“Best” Doesn’t Exist In The Arts

For The Record #3. 

Third- I don’t believe in qualitatively comparing Artist or works of Art. There is no such thing as “Best” in the Arts. Qualitatively comparing Artists or Artworks is pointless. Whatever criteria you use are subjective. In my view, awards and “halls of fame” are pointless. Turn those halls of fames into museums.

Stanley Kubrick, seen here in his 1946 Photograph with “showgirl” Rosemary Williams, at the entrance to the Museum of New York show of his Look Magazine Photographs  never won a “best director” oscar. Neither did Charlie Chaplin. Neither did Alfred Hitchcock. Neither did Orson Welles. Neither has every black, female, Hispanic, or Asian director, ever.

For every award “winner” there are countless others who can also be said to “deserve” to have “won.” I wish all awards would cease. For every “hall of fame” member there are countless others who could have been included. I think they should all be closed and museums opened in their place. All of this being said, I have no problem with those who win awards enjoying them. As contradictory as that may sound, acknowledgement of Artists in any form in this country, particularly, is very hard to come by. It’s not their “fault” they “won.” History shows that all of these awards have missed many others as deserving, and also shows that some of the most important Artists in their fields never won any award- until someone decided late in their career that they better try and “fix” their oversight. The hype and marketing surrounding awards and award winners is meant to make you feel theirs is the final word on the subject. There is NO such thing!

Experience the work for yourself and make up your own mind. See if it speaks to you, or not. At the end of the day, or of the year? That’s ALL that matters.

So, I’ve preferred to use the term “NoteWorthy,” to refer to Art, shows, and books that have lingered with me, have had the most impact, and which I think others should know about so they can make up their own minds about. I also use the term “favorite,” which does not mean “best,” to connote something I personally like, whether or not I think it’s “important” or “NoteWorthy.” We all have what I call “guilty pleasures”- like a song we know is going to be forgotten as soon as we can get it out of our heads!

Screencap from The Metropolitan Opera’s broadcast of Alban Berg’s Lulu, with production design by the great William Kentridge, in 2015.

If something doesn’t speak to you…? Well, if something doesn’t speak to me I try and keep an open mind about it and revisit it one day, sometimes years later. I try and not say “I don’t like it.” I just let it lie with me, continue to think about it, and revisit it later, even years later. At that time, it still may not speak to me, but sometimes it does. In some of those cases the work and the Artist became very important to me. Like Alban Berg and his opera Lulu, which on first hearing may sound completely chaotic. As I listened to more and more Music in more and more styles, my ears opened up. Now, I only hear Mozartean beauty in Lulu, which has become my favorite opera. At other times, I’ve wrestled with Art or Music I just didn’t get. This involved digging deeper into the background of the work and looking or listening harder. Yes, harder. So, I try and always keep an open mind. That being said, there are some things I admit I will NEVER like or appreciate. Hitler was a painter (small ”p” intended), remember? It’s too bad he wasn’t able to get into school, become an Artist, and make a good contribution to the world, instead.

Instead of awards, perhaps give an Artist a grant, a commission, or buy their work, if you want to help them.

*-Soundtrack for this Post is “Award Tour” by A Tribe Called Quest from their immortal Midnight Marauders, 1993.

For The Record is a series of pieces that are about key/core subjects & beliefs that underly everything else I’ve written here. The first two parts are here

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 6 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. If you’ve found it worthwhile, you can donate to keep it going & ad-free below. Thank you!

Written & photographed by Kenn Sava for nighthawknyc.com unless otherwise credited.
To send comments, thoughts, feedback or propositions click here.
Click the white box on the upper right for the archives or to search them.
For “short takes” and additional pictures, follow @nighthawk_nyc on Instagram.

Subscribe to be notified of new Posts below. Your information will be used for no other purpose.

 

Tomorrow Never Knows: A Q&A With Robert Dunn

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava (*unless otherwise credited)

Poor Tomorrow. It has no idea what Robert Dunn will bring to it. Given his versatility and endless inventiveness, all bets are off.

That’s the feeling I get from looking at his Photography. My Post, Robert Dunn’s Revolver, is an overview of the multi-dimensional Robert Dunn’s Photography and PhotoBook Publishing. In preparing it, Robert was kind enough to, somehow, find some time in his busy life to answer some questions for me, thereby giving readers a chance to hear directly from this talented man, who generally “speaks” only through his work, unless you’re among the lucky few who take his classes at The New School on Writing, or “Writing the Photobook.” So, without further adieu, before tomorrow gets here, Robert Dunn-

Robert Dunn on Broadway on the Upper West Side, surveys the scene, camera at the ready, February, 2019.

Kenn Sava (KS)- Bob, You’ve had successful careers as a Musician, Writer and a Teacher. Why did you turn to Photography? Was there a moment, event or influence that triggered its beginning?

Robert Dunn (RD)- Kenn, first off, thanks for letting me talk about my work for your impressive site.

Here’s my artistic, well, arc, I guess. When I was 13, I first heard Bob Dylan, immediately wanted to be him, learned guitar, wrote pretty good songs, and quickly found out I couldn’t sing at all. Turned out my strengths then were with the lyrics, so I got into literature, immediately wanted to be James Joyce, and wrote fiction and some poetry. (Surprisingly, my first publication was a poem in The New Yorker.) For the last few decades all I’ve written are novels.

Back in the ’80s, though, I got really interested in photography—especially color photography, inspired by William Eggleston. I pursued it pretty seriously, up to the point at which to make a good-sized high-end print, I’d either do that or pay the rent in my East Village apartment. So photography fell by the wayside. (One good thing about writing, all you needed to buy then was paper; today, not even that.)

I did purchase a few photobooks back then, and when I got back into studying and collecting photobooks, I was pleased to see the books I’d bought and cherished were Frank’s “Americans,” Eggleston’s “Guide,” Susan Meiselas’s  “Nicaragua,” and Bill Burke’s “I Want to Take Picture.”

But for what I do now, my interest was specifically renewed by a review of the then-new Fuji X100 camera I read in the Times. I immediately said to myself, I used to love taking pictures, and this camera sounds perfect. So after a little this and that, I was able to get one. (They were like new iPhones at first, sold out everywhere.) I went out that weekend to try it out and startled myself with what I was shooting.

Basically, the camera seemed to have a kind of mind of its own, and was taking pictures that captured light and color in a way I could hardly believe—and that I loved.

Coincidentally, I use the Fuji X100F, too, so I was particularly interested in how Mr. Dunn uses his. I’m not sure I was expecting to see this, however.

 So, yes, that’s where it all really started, with that first Fuji camera.    

KS- What’s the connection between your Novels and your Photography, or are they both just outlets for different sides of your creativity?

RD- A very intriguing question. I like to think that if I’m good at photography, it’s because years of writing fiction has taught me a few basic things, perhaps most important how to see as much as possible. I remember a lunch many, many years ago with a Knopf editor, Alice Quinn, who was a mentor back then. (She later was The New Yorker poetry editor.) I told her that day, “I think I’m finally learning how to see not just a person’s front, but behind them, too. See all the way around them.” I think I also meant much deeper inside a character, but in essence my idea was that I was expanding my range and depth of simple sight.

 And that’s what my photography is. Walking around taking in as much of what’s going on as I can, and trying my best to capture what’s most interesting about what’s there. If in the shots I take of people, I can see—and capture—some essence of their personality, their soul, then I think I’ve made a pretty good picture.

Purloined Souls, by Robert Dunn.

Oh, and one unexpected connection between my fiction writing and my first photobook, OWS—pictures I shot at Occupy Wall Street, back in 2011. I initially went down there to donate a few copies of my hippie-chick novel, Look at Flower, to their free library. The thing is, I went to college at UC Berkeley back in the early ’70s, and the air, the ambience, in Zuccotti Park immediately hit me with whiffs of those riotous years at Cal—a vibe I truly hadn’t experienced since. I got jazzed, and started shooting photos, then going back every week. There were a lot of photographers down there, but I made sure I didn’t shoot in any of the directions they were all shooting; I found my own details, moments, etc. OWS came out in 2012, and went into a second printing quickly. And a photo from it was in an ICP show.

KS- Is there something you particularly love about being a Photographer?

RD- Yes, and it ties in with my answer to the last question. I love almost everything about my photographic work, but at bottom I think I’m most psyched about the place my head goes into when I’m out with my camera on the streets, trying to take in everything around me, every telling gesture, every detail, incongruence, hint of something more than just what appears to be there. It’s a little like my fiction writing, when I get so lost in writing that time has no presence, and the story is all I know.

My photo taking, though, is an especially Zen sort of thing, where I’m out walking around totally in the moment, perceiving the whole world moving around me, always looking for a good shot. All the time I’m telling myself, Hmmnn, is that interesting? Nope. How about that? Nope. Is that worth shooting? Nope. Nope. No … oh, wait, that might be worth a click of the shutter.

All this happens in nanoseconds. Being in the world, yet not of it—trying to capture what most interests me in my camera. Losing myself to that, but also being fully there at the same time.

Robert Dunn is ALWAYS aware of his surroundings and the potential for images in the moment. During the no more than 2 minutes we stood outside Academy Records, he was looking everywhere at once, camera in hand. February, 2019.

KS- You seem to be a model of a D.I.Y. Artist, from creating the work to releasing your Photobooks and overseeing their sales through Coral Press. What’s been the hardest part of that for you?

RD- I love making photobooks; indeed, I have books that almost nobody has seen, just because I have an idea, fulfill it, and turn it into a book. Far and away the hardest part of this for me is getting books out there. Into stores, into people’s hands. Every day, I’m happy—no, I need—to take pictures. Not every day do I feel like walking into some place and trying to get them to sell my work.

 That said, things have worked out pretty well. My self-made books are in numerous museum libraries, including MoMA, ICP, the Brooklyn Museum, and the Tokyo Photographic Museum. They’ve been for sale at PS1 MoMA, Dashwood, the Strand, and the ICP bookstore, among other places (Note- See BookMarks at the end for a list of some).

