Thursday, 23 February 2012
Spitalfields
Some amazing images of old London from Spitalsfield's Life. The author of this site has a book out soon -- details here. I like the look of it: it is just the kind of thing I like to buy because it is the type of book I'd keep coming back to, just for the pleasure of it (unlike fiction, which I read once and then get rid of...).
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
Smiling Victorians
I've been writing somewhere else about the lack of smiles in Victorian photographs and how this somehow makes it harder for us to connect to the people in those images. But -- thanks to Retronaut -- I've found some smiles:
These lack of formality in these images helps to show the artificail separation we tend to make between we who are living now and people who existed existed in that 'other country' of the 'past'.
I especially love Retronaut's quote from Trevelvan:
"The poetry of history lies in the quasi-miraculous fact that once, on this earth, once, on this familiar spot of ground, walked other men and women, as actual as we are today, thinking their own thoughts, swayed by their own passions, but now all gone, one generation vanishing into another, gone as utterly as we ourselves shall shortly be gone, like ghosts at cockcrow."
- GM Trevelyan
These lack of formality in these images helps to show the artificail separation we tend to make between we who are living now and people who existed existed in that 'other country' of the 'past'.
I especially love Retronaut's quote from Trevelvan:
"The poetry of history lies in the quasi-miraculous fact that once, on this earth, once, on this familiar spot of ground, walked other men and women, as actual as we are today, thinking their own thoughts, swayed by their own passions, but now all gone, one generation vanishing into another, gone as utterly as we ourselves shall shortly be gone, like ghosts at cockcrow."
- GM Trevelyan
More images here
Wednesday, 18 January 2012
Wikipedia Black Out
Really strange to see the Wikipedia site unavailable due to their one-day shutdown in protest against the proposed anti-piracy legislation.
I have to say I hadn't heard much about this issue up until now but I'm certainly going to check it out. Anything which may threaten the free-flow of information on the internet certainly gives cause for concern.
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
Age Gaps
It has just been announced that Brian Ferry got married back in January to Amanda Sheppard. Here's the happy couple:
You can't help noticing there's a bit of an age gap: he is 64 and she's 29. I bring up the subject partly because if the age-gap was reversed then the female partner would be getting hammered by the tabloids just now (Cher, Madonna...). But Mr Ferry seems to be escaping much of that kind of bitching and a good deal of the reaction is of the dirty-lucky-dog variety. Mainly because he is male, of course, but also because not only is he still seen by many as the ultimate in cool but also because he's supposed to have aged quite well -- as compared to, say, Sir Paul McCartney (well respected by many but also targeted for his badly dyed hair, etc).
What the hell -- good luck to them, it is none of our business, etc, etc...
But -- one thing I've noticed:
Something seems to happen to these older celebrities (male or female) when they take up with someone way younger than themselves: the comparison does them no favours in any photographs -- the older woman starts to look unflatteringly mumsy or even utterly decrepit and the older man begins to look like a doddery old duffer. Like he should be playing someones grandfather in a soap.
Maybe they don't care about how the public perceives them; any celebrity who cares too much about that is, let's face it, on a hiding to nowhere because there will always be some nasty ripping-apart out there. In fact, I would say that genuinely not caring too much about what other people think about
how you look may even be one of the secrets of a very happy life -- whether you are a celebrity or not.
Anyway, while I'm in an uncharacteristically bitchy and snide mood, here's some SATC on the older man:
You can't help noticing there's a bit of an age gap: he is 64 and she's 29. I bring up the subject partly because if the age-gap was reversed then the female partner would be getting hammered by the tabloids just now (Cher, Madonna...). But Mr Ferry seems to be escaping much of that kind of bitching and a good deal of the reaction is of the dirty-lucky-dog variety. Mainly because he is male, of course, but also because not only is he still seen by many as the ultimate in cool but also because he's supposed to have aged quite well -- as compared to, say, Sir Paul McCartney (well respected by many but also targeted for his badly dyed hair, etc).
What the hell -- good luck to them, it is none of our business, etc, etc...
But -- one thing I've noticed:
Something seems to happen to these older celebrities (male or female) when they take up with someone way younger than themselves: the comparison does them no favours in any photographs -- the older woman starts to look unflatteringly mumsy or even utterly decrepit and the older man begins to look like a doddery old duffer. Like he should be playing someones grandfather in a soap.
