, Holger Niehaus, Keiichi Nitta, Jason Nocito, Patrick O'Dell, Jeanine Oleson, Felipe Oliveira, Catherine Opie, Paul Outerbridge Jr., Martin Parr, Anders Petersen, Walter Pfeiffer, Jack Pierson, Carly Rabalais, Ben Rayner, Shawn Records, Terry Richardson, Ringl+Pit, Ben Ritter, Luiza Sá, Lele Saveri, David Benjamin Sherry, Kishin Shinoyama, Sunny Shokrae, Stephen Shore, Sandy Skoglund, Socrates Socratous, Katarina Šoškić, Daliah Spiegel, Spyros Staveris, A.L. Steiner, Peter Sutherland, Jamie Lee Curtis Taete, Juergen Teller, Ed Templeton, Wolfgang Tillmans, Tomokaflex, Jaimie Warren, Margaret Watkins, Gavin Watson, Jon West, Edward Weston, Jess Williamson, iO Tillett Wright, Dale Yudelman, and Nick Zinner |
|
Click Here for a gallery of the entire issue.
 Anonymous, on Aug 17, 2010 wrote: Unintelligent criticism is tantamount that of a Daily Mail / Sun / Star jurno. |  | Anonymous, on Aug 17, 2010 wrote: So gay = ""If i take a photo of my knob will you put it in the next photo issue? or a watermelon? or a wedge of watermelon?.....no!? Why not?...Its a great idea, still lifes are cool....You’re sacked!"
Shit, you hear that Vice? Someone fired you in the comments.
OWCH!" |  | Anonymous, on Aug 16, 2010 wrote: I like it. Love still life so its perfect for me. Interesting, much better than guys with wayfarers sitting on the curb or some other hipster shit. |  | Anonymous, on Aug 15, 2010 wrote: For my first ever internet comment, I would like to recognize that the purposely offensive and often completely adolescent comments left on this site have gotten so out of control, that they have even turned on the magazine itself. I can’t help but wonder who these people are, whom tear everything down regardless. I think soon they’ll log in, bypass the contents of the magazine and its editors, and just shit on themselves. Oh look! I made a comment like theirs! Dude, he said shit on themselves! The generation I’m ashamed to be a part of. But yet, I am. |  | Anonymous, on Aug 13, 2010 wrote: You, my friend, are the fucking mistake. |  | Anonymous, on Aug 13, 2010 wrote: Last year we get a porn rag and this year we get artless snapshots of household items. Lame. |  | Anonymous, on Aug 10, 2010 wrote: "If i take a photo of my knob will you put it in the next photo issue? or a watermelon? or a wedge of watermelon?.....no!? Why not?...Its a great idea, still lifes are cool....You’re sacked!"
Shit, you hear that Vice? Someone fired you in the comments.
OWCH! |  | Anonymous, on Aug 10, 2010 wrote: hey where is my picture?! i took a Polaroid shot of my fecal matter in a toilet. you guys took it in like 8 months ago since this article has been up. i demand to see my artwork shown! |  | Anonymous, on Aug 10, 2010 wrote: Where the hell is my subscription issue? |  | Anonymous, on Aug 10, 2010 wrote: meh |  | Anonymous, on Aug 5, 2010 wrote: chill out cunto’s |  | Anonymous, on Aug 5, 2010 wrote: There are so many talented young photographers out there, and for vice to refuse to push the envelope, to repeatedly let young talents in - only to wash their contribution and spirit through vices watered out shit and piss so that it all comes out the same. Whats the point of involving so many different photographers when it all looks like it was taken by the same retarded hobby junky on a road trip. |  | Anonymous, on Jul 30, 2010 wrote: If i take a photo of my knob will you put it in the next photo issue? or a watermelon? or a wedge of watermelon?.....no!? Why not?...Its a great idea, still lifes are cool....You’re sacked! |  | Anonymous, on Jul 30, 2010 wrote: cover was nice, the rest was same old boring "ooh look at me im an artist i take photos of stuff". Feels good to know i dont have to hunt this issue down. I can just use my own camera to take pictures of my chairs and i will have my own Vice photo issue!! Awesome! |  | Anonymous, on Jul 29, 2010 wrote: all you bitches quit whining already. vice didn’t do anything wrong, the contributors didn’t do anything wrong. FUCKIN StiLL LIFE PhoTO IS WRONG |  | Anonymous, on Jul 26, 2010 wrote: yeah, yeah, yeah, ohhh art! ohhh the art! how NEW and CLEVER |  | Anonymous, on Jul 26, 2010 wrote: this shit is so boring |  | Anonymous, on Jul 26, 2010 wrote: Absolute pish! What a waste of paper. |  | Anonymous, on Jul 23, 2010 wrote: BFD Most of these pix look like they came from my fridge. *yawn* |  | Anonymous, on Jul 23, 2010 wrote: when are the subscribers copies being sent out? |  |
| |  | Anonymous, on Jul 22, 2010 wrote: where’s my subscription copy????? |  | Anonymous, on Jul 22, 2010 wrote: stupid cunts. shut the fuck up with your wah wah wah. bitches... |  | Anonymous, on Jul 21, 2010 wrote: what a bunch of sad idiots you are. i feel bad for you for not getting this essay and this issue. sad, sad, sad. |  | Anonymous, on Jul 21, 2010 wrote: You know how I know this photo issue is lame?
Not a single right-click-save-as. |  | Anonymous, on Jul 21, 2010 wrote: It’s fucking great...people need to chill! |  |
| enj, on Jul 21, 2010 wrote: interesting cover. it’s kinda gross but it’ summer. so timely haha |  | Anonymous, on Jul 21, 2010 wrote: There’s a certain discomfort to a lot of the images, but I think that’s why I like them so much. Good job Vice. |  | Anonymous, on Jul 20, 2010 wrote: took me a bit to get into, but i think that’s why i like it, im not used to vice photo issue being like this. |  |
| glitter pony, on Jul 20, 2010 wrote: Love the photo issue. Always look forward to it every year. |  | | Next 30 comments > |
 | |