 Funny story about ICP, and selling your own books in general. I took one of my early Angel Parade series there, and the woman in charge said she’d love to take copies, then said that she thought they should be priced at $18. I said, “You take fifty percent of each sale, right?” She nodded. Then I said, “O.K., each book costs me $12 to print, so if you sell one, I’ll get nine dollars from you. That way, hmnnn, I’m only paying people three dollars to own my books.” She shrugged, and I immediately said, “Good deal—hope you sell a lot!” Hey, it was the International Center of Photography. I meant it.

KS- Along the way, did anyone teach you any of this (Photography, digital technology, printing & publishing), or are you entirely self-taught?

RD- Well, nobody taught me anything, as in my taking a class to learn the stuff you ask about. I have been taking over and over, and really enjoying, a Master Printing course at ICP with Ben Gest; but even for that, when the requirement was great facility with Photoshop, I basically didn’t have very much, so I faked it till I got it.

But I never took a How to Photograph–type course. I wanted to learn by doing it myself, studying photographers who move me, and trusting my own intuitive artistic understanding more than anything anyone could tell me.

Same with writing. I never studied writing, though I was a Lit major in college. But I also was fortunate enough to be around some impressive writers back when I was getting going. My first-ever real job was at The New Yorker magazine. While I worked there, I was one of the redoubtable film critic Pauline Kael’s assistants, and for the final three years of the great novelist Bernard Malamud’s life, I was his paid assistant. Indeed, after he passed I was given his desk, and to this day I do all my work at it.

It Talks, It Whispers by Robert Dunn, one of my personal favorites of the books I’ve seen of his yet so far, is in ANOTHER style than those I showed in Revolver.

KS-  How did being a published Novelist help you with your PhotoBooks?

RD- Gave me experience on how books are put together, printed, and distributed. Pretty much the whole thing.

 KS- Your Photobooks (at least the ones I’ve seen) are all in the same size, style and format, which makes them different from those of most others I’ve seen. Why did you choose to make them this way?

RD- I have made books in other sizes. My Angel Parade series (now up to volume 16; I’m planning to get at least to 20) is in a more vertical format, and distinguished in the way that there are two volumes in each book. I was inspired by paperbacks of the 1950s that would put two novels in the same book, with two covers, one upside down on one side. That’s what I do with Angel Parade: volume 1 and volume 2 in the same book, just have to flip it over to read the other one. I liked that because it accentuated the idea of each work being separate, yet together. Each volume tells its own little non-linear or non-literal story.

But the more recent books you mention are the same because I use an online printer to put them out. All I have to do is upload a pdf and the books are mailed quickly back to me. And they look pretty good. As an eminent photobook scholar friend of mine says, “Your books now are kind of like Daido’s Record series—books done quickly, almost like journal entries, to capture what you’re up to and get them out there.”

There’s truth to that, though I also think of each book I do as a standalone work, with its own theme, story, reason for being. I do like the size and format of the books of mine you reference, but I also aspire to do larger, more intricate ones—books that more substantial, less zine-like; perhaps even more an art object than just a “story” in photos. To that end, I’d love to collaborate with somebody with strong bookmaking experience and talent.

Electrick Spirits by Robert Dunn.

KS- I’ve heard from a number of Artists who are interested in learning how to make a Photobook of their work, and then how to distribute them. Do you have any advice for them? 

RD- Well, first off, you can simply do it. That’s key, not to wait around for anyone or anything to tell you how/what to do. Just make a book. Take the pictures, figure out how to lay it out, find somebody to print it, online or at a press … and there it is. You can even make something yourself with a laser printer or Xerox machine and staples. A young friend of mine, Jason Jaworski, is kind of the master of make your own book at home. He prints pages off a regular printer, folds them, makes a cover out of something lying around and cheap, and puts them out. Indeed, our books used to sit next to each other at the ICP Bookstore. I just looked at one. He was selling it for $10, which meant he was probably paying himself $2 an hour, if that.

But he made books, and they got noticed.

In essence, that’s what each of the students in my New School “Writing the Photobook” class do. They simply make their own book.

KS- You’ve used the Fuji X100F exclusively almost since it was released, right? 

RD- Actually, my first serious digital camera was the Fuji X100—no “F.” That was their first X100 model, the one I mentioned above. I used it for years, eschewing further iterations of the camera, until I read a piece on the X100F that said that model was finally the perfection of what the X100 started. So I decided to upgrade.

 But what I love about both X100s I own is foremost that the camera lets you see what the actual photo will look like through the viewfinder. There’s a little switch on the front that flips you from looking through glass in the viewfinder to actually seeing in it what the lens sees.

West 18th Street, NYC, February, 2019.

The latter is all-important in my photography. Easily seeing what the lens sees allows me to see the photo itself, with all its blur, contrast, magic intact. So I use that a lot.

I also like that the camera is pretty small and with a fixed focus. I believe in the maxim that if you want to zoom up on something, just get closer. As you can see from many of my photos, I often get very close.

Further, I like it that I can just throw the camera around, grab shots from my hip, or wherever, without having to look through the viewfinder at all. I do that a lot.

From Demons and Dogs, shortly after Robert got his X100 in 2012.

I’m all about seeing as much as I can on the street, then working to capture it quickly, with full mystery and expressiveness. I’m also about making photobooks in the spirit of: Take lots of photos, all kinds as long as they’re interesting, then sort them out into books later. That’s the novelist in me, I guess. As in the title of my New School class, I want to “write” my photobooks, though personally I never put words into books other than maybe a short preface. By “writing,” I mean giving each book a shape, a logic, a theme, a purpose. That’s what I find in the books I most admire.

KS- To this point, I know that you admire the work of Robert Frank and Daido Moriyama in particular, two Artists who are, it seems, equally celebrated for their Photography and their Photobooks. What is it about each that particularly speaks to you?

RD- My favorite Robert Frank story is told by Garry Winogrand in a Youtube video I watched of Winogrand being interviewed.

*Garry Winogrand, St.Francis Monument on Sunset Boulevard,1955

He talks about the shot in The Americans of the statue of St. Francis at the foot of Sunset Boulevard in L.A. Winogrand says, “There’s a picture in the Frank book of a statue…. (In 1955, before The Americans came out) I shot that goddamned statue. I made a reasonably good picture of it.

*Robert Frank, St. Francis, Gas Station and City Hall, Los Angeles, 1956

And I saw the Frank book, and it killed it. Put me away six ways, you know…. The picture I made was made. And the picture he made happened. It went whoosh right across the page…. It taught me a hell of a lot. Right off the bat, boom.”

Well, that’s one reason why I like Robert Frank so much: his photos still put me away six ways; they go whoosh across the page; and they teach me a hell of a lot. For some reason, Jimi Hendrix and his “Star-Spangled Banner” is popping into my head, as in, Wait, that’s not how we ever sang it before. That’s a great thing about any art form: one person can blow everything wide open, put us all away six ways … at least six ways.

As for Daido Moriyama, I can still remember the exact moment I found him. I was at the old ICP bookstore, and the clerk, Sarah, becoming a friend and guide, asked me if I knew Daido’s work. I said no, she showed me books of his on the shelves, and I immediately bought one—and kept buying them, till now I have first editions of much of his work.

Robert Dunn, From New York Street.

What do I like with Daido? Besides some very strong photos, it’s mostly the freedom to do anything with a photo: have it blurry, scratched, out of focus … everything you’re not supposed to do. Also, that he’s always out on the street prowling for photos, grabbing them everywhere. I have a few photos I’m proud of that are for me just: Look what a strong photo that would make, and, look, I just caught it. One in particular of mine is a photo of a guy in the middle of 125th Street I shot a few years back, in my New York Street book. For some reason he has a long yellow rain slicker over his head and flying back from it, so you can’t see his face. He also has his hands raised high into the air, and in one is a religious tract.

Again, the guy was in the middle of the street. Flash, I saw him, and somehow got my camera around to snap the photo. I like to think my picture, too, wasn’t made. It just happened.

That’s the thing with a lot of Daido’s work, particularly the famous shot of a girl in an alley at night, barefoot in a slip. You know, when you look at any photographer’s work, whoever took the picture was right there. That’s the only way it works. Somebody has a camera, they snap the shutter, they make a picture of what the camera sees. That’s really all it ever is. So it all depends so much on who’s doing the shooting.

*Daido Moriyama, Untitled (Woman in white dress running), 1971

So I imagine Daido seeing the girl, flipping up his camera, and probably (as I would) feeling some pride in having gotten the shot, even though the angle is crooked and the light screwy. Indeed, that’s the lesson of Moriyama: angles, light, focus … it all means nothing unless you’ve snatched a truly interesting photo from the endless stream.

I also like this particular Daido shot because it engenders a huge story: who’s the girl, how did she get there, why is she barefoot in an alley in a slip, where is she going? Same with my guy in the middle of 125th Street. What he hell is he up to? 

KS- Since NHNYC was originally a Painting site, I always ask this: Are there any Painters who’ve influenced you or your Photography, or that particularly speak to you? 

RD- I’m especially interested in the play of color in my photos. Also, flows of energy. And deep mystery and spiritual invocation. So off the top of my head, to those ends I’ve learned things from Vermeer, Rothko, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, El Greco—I’m sure there are many more.

KS- Top 5 favorite albums (if you have favorites)? Or, top 5 albums that have influenced you the most?

RD- Record albums, that is, not my grandmother’s mottled leather photo collections? (Smile.)

Robert checking out the CD’s at Academy Records, February, 2019

KS- Touche. Yes, Lps, since you have such a carefully curated collection of vinyl.

RD- I’ve been inspired at the deepest level by certain musicians; and in my own deepest understanding of what I’m up to photographically, certain records center me and guide me, though I wouldn’t want to try to articulate just how.

Outside of Academy Records, a PhotoBook of Bob Dylan caught his eye We’ll have to wait until “tomorrow” to see what he made of it.