Maybe they don't care about how the public perceives them; any celebrity who cares too much about that is, let's face it, on a hiding to nowhere because there will always be some nasty ripping-apart out there. In fact, I would say that genuinely not caring too much about what other people think about
how you look may even be one of the secrets of a very happy life -- whether you are a celebrity or not.
Anyway, while I'm in an uncharacteristically bitchy and snide mood, here's some SATC on the older man:
Victorian Hidden Mothers Photographs
Photographs of Victorian 'hidden mothers' really freak me out:
The Museum of Ridiculously Interesting Things
It is pretty obvious -- but 'hidden mothers' photographs are called that because there are (largely unsuccessful) attempts made to hide the mother by hiding her with various props, so she would blend into the background. I don't know if the photographs were meant to be left like that or if it was intended that they would be cut down to size at a later date to effectively cut-out the badly hidden adult.
There are various reason for an adult being there in the first place: the time to take a photograph was a lot longer back then, so adults were needed to control fidgeting children, infants needed to be propped up to face the camera and -- sadly -- some of these type of photographs were taken post-mortem, so it was actually a dead baby or child which was being propped up for a memento mori photograph (though I don't think the latter was the case in the above photograph -- or at least I hope not).
It is pretty obvious -- but 'hidden mothers' photographs are called that because there are (largely unsuccessful) attempts made to hide the mother by hiding her with various props, so she would blend into the background. I don't know if the photographs were meant to be left like that or if it was intended that they would be cut down to size at a later date to effectively cut-out the badly hidden adult.
There are various reason for an adult being there in the first place: the time to take a photograph was a lot longer back then, so adults were needed to control fidgeting children, infants needed to be propped up to face the camera and -- sadly -- some of these type of photographs were taken post-mortem, so it was actually a dead baby or child which was being propped up for a memento mori photograph (though I don't think the latter was the case in the above photograph -- or at least I hope not).
Construction of the Empire State Building
If you've been here before you'll know I love old pictures and that I'm fairly eclectic in my taste. But I especially love anything from the 1920's -- 1940's period. There's lots of great pictures of the construction of the Empire State Building on the wonderfulRetronaut:
Given the heights they worked at and a seeming absence of safely equipment, I would have expected a fairly high number of deaths among the workforce but official records show that only five of the 3,500 strong workforce were killed during the build (ok -- five too many). Thirty people have jumped to their death from the building over the years, including a construction worker who had just lost his job there. A further fourteen people were killed in 1945, when a US Army B-25 bomber acccidently crashed into the building.
Monday, 9 January 2012
How Does Our Voice Sound to Others
I've got the worse singing voice known to man. When I was a kid both my parents told me to shut up when I'd tried to sing because the sound was so bad (and I loved to sing). My father sang all the time and he had the most beautiful singing voice I've ever heard -- I think it was a disappointment that his children did not inherit that voice. I've stopped attempting to sing long ago (my parents were right -- it did sound terrible) but by way of compensation, I have been told that my talking voice sounds nice. Doesn't sound that great to me but then I've never heard my own voice properly -- until now!
Try this -- you will look stupid but it will be worth it:
So, did you try it? And do you sound better or worse than you thought? Most people think their voices sound different from what they thought and according to Chris Beatty at Voice Coach this little trick gives a better indication of how your voice really sounds than hearing it on an answering machine recording, etc. My voice sounded a lot better than it sounds 'in my head' but in my case I don't think even Chris could do anything to help with the singing.
Try this -- you will look stupid but it will be worth it:
So, did you try it? And do you sound better or worse than you thought? Most people think their voices sound different from what they thought and according to Chris Beatty at Voice Coach this little trick gives a better indication of how your voice really sounds than hearing it on an answering machine recording, etc. My voice sounded a lot better than it sounds 'in my head' but in my case I don't think even Chris could do anything to help with the singing.
Great Vintage Images
The good thing about Tumblr is you can find some amazing vintage images; the bad thing is the amount of time you can end up spending on it. I don't know much about this image -- other than its kind of mysterious and interesting:
And I love this one (both from here)
Love Your Face
Refreshing perspective from actress Justine Bateman on loving how you look, whatever your age:
I have to admit that I haven't seen much of Bateman's work. I've read that she was in the 1980's sitcom Family Ties but I've never seen that. Today I'm in the middle of painting a room (we've bought a Victorian house that needs a lot of work doing on it) and I flick on a television to see if there's any old movies on. Up pops Bateman in The Hollywood Mom's Mystery. Not such an old movie -- 2004, I think -- and made for TV. But not bad at all. Bateman was good in it -- she can act and has an interesting 'watchable' face. A lot, lot better than the usual Hollywood clones who have gone down the surgical intervention route.
