Andrew bought a super film camera on ebay about a year ago. It’s a Nikon F2 in case you’re wondering. It has the most magical lens and we both agree that two of these lenses would make good substitutes for eyes. Some photos taken by me (after receiving tutorial on operating manual camera) and many by Andrew.
Yes, I have a thing for breeze blocks. Thought I was the only one for a while there, that was nice.
I recently moved to London, and I have been relishing in the gorgeous old buildings. I really love the houses in my new neighbourhood in particular - Edwardian red brick row houses with ornate white trims and details. I learnt the hard way that when the sky is blue, you seize the day! These photos are from one such sunny day when I took a jaunt through the local area taking snaps.
This just so happens to be our local pub.
The local park is spectacular, I can’t wait to enjoy it in summer. I imagine the long days would lend themselves particularly well to a picnic dinner in the park.
How cool are jet streams?
As far as I’m concerned, if you haven’t adorned your parapet with potted shrubs, there ain’t enough love.
The new buildings just help to reinforce my love of the old. I can almost sympathise with Prince Charles’s views on modern architecture when I see buildings like this. Although, post-modern and neo-classical architecture is much, much worse, in my opinion. I can think of several examples right now that I could show you on my five minute train ride to Victoria station. I guess the thing is, bad architecture is bad architecture. There is a lot of unremarkable stuff around and the beautiful Edwardian and Victorian buildings only make them look worse. Of course there is also some really great contemporary architecture but I can’t help but notice the abundance of ugly buildings (worse than the above - which is just…..banal?).
And this last photo was taken on the second day of spring - flowers! Just to end on a non-ugly note…
I visited the Tate Modern a few weeks ago. Maybe I wasn’t in an art-gallery mood but for some reason it didn’t really knock me out. I was mainly curious to see the building as it was one of the first that stirred my interest in architecture. After having been there, I think it photographs better than it actually feels. It was really cold, in all senses of the word. I love the building as an object (sue me) but don’t really dig the interior (except perhaps the vast-voluminous-void space). I will have to go again in a more spritely mood and see if I can get any more from it. Architecture aside, there was a lot of expressionist, impressionist and cubist art, which was very high school art textbook for me, unfortunately. I’m sorry to be such a philistine.
This was the one piece that really appealed to me. I made a note to look it up later. The artist is Paul Graham, and the photograph is from a series called Television Portraits, created between 1986 and 1990. They are portraits taken of people while watching television, but never showing the actual tv. This one in particular I find incredibly beautiful and intimate. The first one he took was of his flatmate, but I’m not sure if this is the one. Its a perfect reminder of the beauty in everyday moments.
I even forced myself to like it on a more than aesthetic level. After reading the blurb I studied it and appreciated its curious defiance of physics, its delicate balancing act, its superb lightness. Check out what the Tate Modern curators/historians have to say about it:
Calder’s suspended wire sculptures were given the name ‘mobiles’ by Marcel Duchamp. Several abstract shapes, normally in a palette of primary colours, black and white, are attached to wires in a way reminiscent of the growth of branches on trees. For the writer Jean-Paul Sartre, Calder’s sculptures were ‘at once lyrical inventions, technical, almost mathematical combinations, and the perceptible symbol of Nature: great elusive Nature, squandering pollen and abruptly causing a thousand butterflies to take wing’. [from here]