Top Five of those? Dylan’s Blonde on Blonde and Highway 61 Revisited. The Beatles’ Revolver. John Coltrane’s My Favorite Things. Miles Davis’s Bitches Brew. That’s five, right? Oh, and how about a couple classical LPs: Janos Starker’s Complete Bach Cello Suites, and Glenn Gould’s Bach Goldberg Variations, the 1955 recording.

Again, not necessarily my alltime favorites, but definitely the ones that made me take certain turns with my photography, and that center my work all over again every time I listen to them. It’s all about color, complexity, soul, poetry, and transcendence—in whatever form they take.

Robert waits to see what tonite brings, getting the jump on tomorrow.

—-End—

Postscript- A few days later, Bob wrote to tell me he’d seen my Stanley Kubrick A Photographer’s Odyssey Post. “Make sure I tell you how my old East Village apartment ended up as a set in one of his movies – for real!,” he said.

Hmmmm…Not able to resist that bait (or anything Kubrick), I immediately asked, “Was that your former apartment in Eyes Wide Shut? Actually, there were at least 2 in that one, but I thought he recreated NYC in London for that. Maybe it’s another Film…?”

He cleared up the mystery- “Good guess – it was Eyes Wide Shut – the East Village prostitute Cruise has the fling with. Long story, but short version is that I was getting thrown out after not actually living there for years. Guy who was there at the time had a photographer pal doing a series of shots of LES apartments, and she had the Kubrick connection. Kubrick flipped over shots of my place, and since I was being cut off the lease, and the landlord was going to gut the place after I was gone, we all met and cut a deal. The Kubrick woman paid a hundred bucks for all the built-in stuff – sink, stove, bathtub – and I got a hundred for my furniture. Then it was all shipped to Shepperton in London – and the film was (finally) finished. So when I see the movie, it’s my sink, my stove, my tub, everything… but the underwear hanging from the ceiling.”

Unfortunately, we’ll never know what Stanley Kubrick would think of Robert Dunn’s Photography. But, at least we know he could spot a fellow classic New Yorker from his furniture.

*- Soundtrack for this Post is “Spanish Key,” by Miles Davis from the legendary landmark album Bitches Brew, 1970. It’s one of my favorites, too, Bob. My recommended “Miles Davis Shortlist” is here.


BookMarks-

New York Street, a personal favorite, by Robert Dunn.

Robert Dunn’s PhotoBooks are available as follows-

-By mail order, or in store, at Dashwood Books.

-By mail order, or in store, at Printed Matter.

or

Directly by mail order from Coral Press.

If you have any questions about obtaining them, feel free to write to Coral Press directly, or contact me and I will forward them for you.

My thanks to Robert Dunn.

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 6 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. If you’ve found it worthwhile, you can donate to keep it going & ad-free below. Thank you!

Written & photographed by Kenn Sava for nighthawknyc.com unless otherwise credited.
To send comments, thoughts, feedback or propositions click here.
Click the white box on the upper right for the archives or to search them.
For “short takes” and additional pictures, follow @nighthawk_nyc on Instagram.

Subscribe to be notified of new Posts below. Your information will be used for no other purpose.

 

Stanley Kubrick: A Photographer’s Odyssey

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava (*unless otherwise credited)

At first, I was surprised to hear that Through a Different Lens: Stanley Kubrick Photographs  was at the Museum of the City of New York, a first rate institution, though one that doesn’t often show up on my schedule of Art or Photography shows. Yes, Stanley Kubrick was born and raised in the Bronx, so as one of  NYC’s great native sons, it makes historical sense. It turns out it made perfect sense artistically as well. The MCNY is home of part of the Look Magazine Archives. Stanley Kubrick sold Photographs to, and later became a staff Photographer for, the popular Look Magazine from April, 1945 until August, 1950.

“Open the Pod Bay Doors, Stanley.” Click any Photo for full size.

The majority of Look Magazine’s Photo Archives (5,000,000 Photographs) were donated to the Library of Congress. However, those relating to NYC were donated to the Museum of the City of New York. These include approximately 12,000 contact prints, and negatives Stanley Kubrick created for Look over 129 NYC assignments1, the vast majority of them have never been published.

The eyes of a genius. The show’s entrance features this haunting Photograph by Stanley Kubrick in which he shoots himself and the “Showgirl” Rosemary Williams reflected in her large tabletop mirror. The Photo, Stanley Kubrick taking a picture of Rosemary Williams applying lipstick, which is cropped on the sign, is from the unpublished story, “Rosemary Williams- Showgirl,” March, 1949.

Also from the same story, Rosemary Williams Applies Lipstick, March, 1949, a companion piece to the shot above. Stanley was 19 when he took these. I’ve seen the look he has on his face in these two shots in other pictures of Stanley Kubrick, and each time its caption includes the descriptive “intense concentration.” For a number of reasons, this may be the most remarkable Photograph I’ve seen thus far in this body of his work. I picture him having that look as he took every shot in this show.

Stanley Kubrick remains a magnificent mystery to me, akin to the monolith in his classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. His films (all 13 of them) are high on my list of favorites. I can think of no other Director I revere as highly as Stanley Kubrick, other than Charlie Chaplin2. Yet, it’s still not all that well known that before he became a Director, Stanley Kubrick was a professional Photographer. Remarkably, he was 17 years old when he sold his first Photograph to Look Magazine, then one of the most popular magazines in the country, in 1945. Hmmm…who was the last Photographer I wrote about who achieved recognition that mature Photographers yearn for their whole lives at 17? Stephen Shore was 17 when he sold his first Photo to MoMA.

New to this body of his work, I went to see the 130 of his Photographs (though there was no indication, these appeared to be exclusively recent digital prints, not silver gelatin prints) on view in the show to get a sense of SK- the Photographer, but primarily, I went specifically looking for evidence of the later, mature genius Film Director. I found it. It just wasn’t how I was expecting to find it. I’ve seen a number of comments online from people who find these shots “banal,” and terms connoting similar degrees of a tepid response. Perhaps, like some of them, I was hoping to see shots full of brilliant moments filled with that unique mystery and awe every moment of his Films hold, at least for me. Then again, I should have realized that very little about Stanley Kubrick lies where you’d expect to find it.

“Observation is a dying art.” Stanley Kubrick, Stanley Kubrick: Interviews.

Stanley Kubrick’s Graflex Pacemaker Speed Graphic camera as seen in the Stanley Kubrick show at LACMA in 2013 still looks to be in decent condition after seeing heavy use at least between the years 1941-50. *Photo by Seth Anderson

The story begins when Jack Kubrick, a physician and passionate amateur Photographer, gave his son a professional Graflex Pacemaker Speed Graphic camera for his 13th birthday on July 26th, 1941. Stanley’s friend, Marvin Traub, had a darkroom in his house, so after their sojourns around town taking Photos, the two would develop their film there. On or about April 13, 1945, the day after Franklin D. Roosevelt died, Stanley came across this scene at 170th Street & the Grand Concourse, in the Bronx3

17 year old Stanley Kubrick’s FDR Dead, 1945, was the first Photograph he sold to Look Magazine.

Well, sort of. At first he said this shot resulted from “lucky happenstance.” But, he later admitted he “coaxed4” the news seller, surrounded by newspapers declaring President Franklin D. Roosevelt had died, into this pose.

Wait. What?

He went home and developed the film in the darkroom that he had by then installed in his own house and took it into Manhattan to the offices of Look Magazine. There, Helen O’Brian, chief of the Photography Department, saw it and paid him 25 dollars for it.

It ran in the spread above in Look’s June 26, 1945 issue, the last of 36 Photos, and the only enlarged image in the group. Stanley Kubrick was still a High School student at William Howard Taft High School in the Bronx. Think about this- In June, 1945, Stanley Kubrick had not even had his Graflex for 4 years. But, there’s more to it. That he “urged the salesman to look more depressed than he was for dramatic effect5” is “directing”- he’s eliciting a performance for a scene.

Therefore, this is the first instance we have of Stanley Kubrick putting his “directing” skill into practice.

It, also, serves to put the viewer on notice that from here on out his Photographs may not be entirely as they seem. As my research continued (and continues), I found more and more Photographs that curators and researchers say were posed or staged. Not all of them, but a good number. For me, this first revelation turned out to be only one way in which Stanley Kubrick, the Director & Filmmaker, begins to manifest his presence in the work of his younger self. As for that younger self, while he was too old at 17 to be a “child prodigy,” when you take his ability, his eye, and his gift for whatever the composition needed into account, from his work at 17, I think he qualifies as a “prodigy.”

The mothership. The Look Magazine Building, 488 Madison Avenue, around the corner from MoMA, was built in 1948-50, during the last half of Stanley Kurbrick’s employment there. It’s now a landmark building. Seen on February 2, 2019.

“One thing that helped me get over being a school misfit was I became interested in photography at about 12 or 13.” Stanley Kubrick6.

From “How A Monkey Looks to People…How People Look to a Monkey,” Published in Look, August 20, 1946. SK was a $50. a week Apprentice Photographer when he took this classic Photo at 18 years of age.

He sold Photos to Look from time to time until he graduated in January, 1946. Thanks to his frequent truancy cutting class to go see movies at the Loew’s Paradise Theatre near his home (hmmmm….), his 67 grade average was too low to compete for a place in college against the returning G.I.’s7, when a 75 was the floor to even be considered. So, Helen O’Brian hired him for Look as an Apprentice Photographer for $50. a week. He became a full Staff Photographer in October, 1946. Stanley Kubrick grew up fast. Look became his college. “By the time I was 21, I had four years of seeing how things worked in the world. I think if I had gone to college I would never have become a Director8.” It was a unique “college” in that it offered posterity a chance to study the development of the “student” over the 5 years he was there.

“Writing, of course, is writing, acting comes from the theater, and cinematography comes from photography.” Stanley Kubrick9.

Unpublished contact strips depicting people conversing the street, probably shot with a telephoto lens. There’s an undeniable “cinematic” feel to these series, a number of other such sequences were included in the show.