I have to admit that I haven't seen much of Bateman's work. I've read that she was in the 1980's sitcom Family Ties but I've never seen that. Today I'm in the middle of painting a room (we've bought a Victorian house that needs a lot of work doing on it) and I flick on a television to see if there's any old movies on. Up pops Bateman in The Hollywood Mom's Mystery. Not such an old movie -- 2004, I think -- and made for TV. But not bad at all. Bateman was good in it -- she can act and has an interesting 'watchable' face. A lot, lot better than the usual Hollywood clones who have gone down the surgical intervention route.
Sunday, 8 January 2012
All Men Cheat
At least they would if they think they can get away with it. Monogamy is a social construct; men want emotional monogamy but still desire recreational sex.
That seems to be the gist of an upcoming book by the American sociologist, Eric Andersen. In The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love and the Reality of Cheating he argues that it is not in the nature of men -- straight or gay -- to be sexually confined to one long-term partner but society deems that this should be the case. Most men would cheat if they could get away with it, even if they love their partner. But most do not want an open marriage or relationship because they find the idea of their love interest having sexual relationships with other people unacceptable.
So the ideal situation would seem to be that they can have a bit on the side as often as they desire but that the 'other half' should not find out. Well tell us something we do not already know. The whole 'cake and eat it' thing seems to have being going on since the beginning of time. Every now and then some psychologist, sociologist or other 'ologist' comes up with a piece of research that justifies infidelity in terms of men finding a way around that fact that their fundamental biology is being thwarted by social conventions. In most research this biological imperative to have casual sex as often as desired is, apparently, applicable primarily to the male of the species -- this usually being attributed to specifics of human reproduction (the 'women carry and nurture infants and therefore must capture a mate who will be committed to providing for them' explanation).
Mmmm -- where do I start on this one? First of all, I don't know just how stringent Anderson's research methods were, but if his findings -- that men wanted to have plenty of non-committed casual sex -- were based mainly on data gained by interviewing a bunch on collage men, then my response would be something along the lines of 'no shit, Sherlock'. They would say that, wouldn't they. But here's the point: just how do we separate just what is a purely biological urge and what is influenced by social factors? Could it not be equally the case that men have been programmed by society into believing they should be having plenty of casual sex and also that their natural biological urges are being stifled by social factors? Conditioned to believe they are missing out or are being deprived by socially-imposed monogamy (no -- I don't really buy that one either...).
But separating out the social from the purely biological is almost impossible and the argument that satisfaction of biological urges should be paramount (or even life-enhancing) is a minefield I'm not going into now.
I don't have an axe to grind and don't really have any first-hand experience of infidelity, but working on a non-scientific gut-instinct response I'd say that the devastation and heartache people feel when confronted with a cheating partner has a lot less to do with social conditioning and may ultimately be tied to some innate human need to connect to another human being in a situation of total commitment. I just don't think we can be re-programmed into thinking that an emotional relationship is not damaged or diminished by a partner fulfilling his desire for a bit of a fling outside the relationship. With some exceptions, I think it is always going to hurt and I don't believe that hurt is merely a product of socially imposed factors.
So, yet another study that seeks to justify or explain away love cheats by pulling out the 'biology card' just leaves me cold. Men don't need to be told that they are only doing what comes naturally -- because society has already being telling that for years. It would be a cold gray world if we were to buy into this artificial notion that fidelity was merely a by-product of the social and not related to something much deeper within the human psyche.
That seems to be the gist of an upcoming book by the American sociologist, Eric Andersen. In The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love and the Reality of Cheating he argues that it is not in the nature of men -- straight or gay -- to be sexually confined to one long-term partner but society deems that this should be the case. Most men would cheat if they could get away with it, even if they love their partner. But most do not want an open marriage or relationship because they find the idea of their love interest having sexual relationships with other people unacceptable.