On his way to becoming a great Director, Stanley Kubrick was an accomplished professional Photographer first, skills that never left him, and that he would use constantly in his Films. The component skills he developed being a Photographer (who was already technically proficient)- composition, lighting, setting a scene, working with subjects, would prove invaluable to him. As would observation – that “dying art.” In addition, a number of the assignments he was sent on became experiences that he also used to learn about what would be his later profession.

One of those “other” skills is storytelling. Even besides the strips just shown, there is a strong sense of it throughout the quite sympathetic body of work seen here. Where did it come from? Whatever its origin, it’a already on full display, here, at 19. His unique way of telling a story is certainly a hallmark of his Films. Here are some of the 250 Photos he shot for an unpublished assignment called “Shoeshine Boy,” handed in on October 6, 1947, one of the most fascinating stories I’ve seen, in which he followed the title boy, Mickey, to his job, to school, doing errands, hanging out with his friends and family, and tending his pigeon coop. Mickey was only 7 years younger than Stanley Kubrick at the time.

Stanley’s Photographs are technically accomplished from the first one to the last. Surprisingly so for the viewer new to this work, given his youth and the fact that he was self-taught. His Photographs turn out to be up to any technical challenge thrown his way- day, night, portraits, action, off the cuff, groups- what I’ve seen thus far of his 135 assignments run the full gamut. It doesn’t matter the situation, the environment, the lighting or time of day. Is he the “master” magazine Photographer? No. He’s not. There are times when any one of the innumerable technical elements inherent in Photography seems to let him down, but by and large I came away exceedingly impressed with his technical ability. Stephen Spielberg said that one thing that bonded Stanley Kubrick’s Films together was “the incredible virtuoso that he was with craft10.” I get that sense from looking at his Photography. Unlike Weegee (who ALWAYS seems to get his shot, and 95% of the time does so using flash), Stanley doesn’t shoot one way. He adapts to the situation and what he’s trying to express, which is gutsy for a young Photographer trying to secure his place on a staff of a magazine such as Look, which included some established names, like Arthur Rothstein and John Vachon. The deeper you look into this work, the more there is to say about it. Though only touched on in the books and articles I’ve seen, in my opinion, every single aspect of this work needs to be studied in depth-

From “Rosemary Williams-Showgirl,” unpublished from March, 1949, Rosemary Williams and a man at a candle-lit table, 1949. An early candle-lit Stanley Kubrick Photograph that just might seem to presage the extraordinary lighting & camerawork in his now classic Barry Lyndon, 1975, where, by then, he would master the exposure.

-His technique- Where was it in April, 1945, and how it changes and how it evolved over his Look career. This includes his compositional choices, positioning (love of low angles and overheads), lighting (natural light versus flash), and how all of these may have appeared in his Films.

Stanley Kubrick shot surreptitiously in the Subwary for a piece titled “Life and Love on the New York Subway,” March 4, 1947, using a cable release that ran down his sleeve. He had no way of knowing that Walker Evans had, also, shot secretly in the subway in 1941 because Walker did not publish his series until the book, Many Are Called, was published in 1966, out of fear of lawsuits from his subjects because he did not have releases from them.

-The assignments-  Both published and unpublished. Between the Library of Congress’ and the MCNY’s websites about half of his Photographs appear to be online, as far as I can tell. The complete body of SK’s Photographs needs to be made available. Only then can a proper assessment of his achievement and what it portends for his future work be made.

An unprecedented Photo. Rocky Graziano in an unpublished outtake from the story “Rocky Graziano: He’s a Good Boy Now,” which ran on Valentine’s Day, 1950. It says a lot that Rock Graziano, who was coming back from a scandal, would allow this shot to be taken. Boxing was a subject Stanley Kubrick shot on a number of occasions for Look, and the depth at which he studied this subject, like this and the shot of Willie Beltram, below, paid dividends in the heightened realism he achieved in a few of his later Films.

-The assignments that tie directly into his later Films. These include a number of boxing stories, the Aqueduct Race Track story, the stories involving TV Productions, actors and actresses (ranging from Montgomery Clift, Zero Mostel, and Frank Sinatra, to the unknown Rosemary Williams), and his Naked City shoot.

Stanley Kubrick posed this shot from the “Subway” series in 1947. How do we know this? That’s his future wife, Toba Metz (who he married in May, 1948) on the left, who appears in other shots in the series. More on this shot in BookMarks, at the end.

-Which shots did he pose? (As far as is known).

Why is all of this necessary? While there have been shows like this fine show and others in Europe, they, and the books just scratch the surface. They only reveal part of the story, only presenting a limited glimpse of the whole body of work, due to its size, which Professor Rainer Crone says is 12,000 Photographs. The books that have been published thus far (all but one of them out of print) each contain between 2 and about 400 hundred. Even if you have all of them in front of you (I have three), you still only get to see part of any one story he shot! Stanley, like most staff Photographers at Look, shot a lot of Photographs for their stories to allow the editors the widest leeway in making their selection (I wasn’t able to determine if he ever made the selections himself, or had any say in it. It would appear he did not.). With, say, 250 images for a given story, almost– none of his assignments have been published complete thus far (as far as I can tell). This is incredibly frustrating and, of course, it does not allow a full assessment of his work- even on one assignment.

Willie Beltram, October/November, 1947, from an unpublished story, the first time SK shot boxers, a subject he would return to a few times at Look, and in his early Films, Day of the Fight and Killer’s Kiss. In those films, too, he would get right into the ring and very close to the action. It seems to me it also looks ahead to the carnage he graphically depicted in Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket.

Is it practical to release tens of thousands of Photographs? One look at the ten volume(!) set Taschen published of the existing material for Stanley Kubrick’s unmade Film, Napoleon, which includes 15,000 location Photos AND 17,000 “slides of Napoleonic imagery” (though shown at a large thumbnail size) would seem to say- “Where there’s a will? There’s a way.” After being immersed in this work for the better part of the past 4 months, I believe it is important enough that it needs to be done, and I predict someone will do it- one day (and I say that knowing nothing about the politics/legalities involved with, and between, the Kubrick Estate, the Library of Congress, and the MCNY). After pouring over the show, the existing web resources, and the 3 books I have (which together include about 8 or 900 images, though some are duplicated), my desire to see more has only grown. Given the unlikeliness of Stanley Kubrick’s Films diminishing in interest or importance any time soon this need will only remain, if not grow. From my study, I’ll say this-

I’m absolutely convinced there is more to learn about Stanley Kubrick, the Director, in this body of work- his Look Photographs, than there is anywhere else besides his actual Films and his interviews.

Weegee? No. Stanley Kubrick during the prodcution of the Weegee inspired film, Naked City. Speaking of “Street Photography,” it’s interesting to note that both Stanley Kubrick and Garry Winogrand were born in the Bronx in 1928. For perspective, Diane Arbus, who knew Stanley during his Look days, was born in 1923.

Put them all online, perhaps in a joint website. Maybe that’s the most practical way. Arrange them by story assignment-unpublished or not, in chronological order. Reproduce each magazine story, when there is one, follow that with all the Photographs, published and unpublished (uncropped, full size, since they were cropped on occasion in the magazine), in the order they were taken, and also include the contact sheets, would be my suggestion. Whether this all comes out as a book, or series of books, perhaps by year? That’s up to a publisher. I think it would find buyers. Is this going to be a popular series? No. Then again, no “catalog rainsonne” is a best seller. It’s for specialists. It’s for those passionately interested in the Artist’s (Stanley Kubrick’s) work, and for those seeking to learn from his path. It’s probably not for the everyday lover of Photography, though a well produced summary volume might be reasonably popular. (See BookMarks at the end for more on the existing books and some recommendations.)

Four Photographs from the unpublished “Naked City,” assignment,  July 31, 1947. Stanley Kubrick went to shoot the production of the Film Noir movie, which took its name from Weegee’s famous book. Weegee was someone Stanley Kurbrick admired, and years later hired him as Still Photographer on Dr. Strangelove. Here, Stanley got to watch Director Jules Dassin (upper right) work and observe the production. None of this would be lost on him. His early Films, Killer’s Kiss, and the terrific The Killing are both Film Noir and both shot in the city.

Experts, including German Professor Rainer Crone (the first person to research this body of work, with Stanley Kubrick’s personal blessing, mount exhibitions of it and write the first books on it) mention a few stories, in particular, as being springboards to the future career of Stanley Kubrick. Many agree that his Look shoot of the filming of the Film Noir classic Naked City was a key moment, giving him an inside look at a rare movie production going on at the time in a big city. Boxing assignments were also influential. He shot Rocky Graziano and relatively unknown boxer Walter Cartier. In 1951 Stanley Kubrick made a 12 minute documentary short Film entitled Day of the Fight following the same Walter Cartier around from wake up until after the final K.O., veritably recreating his Look story, “Prizefighter,” on Film. In that sense, this marked the beginning of the end for Stanley Kubrick at Look. In addition, late in his career at Look, his assignments brought him more and more often into contact with TV Productions, actors and actresses. All of these experiences proved “educational” for him for where he would go next.

In the article “Prizefighter,” featuring the boxer Walter Cartier, the subtitle of this section is “The Day of a Fight.”

By this point, he had seen what he needed to see to begin making films, down to knowing what equipment he’d need, where to get it and how much it would cost to rent. Long desiring to make Documentaries, he turned the Walter Cartier “Prizefighter” story into one.

Screenshot of the title card of Day of the Fight, 1951, his first film, at age 25, which runs a bit over 12 minutes, and which he Photographed.

Stanley Kubrick’s early films carry this credit-

His credit line in Killer’s Kiss, 1955. He also wrote the story. See the Appendix for more screenshots that are reminiscent of SK’s Look Photos.

“Photographed by Stanley Kubrick.” Today, we would call it “Cinematography.” But, I think the term “Photographed” is telling. Eventually, by the The Killing, 1956, unionization forced him to hire a Cinematographer11. Yet, SK would continue to look through the viewfinder (and there are countless shots of his on his sets doing just that) and the camera, and continue to shoot Film on occasion.

Photographer/Director Shane Rocheleau at the NYABF, September 22, 2018.

Fascinated by the difference between shooting still Photographs and Film, I reached out to a man who has experience creating both- Shane Rocheleau. The subject of a Q&A I did in September, 2018,  I even mentioned Stanley Kubrick in describing his talents in my NoteWorthy PhotoBooks, 2018, saying that his first PhotoBook, You are Masters of the Fish and Birds and All the Animals, or YAMOTFABAATA as it reads on the spine, was “edited like a Stanley Kubrick Film.” I’m not sure there’s a higher invocation I could give someone in Photography or Film. In addition to being an exceptionally talented Photographer, Shane Rocheleau is already proving to be one of the new masters of PhotoBook editing & sequencing. During my research into him, I also discovered that he is a Film Director. I reached out to him, and he confirmed this for me, and sent along this link where his Film, Tide, 2009, that he also wrote, can be seen. I asked him about the differences between shooting still Photographs and Film. He said-

“I can’t pretend to speak for a genius like Kubrick, but I’ll give you a bit of insight into the differences between creating photographs and creating films, for me. To clarify first, though:  I am not a documentary photographer, and I am not an experimental filmmaker. If I were both, my answers below would, maybe, flip-flop. What I know of Kubrick, he, like me, was not a documentary photographer nor an experimental filmmaker.

When I hear the word “conceptual” placed in proximity with “art”, it means something very specific to me. Namely, it means that the artist’s conclusion was rendered before the art was executed. Plans were made. The resulting art product serves to explain, announce, demonstrate, manifest, etc. knowledge or forms the artist has already resolved (The God of Genesis appears to have been a conceptual artist). While when making films I may be unsure of the knowledge I’m attempting to disseminate, but my narratives and forms are usually fairly well determined. Story, arc, shots, and sequences are imagined prior, and props, actors, location, etc. are fairly settled. My film will have some room to grow or morph at every step in the creative process; however, I view the overall arc of its making to be well aligned with my idea of conceptual art:  I imagine the film first, then execute its making.

For me, the photographic process operates in contrast with conceptual art. While I usually begin a photography project with an idea, never in my experience has that idea remained intact through to the end; on the contrary, I always learn I was wrong. The photographic process is inherently about discovery. Even when I presage a photograph, the final product reveals something very new, often even contradictory. Rather than marked by understanding, my ideas are rended by my photographs. Confusion necessarily ensues, and meaning emerges as I let go of certainty, make unexpected pictures, sequence and pair the absurd, and indulge discovery. The final project is a new growth, a new understanding. Contrary to a conceptual process, once I resolve my ideas, I’m done.”

After making 3 short Documentary Films (Day of the Fight, Flying Padre, both 1951, and The Seafarers, 1953), he realized that the only way to make enough money to sustain a career was in making feature Films. By then, he had quit is job at Look and would never look back. He would make his first feature Film, Fear and Desire, later in 1953, which he also “Photographed.”

In order to look a little closer at the similarities between Stanley Kubrick’s early Films and his Look Photographs, I’ve created an Appendix that appears below this piece (or, here) that includes screenshots from the first part of his second feature Film, Killer’s Kiss, 1955, “Photographed” by SK, that look similar to me to some of his Photographs I’ve shown here.

Beyond these similarities, the influence of his still Photography lived on in his later work, even after he was working with other Cinematographers. For one thing, he is often seen holding a still film camera on the set.

Stanley Kubrick on the set of Spartacus– with THREE still cameras around his neck! Mr. Rocheleau thought that he was shooting for pleasure, given the smile on his face. The reason would seem to not be an instant need to see the Photos since the film would need to be developed. *From the Stanley Kurbrick Archives. 

As his vision matured, and his resources (and budget) increased, it largely outstripped what we see in his Look Photographs. One significant remaining holdover was Stanley Kubrick continued to rely on a still camera, now a Polaroid instant camera, to take Photos to see how the scene looked in two dimensions and to check colors, continuity, and for other reasons,. on the sets of many of his films, including the classic 2001: A Space Odyssey

 

For those looking for evidence of the lasting  effect of Stanley Kubrick’s still Photography career and experience on his Films, this may be the defining image. With his Polaroid Pathfinder 110A on the set of 2001. *From the Stanley Kurbrick Archives. 

I’ve seen estimates that SK shot 10,000 Polaroids during the production of 2001. In the book The Making of Kubrick’s 2001, 1970, Jeremy Bernstein’s 1966 Profile of Stanley Kubrick, originally published in The New Yorker, is reprinted. In it, Mr. Bernstein says, “I asked Kubrick what he needed the Polaroid for, and he explained that he used it for checking subtle lighting effects for color film. He and the director of photography, Geoffrey Unsworth, had worked out a correlation between how the lighting appeared on the instantly developed Polaroid film and the settings on the movie camera12.” He continued to use it, as he does here, on Full Metal Jacket, 1987-

Stanley hands a freshly shot Polaroid print to an associate as it develops on the set of Full Metal Jacket where he appears to still be using his Polaroid Pathfinder 110A, some 20 years after 2001. *From the Stanley Kurbrick Archives. 

Perhaps by his last Film, Eyes Wide Shut, 1999, he was using an early digital camera, or perhaps he still preferred to see the image instantly on a print. A lover of new technologies, who knows what he would have been doing or how he would have been working today. Whatever the means, the value of his early training as a still Photographer would, no doubt, have still been paying off for him.

Given the level of his talent and his vision it probably shouldn’t be a surprise that as we approach the 20th anniversary of his death on March 7, 1999, next month, there is still much to discover about, and in, the work of Stanley Kubrick.

*- Soundtrack for this Post is “My Old School” by Walter Becker & Donald Fagan of Steely Dan, recorded on their second album, Countdown to Ecstasy, 1973. (Yes, it’s on Countdown to Ecstasy. I have no idea why the producers of this video show the cover of Can’t Buy A Thirll.)

The Appendix to this Post, Stanley Kubrick: A Photographer’s Odyssey-Appendix, is below, following BookMarks, or here.


BookMarks-

If you like what you find on NighthawkNYC, I hope you’ll consider supporting it so that I can continue to spend the countless hours and pay the expenses it takes to keep it going these past 3+ years-without ads. If so, you can also make a donation through PayPal by clicking on the box to the right of the banner at the top of the page that will take you to the Donation button. Your support is VERY much appreciated. Thank you!

As I said above, this body of work is vast and covers 5 years. The issue of how to approach it becomes Question One for anyone attempting to make a book about it. To date, all the books I’ve seen have been focused on exploring it. None have attempted to present the complete picture or look at this work in light of what came after (a book with tens of thousands of Photogaphs would be massive, even if it consisted of thumbnails, like Gerhard Richter’s Atlas). The 3 books I’ve seen thus far all take the same approach- an historical look at selected stories and images and only occasionally mention his later Film career13 For a variety of reasons, none of these books is “the” definitive book on Stanley Kubrick’s Look Photographs, in my opinion. The books are-

Stanley Kubrick Photographs: Through a Different Lens, published by Taschen in conjunction with the MCNY, and its curators, Sean Corcoran and Donald Albrecht, in 2018, is the catalog for this show. The only book currently in print on the subject of Stanley Kubrick’s Photographs, it contains about 300 of them, over 332 pages that are split between beautiful full-page and double page reproductions of single Photographs and reproductions of the Look Magazine stories they ran in. Unpublished assignments are also included. After the initial essays, the remainder of the book is arranged by year and assignment.

An outtake from “Life and Love on the New York Subway,” March 4, 1947, beautifully reproduced across 2 pages, which results in an image size of 26 1/2 by 22 inches! Compared with the shot posted earlier (from an online source), the man’s position has changed and the Photographer has moved closer. How do I know this hasn’t been cropped? This image appears on a strip from the contact sheet published in the Stanley Kubrick Archives.

The best thing about this book, in my opinion, is its size- It’s BIG. 10.8 x 13.2 x 1.5 inches and clocking in at 6.6 pounds. Unlike most recent very large PhotoBooks, this one takes continual advantage of its acreage, often going edge to edge14 This presents the opportunity to see selected landscape oriented Photos at the incredible size of 26 1/2 by 22 inches, as seen above!  The chance to see Stanley Kubrick’s Photographs in a large size does not exist, nor has it ever existed, outside of this book. EVEN in the show (save for a handful of wall size blowups, like the sign shown earlier)! Here you get to see many of its 300 images in full page, 10.8 x 13.2 inch, reproductions. Taschen’s history with XL size books is to make them smaller with each succeeding incarnation. So? If you want to see these images big, this may be your only chance to do so. As such, I expect this first edition will retain lasting interest with Kubrickians (did I just coin that term? I doubt it) indefinitely. As for its shortcomings, I am unhappy with some of the assignments included (Guy Lombardo shown at home. Why?) and those left out which have a direct import on his subsequent Film career. Therefore, it seems to me the editors may have intended this book to be a general interest book. Second, the images in this book are reproduced with a depth of blacks I haven’t seen before. The images in the show were also printed similarly as you can see in my piece. Nothing is said in the book (or in the show) about how these prints were made. In the Preface, Whitney Donhauser only states, “The Kubrick Archive has been photographed, scanned and retouched by…” Compare the one above to the other images below, the sources of which are not stated either. Also, the images on the MCNY website are darker than those on the Library of Congress site. I’m not sure what to make of this but it’s something to be aware of. In my opinion, the curators/editors should have addressed and clarified this somewhere. Overall, I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in seeing these Photographs large, and for those interested in this body of work not wanting to spend rare book prices for the out of print titles. Recommended with reservations.