So the ideal situation would seem to be that they can have a bit on the side as often as they desire but that the 'other half' should not find out. Well tell us something we do not already know. The whole 'cake and eat it' thing seems to have being going on since the beginning of time. Every now and then some psychologist, sociologist or other 'ologist' comes up with a piece of research that justifies infidelity in terms of men finding a way around that fact that their fundamental biology is being thwarted by social conventions. In most research this biological imperative to have casual sex as often as desired is, apparently, applicable primarily to the male of the species -- this usually being attributed to specifics of human reproduction (the 'women carry and nurture infants and therefore must capture a mate who will be committed to providing for them' explanation).
Mmmm -- where do I start on this one? First of all, I don't know just how stringent Anderson's research methods were, but if his findings -- that men wanted to have plenty of non-committed casual sex -- were based mainly on data gained by interviewing a bunch on collage men, then my response would be something along the lines of 'no shit, Sherlock'. They would say that, wouldn't they. But here's the point: just how do we separate just what is a purely biological urge and what is influenced by social factors? Could it not be equally the case that men have been programmed by society into believing they should be having plenty of casual sex and also that their natural biological urges are being stifled by social factors? Conditioned to believe they are missing out or are being deprived by socially-imposed monogamy (no -- I don't really buy that one either...).
But separating out the social from the purely biological is almost impossible and the argument that satisfaction of biological urges should be paramount (or even life-enhancing) is a minefield I'm not going into now.
I don't have an axe to grind and don't really have any first-hand experience of infidelity, but working on a non-scientific gut-instinct response I'd say that the devastation and heartache people feel when confronted with a cheating partner has a lot less to do with social conditioning and may ultimately be tied to some innate human need to connect to another human being in a situation of total commitment. I just don't think we can be re-programmed into thinking that an emotional relationship is not damaged or diminished by a partner fulfilling his desire for a bit of a fling outside the relationship. With some exceptions, I think it is always going to hurt and I don't believe that hurt is merely a product of socially imposed factors.
So, yet another study that seeks to justify or explain away love cheats by pulling out the 'biology card' just leaves me cold. Men don't need to be told that they are only doing what comes naturally -- because society has already being telling that for years. It would be a cold gray world if we were to buy into this artificial notion that fidelity was merely a by-product of the social and not related to something much deeper within the human psyche.
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Lee Miller
source
Photographs of and by Lee Miller: model, muse, photographer. She stands out not only for her beauty and talent but also for the fact that she was a war correspondent during WW2 -- a highly unusual job for a woman back then or even now.
I'd never of Miller until a few days ago but her life story seems so fascinating that I wanted to know more and so ordered this Carolyn Burke biography of Miller:
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
DIY Face Masks -- Japanese Style
I don't know how effective Chizu Saeki's skincare regimens are but by the look of her beautiful hands she must be doing something right; she's in her sixties but her hands look about half that.
She also has a book out:
Its available on Amazon -- but with a fairly hefty price tag.
She also has a book out:
Its available on Amazon -- but with a fairly hefty price tag.
Monday, 2 January 2012
Clara Bow
The lovely Clara Bow improvises a new outfit for a night out:
What is sweet piece of film, now I think I want to see the whole thing. I'm really getting to appreciate these old movies. I didn't know much about Bow until recently, and had no idea what a difficult time she had as a child. There are details on this Wikipedia page.
What is sweet piece of film, now I think I want to see the whole thing. I'm really getting to appreciate these old movies. I didn't know much about Bow until recently, and had no idea what a difficult time she had as a child. There are details on this Wikipedia page.
Sunday, 1 January 2012
Not Such a Happy Couple
Source
Coney Island
Source
Oh Comely Magazine
Here's a bunch of cats auditioning for a part in a 1960's horror movie:
The image is from the Oh Comely blog
I like what I'm hearing about the Oh Comely Magazine.
I like what I'm hearing about the Oh Comely Magazine.
It seems to have a strong indie vibe, crafty but without the 'twee' factor. I've never seen it in any of the shops around here but I might check out the bigger branch of W H Smith to see if I can grab a copy.
Men with Beautiful Eyes
This is a photograph of the young Theodore Roosevelt
Beautiful eyes (and lips).
But much later:
But much later:
There's got to be some mistake, surely? It doesn't even look like the same person. I know time is a killer, lookswise, but I still can't see it.
Update (hold the front page...): yup -- it is him, alright. I guess most politicians are well past the first bloom of youth by the time they have official photographs taken.
Source: History Crushes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)