Rainer Crone’s SK: Drama and Shadows, published by Phaidon in 2005

The other books on Stanley Kubrick’s Photographs are all either out of print, not in English, or both. Of these, Professor Rainer Crone is the man behind those I know of. He was the first one to show this work, with Mr. Kubrick’s blessing, and he has produced, I believe, 3 books about it so far. The most well known of these is the hardcover Stanley Kubrick: Drama & Shadows, published (in English) by Phaidon in 2005. Good, or better, copies can be found for 65.00 and up. It is very well done, does not give any evidence of cropping, though the reproductions do not have the depths of blacks the Taschen book has. The supporting texts are quite informative and reveal Mr. Crone’s ongoing interest in, and dedication to, this work. While its selection fills in some of the gaps in the Taschen book, again, I felt frustrated by some of what was left out (as I will be until a way is found to see all of this work).

A sample image, from SK’s “Aqueduct Racetrack: Hope, Despair and Habit” assignment, March, 1947, which I feel is important for its possible influence on his film The Killing, 1956, about a race track heist.

The front flap says it contains 400 Photographs over 240 pages of a good paper stock. Recommended, if you can find a copy in good condition at a reasonable price.

Rainer Crone’s SK Fotographie, the catalog accompanying a 2010 show in Milan.

I have one of Rainer Crone’s other books, Stanley Kubrick Fotographie, 1945-50, a large softcover book, though its text is only in Italian. This is frustrating because it’s the most recent of Rainer Crone’s books (I believe), being the catalog accompanying a show he curated in Milan in 2010. It includes interesting supplements, including a list of published Look articles and Photos of the covers of (all?) of those issues (Stanley Kubrick shot a few of the covers in color, but those are shown in black & white here). I don’t know the total image count over its 255 pages, but it includes more images in some of the series than the Taschen book. It is, however, extremely hard to find- much more so than Drama & Shadows. Recommended for specialists in SK’s Photographs.

A sample image shows another shot from the “How A Monkey Looks to People…How People Look to a Monkey,” assignment, from August, 1946. As you can see, the images here appear darker than in SK: Drama and Shadows. Perhaps it is using the digitized MCNY sources.

The body of literature on Stanley Kubrick and his Films is large and outside the scope of this piece, however one book must be mentioned and singled out from that body for its sheer uniqueness and extraordinary value- The Stanley Kubrick Archives began life as a 2005 Taschen XXL book that came with a filmstrip from Stanley Kubrick’s copy of 2001 that now sells for hundreds of dollars on the rare book market. More recently reissued in one of their small brick books it lists for 19.95. I mention it because it has a very interesting first chapter that discusses Stanley Kubrick’s Photography, along with countless Photographs of Mr. Kubrick at work, and a very large number of rare items from his own collection & archives. All of this makes it an essential book for anyone interested in Stanley Kubrick- Photographer or Filmmaker.

Finally, I have it on good account that some first edition copies of Shane Rocheleau’s first PhotoBook, YAMOTFABAATA, the only First PhotoBook to be listed among my NoteWorthy PhotoBooks of 2018, are still available from Gnomic Book, here.

My thanks to Shane Rocheleau and Mary Flanagan of the Museum of the City of New York.

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 6 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. If you’ve found it worthwhile, you can donate to keep it going & ad-free below. Thank you!

Written & photographed by Kenn Sava for nighthawknyc.com unless otherwise credited.
To send comments, thoughts, feedback or propositions click here.
Click the white box on the upper right for the archives or to search them.
For “short takes” and additional pictures, follow @nighthawk_nyc on Instagram.

Subscribe to be notified of new Posts below. Your information will be used for no other purpose.

 

  1. Through a Different Lens: Stanley Kubrick Photographs, published by Taschen in conjunction with this show, henceforth Exhibition Catalog, Preface
  2. “Ive always said the two people who are worthy of film study are Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles as representing the two most diverse approaches to filmmaking.” Stanley Kubrick: Interviews, P. 79
  3. Jeremy Bernstein Audio Interview, 11/27/1966
  4. The Stanley Kubrick Archives, P.13
  5.  Exhibition Catalog, P.10
  6.  Jeremy Bernstein Audio Interview, 11/27/1966
  7. Jeremy Bernstein Audio Interview, 11/27/1966
  8. Exhibition Catalog, P.9, quoted from Michael Herr, Kubrick, P. 4
  9. //www.brainyquote.com/authors/stanley_kubrick
  10. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd97Og-20Yc&app=desktop
  11. Stanley Kubrick Archives P.110
  12. The Making of Kubrick’s 2001, Edited by Jerome Agel, P.68
  13. The third book is in Italian, so I have no idea what it’s essays discuss.
  14. Since many of these images have never been previously published, I have no way of comparing them, so I don’t know if there is any cropping going on here. I seriously hope not and I am writing this under the assumption there is not. If you can prove differently, please let me know.

Stanley Kubrick: A Photographer’s Odyssey- Appendix

Written by Kenn Sava

As a supplement to my look at the recent show,  Through a Different Lens: Stanley Kubrick Photographs at the Museum of the City of New York, here are a few screenshots from the first part of  Stanley Kubrick’s second feature Film, Killer’s Kiss, 1955, that remind me of some of his Look Magazine Photographs I showed in the piece. Killer’s Kiss is a film noir that revolves around a boxer, a taxi dancer and her boss, and runs 67 minutes.

Killer’s Kiss Title. Shot in the now lost Penn Station, who’s destruction eight years later in 1963, was one of the greatest cultural tragedies in NYC history.

Notice the word “Photographed.” He also wrote the story. As he said in interviews, he “did everything” in his Films at this time to save money, perhaps symbolized by the gent on the right sweeping up.

Boxer Davey Gordon (Jamie Smith) studies his face. It’s hard to look at this and not see the portraits of Show Girl Rosemary Williams applying lipstick at her mirror in 1947, posted in my piece. I think we can imagine from that shot just where SK is standing to shoot this.

Davey feeds his fish. This shot is an interesting “counterpoint” to the “What People Look Like to Monkeys” shots.

Stanley Kubrick extends the metaphor from the fishbowl to the “fishbowl-like” world New Yorkers live in, as Davey looks across the way at his neighbor Gloria. We cut to Gloria who spends 16 seconds looking back after Davey has turned away.

Heading off to the fight, Davey takes the subway, conveniently allowing SK to reprise his Look subway shots. Ahhh…subways with ceiling fans.

Gloria is a taxi dancer, at work she allows SK to use his experience shooting couples dancing in nightclubs, seen in a few Look assignments.

Meanwhile, Davey gets knocked out and loses, allowing SK to shot him as he did Willie Beltram earlier for Look.

All of this takes place in the first 16 minutes of the Film! I stopped here to give you a chance to see the Film for yourself and see what you find. And then? There’s this-

The original poster. Wait one second! Where else have I seen an AXE in a Stanley Kubrick Film? In front of the color “Red” no less…


BookMarks

Killer’s Kiss, 1956, starring Frank Silvera, Irene Kane and Jamie Smith, is highly recommended to Stanley Kubrick aficionados who don’t know it, and to those interested in his Look Photographs.

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 6 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. If you’ve found it worthwhile, you can donate to keep it going & ad-free below. Thank you!

Written & photographed by Kenn Sava for nighthawknyc.com unless otherwise credited.
To send comments, thoughts, feedback or propositions click here.
Click the white box on the upper right for the archives or to search them.
For “short takes” and additional pictures, follow @nighthawk_nyc on Instagram.

Subscribe to be notified of new Posts below. Your information will be used for no other purpose.

 

The Whitney Biennial Turns The World Upside Down

There’s more than “one way” to select a Biennial, and therein lies my rub…Click any photo to enlarge.

Ahh…The Whitney Biennial. That semi-annual whipping post, “they don’t make Art like they used to” kind of a show of Contemporary American Art by “young and lesser known Artists” that, frankly, I gave up on and stopped going to, missing the last one at the “old” Whitney (now The Met Breuer) in 2014. This new one, the first in their new building, ends on June 11.

Liberty by Puppies Puppies, 2017. “Give me your tired tourists, yearning for a selfie moment, rife with sociopolitical comment,” with an incomparable background. At various times, it’s a real performer, at others, it’s a mannequin. At no time will the Nighthawk go out on that deck.

Oh! What I do in the name of “Art!” Ummm…You need some gel or something for those spikes. That Torch seems to be slipping. And? Where is that big book? Whatever you do? DON’T look down!

If you have any interest in Contemporary American Art you should see it if you can. Is it a “must see?” My initial impression, which I Posted here on March 31 (which this Post replaces) left me feeling there was much to see and impressed by some of what I’d seen. Having made 10 visits thus far, however, my answer is “No.” Unfortunately, though there are a number of memorable pieces on view, and I think it’s highly likely you’ll discover some new names you’ll put on your list that you’ll want to explore further, overall, it’s not a must see, in my opinion. Let’s face it- there are so many really, really good shows going on here now. If you’d ask me what to see that’s up at the moment? I would say about the Biennial, “See it if you have time,” after seeing the others.

As always, it wouldn’t be the Biennial without some hair-pulling, teeth-gnashing, and “Wtf moments.” In this edition’s case they are there, and fairly serious negatives, in my opinion, mostly regarding the choices of what is included and what has been omitted.

True, but I’d at least like to survive this show. In the Wake, 2017, 2 of 16 Banners by Cauleen Smith.

As for my lists, after two visits, the name Samara Golden made mine of Modern & Contemporary Artists- of any age, to keep an eye on. After 10 visits? She’s still there. During each one, my wonder never ceased every time I experienced her work…ummm…installation….ummm….ok…creation, The Meat Grinder’s Iron Clothes, 2017. It is, literally, one of the most astonishing Art works I have seen since…? I honestly don’t know. Maybe, ever.

Check your expectations at whichever side door you choose to go in to enter Samara Golden’s work.

It’s so big with so much to see it may well be un-photographable. Hmmm…where have I heard that before?

“Your looks are laughable
Unphotographable
yet your my favorite work of Art”*

It, literally, turns your world upside down it’s so disorienting. Like I said about the unforgettable Bruce Conner Retrospective when it was at MoMA, “Htf?,” substituting “How” for “What,” this work takes that “How” to the “nth” degree. Unfortunately for me, it’s a work that uses height as a key element, (as does “Liberty,” above). Being deathly afraid of heights I was unable during either visit to get close enough to the preferred viewing areas to really even see most of it and get the full effect. This is as close as I’ve managed to get (thanks to the Whitney staff for nailing me to the floor)-

One little bit of Samara Golden working her magic. Ok. I’m looking down at the sky, and up at the street. Whatever is going on? I’m not sitting in that chair.

During one visit, a viewer turned away and said, “It’s an optical illusion.” I didn’t reply, but thought to myself- “Yeah? So is the Mona Lisa. There’s no real woman up there on that canvas. There’s only oil paint, and whatever Leonardo Da Vinci put under it, and what’s been put over it up there. It’s what the Artist does with his or her materials that makes the miraculous thing called “Art.” I don’t understand exactly how that translation occurs, but I’m always glad when I it does, as with Samara Golden’s “The Meat Grinder’s Iron Clothes.”

Taken as a whole, I heartily applaud the up to the minute, very politically and socially aware bend to the show, which leaves plenty to think about, which both honors, and continues, the Whitney’s long-standing tradition of being involved.

Occupy Museum’s piece, Debtfair, recounts the historic rise of the mounting debt Artist face, as shown in this graph, trying to survive & create.

Samara Golden’s work does this, too, except she gives you very different things to think about. The feeling that came to my mind was the so-called “trip” section of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, forever my favorite film. I don’t want to say more about it to give readers a chance to experience it for themselves without anyone else’s words in their head (and that’s also why I’m including only one of the photos I attempted at this time). Ok, and also because I still don’t know what to make of it myself. To help me, I bought the brand new MoMA PS1 book for her The Flat Side Of The Knife, 2014 show there (of the same title) for background. After 10 visits, I’m not sure the book, interviews with the Artist, or ANYthing will help me better understand this work. (Note to self- You haven’t even read the information card for this piece. In fact? You don’t even know where it is!) You’re on your own to make of it as you will, and frankly? I prefer it that way. I wish more Contemporary Art “needed” less explaining.

Elsewhere, the other highlights, for me, are- the brilliant choice of having Henry Taylor and Photographer Deana Lawson (who share a real life working dialogue) share a gallery (Mr. Taylor’s biggest work is in the lobby area just off the elevator on the 6th floor, as I wrote about, and pictured, in my Post on Henry Taylor). Deana Lawson is, undoubtedly, one of the stars of this Biennial. For weeks after the show opened,  I heard her name on people’s lips just about every where I went. Amazingly, you can still buy an original work of hers, in a signed and numbered limited edition of 50 on Light Work’s excellent site, here, for $300.00! They also have an excellent edition of Contact Sheet dedicated to her, which was available there for $12.00. Neither will last long.

Installation view of the Deana Lawson-Henry Taylor gallery.

Deana Lawson, Sons of Kush, 2016. Apologies for the glare.

The Artists, KAYA (Painter Kerstin Bratsch and Sculptor Debo Eilers), impressed me with their unique works, as Artists striving to bend boundaries between mediums, possibly following the path of Frank Stella, and they succeed to memorable effect in the works shown here.

SERENE, Processione (ALIMA), Processione (JAKE), Processione (TIN), all 2017, by KAYA (Painter Kerstin Bratsch and Sculptor Debo Eilers)

Painters Jo Baer, Aliza Nisenbaum, Celeste Dupuy-Spencer, and Dana Schulz stood out, for different reasons, but perhaps most importantly as far as I’m concerned, they show the ongoing vitality of Painting in 2017.

Veteran’s Day, 2016, Celeste Dupuy-Spencer, “looks at figures who engaged in meaningful resistance. These include the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the international volunteers who fought against Franco in the Spanish Civil War, Muhammad Ali, and Karl Marx and Engels,” per the info card.

Paintings outdoors? At night? One of an interesting series of work by Ulrike Muller, yes, seen outside on the 5th Floor, at night.

 

Jo Baer, Dusk (Bands and End-Points), 2012

The Whitney & the Biennial’s curators have taken a fair amount of heat for the inclusion of Dana Schulz’ Open Casket. Further on the controversy front, an entire gallery was devoted to Frances Stark’s series Censorship NOW, which consisted of a series of huge, painted, double page reproductions (with underscores in blood red paint) from the 2015 book of the same name by musician, writer, D.J., etc. Ian F. Svenonius. While her/their point is fascinating, I was left wondering if she/they chose the right targets. As with the other works I’ve shown thus far, it’s worth seeing for yourself and making your own mind up.

Frances Stark, Censorship NOW, 2017, large, painted reproductions, with notations, of the book of the same name by musician Ian F. Svenonius.

I will say that a good deal of the Biennial I most likely won’t see because I’m not particularly drawn to film & video. As for the negative aspects of this Biennial. I’m quite puzzled by a good deal of what’s installed on the 5th floor. This wouldn’t be so frustrating for me except for the fact that I can’t understand why so many deserving Artists, who I feel should be here, are not.

Yes, there was snow on the ground as the Biennial opened as seen on the 5th floor roof deck. I have nothing to say about anything else in this photo.

In line with my ongoing policy against being negative about Art or Artists, I’m not going to get specific about the latter. With regards to the former, there is a long list of Painters and Photographers, especially, who I feel are serious omissions. Here’s a short list-

Painters (in no particular order)- Where is Andy PiedilatoJeff Elrod? Fahamu Pecou? Hope Gangloff? (Heck, Rod Penner is only 2-3 years older than Henry Taylor.)

Drawings-Ethan Murrow? Emil Ferris?

Photographers (By my count, there are only SIX in the show! Not counting, Artists, like Oto Gillen, who display stills from video. I don’t consider that Photography.)- Where is Gregory Halpern? Mike Brodie? (He’s 32, and though he says he’s “retired,” he deserves to be here.) Matt BlackAhndraya Parlato?

In closing there is one thing I will say about Samara Golden’s “Meat Grinder’s Iron Clothes.” Already, it’s apparent that no matter how many times in the years to come I visit the western end of the Whitney’s 5th floor I will think back to this work having been there, and marvel at how she did it…

“Hey,” I’ll say to no one in particular nearby in the future. “Did you see THAT?”

“Yeah,” someone I haven’t yet met will say. “They don’t make Biennials like they used to.”

On The Fence,” #4- Samara Golden Edition.

*- Soundtrack for this Post is “My Funny Valentine,” written by Rogers & Hart and published by Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded & ad-free for over 7 years, during which over 275 full length pieces have been published! If you’ve found it worthwhile, PLEASE donate to allow me to continue below. Thank you, Kenn.

You can also support it by buying Art, Art & Photography books, and Music from my collection! Books may be found here. Music here and here.

Written & photographed by Kenn Sava for nighthawknyc.com unless otherwise credited. To send comments, thoughts, feedback or propositions click here. Click the white box on the upper right for the archives or to search them. Subscribe to be notified of new Posts below. Your information will be used for no other purpose.

A Tribe Called Quest- From Linden Boulevard To…Forever

This site is Free & Ad-Free! If you find this piece worthwhile, please donate via PayPal to support it & independent Art writing. You can also support it by buying Art & books! Details at the end. Thank you.

Written by Kenn Sava.

When Q-Tip suddenly announced there would be a new, and final, album from A Tribe Called Quest coming out on November 11, you could have knocked me over with a cotton swab. Even after reading his hand written note a few times I still couldn’t believe it.

Did ANYONE see this coming? What would it be like? Afterall, one of it’s core members, Phife Dawg, passed away on March 22, as I mourned.

But, there I was November 15th, when I was finally able to get my hands on a download, and the experience was surreal. It reminded me of seeing Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley Kubrick’s unexpected last film, finished just before he died, on the day it opened, July 16, 1999. I was in the first row, and I’ll never forget the opening- on the huge black screen, big white letters appeared-

TOM CRUISE

then

NICOLE KIDMAN

and, finally

A Film By STANLEY KUBRICK

A chill ran up my spine. Oh My God…Another Stanley Kubrick movie, TWELVE YEARS after Full Metal Jacket in 1987! Forever my personal favorite director, I NEVER expected to see another film by him ever again, and here it was…

I’m not making any comparisons here between Stanley Kubrick and ATCQ other than to say they both occupy large places in my heart, and to say these unexpected final works had a similar shocking effect on me. What would they add to the canon they’ve already created? What new would we learn? For me, Tribe had more “Jazz” going on than any other group I’d heard that wasn’t an actual “Jazz Group,” even though Q-Tip, himself, played this down after people started calling them “Hip-Hop Jazz.” It’s in there. Yes, they had a lot of a lot of things going on, it was the way their lyrics flowed like a solo, with the same freedom, the same unexpected, thrilling turns, the interplay, and, Q-Tip’s voice has a “Jazz” edge to it. I hear bits of singers like Eddie Jefferson,  and even Billie Holiday in Q-Tip’s style. Beyond this, in terms of production, lyrical content and their approach, Tribe stood apart and alone, as far as I was concerned. While they addressed serious topics, like date rape, drug dealing on “Everything Is Fair,” and even the music biz tell-all, “Show Business,” on the sublime The Low End Theory, nothing interrupts their flow, and the music overcomes all. If there was an overriding “message” I took from A Tribe Called Quest? That was it.

From Low End Theory on, I followed each one up with seeing them live. I even drove to Asbury Park, NJ to see them in a small bar. There were so many people there, people were standing on the seats of the booths that ran along the wall. I was among the row of people standing on the narrow curved shoulder of those booths, with my head inches from the ceiling. I also saw them on New Year’s Eve at the Palladium, with Leaders of the New School and DeLa Soul. The amazing thing about that gig for me was that Tribe performed with a live band! I had always dreamed of hearing Tribe with a live band of improvisors.

“My pops used to say it reminded him of be-bop.”

Yeah. That’s it. That’s what I mean.

“I said, well daddy don’t you know that things go in cycles”1

Yeah.

Seeing their name on a new album, again? It’s on 5 previous albums that are seminal to quite a few people’s lives. Each one was an event, a cause for marathon listenings and discussions, about the lyrics, the style, the tracks, the cover…all of it.

Here it is- We got it from Here…Thank You for Your service. Available direct.

And now, EIGHTEEN YEARS after The Love Movement came out in 1998 (which isn’t considered their best album in anyone’s estimation that I know of), that same Eyes Wide Shut feeling returned. I put it on, shut my wide eyes and listened….

First up? “The Space Program.” It starts with a sample from a pretty obscure “blaxploitation” film called “Willie Dynamite,” from 1974, that says-

“I’mma deal with a bigger insult,man
It’s comin’ down hard
We’ve got to get our sh*t together”

Hmmm….Auspiciously setting the stage right away. This sure isn’t The Love Movement. Then, Q-Tip AND Phife take over-

“It’s time to go left and not right
Gotta get it together forever
Gotta get it together for brother
Gotta get it together for sisters”*

I was in shock. I didn’t realize that Phife had lived to work on this. It was downright eerie hearing him, especially singing that verse, and then solo, with the line

“Gotta get it together for dead niggas…”*

Whoa…

Yeah. But now they’re talking about ‘forever.” As in “Gotta get it together forever.” Has anyone in any form of “popular music” said that since Bob Marley’s “Redemption Song“? That’s pretty serious. Between “The Space Program,” and especially on the following, “We The People,” I’ve never heard Q-Tip sound more serious. But wait. This is just getting started. After verses by Q-Tip & Jarobi, here’s the chorus, with Q-Tip rapping the lines not in parenthesis, which are sung by a chorus-

“(Move on to the stars)
There ain’t a space program for niggas
Yeah, you stuck here, nigga
(Move on to the stars)
There ain’t a space program for niggas
Yeah, you stuck here, nigga
(Move on to the stars)
There ain’t a space program for niggas
Yeah, you stuck here, nigga
(Move on to the stars)
There ain’t a space program for niggas
Yeah, you stuck, stuck, stuck
(Move on to the stars)”*

As I said, Tribe hasn’t been heard from since 1989, though Q-Tip has on his excellent solo albums (The Renaissance is especially highly recommended.), as has Phife on his (and word came down this week that his second solo album will be released posthumously!). But someone who has been heard from during their absence was the great Gil Scott-Heron, who died on May 28, 2011, and who some call a founding father of rap. He released the amazing I’m New Here in 2010, which was remixed by Jamie xx as We’re New Here and the posthumous Nothing New, in 2014. But, back in 1970, Gil Scott released a record called Small Talk at 125th and Lenox, that included the track, “Whitey On The Moon.” This was during the Apollo moon landings that began in July, 1969. Here are it’s lyrics-

“A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Whitey’s on the moon)
I can’t pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey’s on the moon)
Ten years from now I’ll be payin’ still.
(with Whitey on the moon)
The man jus’ upped my rent las’ night.
(’cause Whitey’s on the moon)
No hot water, no toilets, no lights.
(but Whitey’s on the moon)
I wonder why he’s uppi’ me?
(’cause Whitey’s on the moon?)
I was already payin’ ‘im fifty a week.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Taxes takin’ my whole damn check,
Junkies makin’ me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin’ up,
An’ as if all that shit wasn’t enough”

Lyrics by Gil Scott-Heron and Published by Carlin America Inc.

It’s hard for me, anyway, not to think that Q-Tip and Tribe have heard it2, but they’ve taken the possible influence of Gil Scott’s classic into a galaxy far away. With all the talk by Elon Musk, and others, about going to Mars, Tribe have a point. A cynic would respond that those who don’t have the money to fund their trip to space will get there the same way those who didn’t in the past did- by taking the jobs those with the money don’t want to do. Still? It’s a song I can hear becoming an anthem years down the road. Along with “Whitey On The Moon,” it’s the second blues song of the space age (“Space Oddity,” “Rocket Man,” or “Subterranean Homesick Alien” notwithstanding.).

It’s also quite a “statement.” And? It isn’t the last one here. The song ends with another movie sample, this one from “Willy Wonka,” featuring the voice of the late Gene Wilder saying-

“A small step for mankind
But a giant step for us
Oompa, loompa, doopa dee doo
I’ve got another puzzle for you.”*

The “A small step…” line is of course the first line uttered by Neil Armstrong on the moon, and as for Oompa, loompa, Urban Dictionary’s #10 definition of this references Donald Trump, who has also been referred to by this name by Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert & SNL…This goes right into the second track, “We the people…,” which brings the emphasis back to earth, and right up to the moment.

“We don’t believe you ‘cause we the people
Are still here in the rear, ayo, we don’t need you.”*

And it gets more intense from there, culminating in a chorus that led the Village Voice in their cover article on Tribe to call this the “Soundtrack for the Trump-ocalypse.”

Village Voice, November 22, 2016 cover. Q-Tip, Busta Rhymes, Consequence, and Jarobi clockwise from upper left

Damn.

Here’s their official music video for it, which is sitting right at 2 million views as I write this-

Along the way, right in the middle of it, don’t miss this instant classic verse from Phife, that contains respect for women that Hip Hop rarely gets credit of showing-

“”Dreaming of a world that’s equal for women with no division
Boy, I tell you that’s vision
Like Tony Romo when he hitting Witten
The Tribe be the best in they division
Shaheed Muhammad cut it with precision
Who can come back years later, still hit the shot?”*

 It’s obvious, at least to me, that Tribe weren’t happy with the way The Love Movement stood as their final work. Phife is quoted on wikipedia as saying, circa 2007, about a possible Tribe reumion-
“Man, we was only 18–19 when we first got started. [When] We broke up we were still like 28. Now we are 35–36. It’d be real different being in the studio. It would be real interesting to see where Q-Tip is. It would all be on a much higher level. But we are all into such different stuff from way back then.”

Different in almost every way it is. Whereas previously they left grand political and cultural statements to Public Enemy (“Fight The Power,” etc),  and others. Not here. They’re saying it all for the record, on a record that is going to stand alongside their other albums and show anyone who listens what they were really all about.

Forever.

Then again, there could be something else at work here. It could be “maturity,” that being 18 years older brings, as Phife said. It could be that it is, indeed, “comin’ down hard” now, perhaps as hard as it ever has. Or, it could be the influence of that other “D” word.

No. Not him.

Death.

The loss of, and respect for Phife is all over this record. On genius, Jarobi White was quoted as saying of him- “Doing this album killed him. And he was very happy to go out like that.”

What more could possibly be said?

“Lost Somebody” is one attempt to put some of it into words. Jarobi in Verse 2-

“Never thought that I would be ever writing this song.
Hold friends tight, never know when those people are gone.”*

Before the chorus comes in-

“Have you ever loved somebody?
Way befoe you got to dream?
No more crying, he’s in sunshine
He’s alright now, see his wings”*

Respect, and love, for Phife is constant and endlessly a part of this record, even when his voice isn’t heard. I’m not going to do a track by track of the whole album. We’d be here a very long time. Check it out for yourself. I will say that other highlights for me include guest spots by Andre 3000 on “Kids…,” a no pulled punches, straight up dispelling of the the imagined hip hop (or “star’s”) life, which includes the already famous line, “Kids, don’t you know how all this sh*t is fantasy?”*) is just amazing on a track that is already garnered significant buzz. Elton John, a sample of who’s “Benny & The Jets” forms the basis for “Solid Wall of Sound,” a unique, sonic marvel, which also includes Jack White’s guitar, before Elton winds it up with a new verse written for this record, and Abbey Smith on the addiction ode “Melatonin.” Like Tribe at it’s best, these tracks get under your skin and stay there.

It’s under my skin. That play count, on the right, is mounting a month in.

There are riches galore. It’s always an unexpected joy to hear Phife here, especially when paired with Q-Tip, his childhood friend, as it is to hear Busta Rhymes, who Tribe made famous. Another surprise- Q-Tip’s playing (on keyboards, bass, and/or drums!)  and fresh production carry the day throughout, pushing the production envelope the way classic Tribe did, which, as Questlove once said, we expect from Tribe.

Finally, there’s the title. We got it from Here…Thank You 4 Your service, which Phife, apparently, came up with. The band says they don’t know what he meant by it. The best guess I’ve heard so far(*) is that it’s a dedication to President Obama. Then again? The album’s release date, November 11 is, also, Veteran’s Day! Then, again? That’s one of the things I’ve missed so much these past EIGHTEEN years. Discussing every detail of this record and hearing all the different interpretations there are about it.

PostScript- On Saturday, November 19th, Phife was honored with having the intersection of Linden Blvd and 192 Street in Queens, NY named in his honor, which you can watch here.. R.I.P., Phife. Linden Boulevard, which Tribe immortalized, may never be better represent, represent-ed.

Thank YOU, A Tribe Called Quest. For YOUR Service.

*-All Lyrics, and starred insights are from “We got it from Here…Thank You 4 Your service” by A Tribe Called Quest are quoted from genius.com, with nary a publishing credit anywhere to be found.

You can now follow @nighthawk_nyc on Instagram for news and additional Photos!

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 6 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. If you’ve found it worthwhile, you can donate to keep it going & ad-free below. Thank you!

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded & ad-free for over 8 years, during which 300 full length pieces have been published! If you’ve found it worthwhile, PLEASE donate to allow me to continue below. Thank you, Kenn.

You can also support it by buying Art, Art & Photography books, and Music from my collection! Art & Books may be found here. Music here and here

Written & photographed by Kenn Sava for nighthawknyc.com unless otherwise credited. To send comments, thoughts, feedback or propositions click here. Click the white box on the upper right for the archives or to search them. Subscribe to be notified of new Posts below. Your information will be used for no other purpose.

  1. Both quotes from “Excursions” by Ali Shaheed Jones-Muhammad, Malik Izaak Taylor, Kamaal Ibn John Fareed of A Tribe Called Quest,  Lyrics Published by Universal Music Publishing Group.
  2. Check out Q-Tip’s excellent vinyl collection here. I’ll bet $1. Small Talk is in it.