July 27, 2006
his robert of logness
you'd be forgiven for thinking you were going to see a gentle balladeer, judging by this pic...
... but then the lights go up and the unit tuning on stage looks like this
pretty soon, this fine sweaty young gentleman is four-to-the-floor and it's all ...
and a bit of...
until, before you know it, our gentle troubadour has been driven to... *gasp* drink. scotch.
ladies and gents, i give you the shy, the retiring, the quiet... bob log III.
crowd were well and truly OWNED by the log man at the east last tuesday. forget one man band, he's a one man freaking rock circus, with the devil on his slide hand and angels in his sly asides, patter that got no less than FIVE svelte young lasses up to sit on his knee during hot bottleneck-thrash anthem 'sit on my knee'.
what. a. man/machine (love, naturally).
Posted by reuben at July 27, 2006 10:16 PM
WHERE WERE YOU.
Posted by: ms fits at July 27, 2006 11:23 PM
um, up front. with a camera.
i know you are both pretty AND brainy, fits.
Posted by: reuben at July 28, 2006 1:58 PM
no good can come of that man, you hear me? no good! made a deal with patrick . . . i will never dip my breast in a scotch so long as he doesn't write a book, on the cover of which he is leaning on his lettering. i thought both were equally unlikely. but if he does ever lean on his lettering, my boob is going straight into a tumbler of scotch! straight in! thanks for your awesomeness in melbourne! best fun ever, for me. xx
Posted by: linda at July 30, 2006 3:10 PM
i started reading geoff dyer's 'but beautiful' last night; his short riffs on jazz. he starts off talking about music photography - just photos of musicians, not necessarily playing - and he writes that you know a good photograph because you can hear the music, the shuffling of feet, the clinking of glasses, one of the band clearing their throat.
when i look at these ones i can hear an engine revving.
Posted by: clara of bow at August 1, 2006 8:49 PM
Post a comment
July 24, 2006
swedish psychedlic progsters dungen surpassed all expectations by actually being shit hot live, as well.
not only did they set up all their own gear, they stuck around for a good hour after stumps to chat to punters - no rockstar attitude bullshit, even after having given the corner stage a better ball-tearing than it's probably had from some tourists in a while.
here's a punter's eye view...
gustave ejstes showing he's versatile AND sexy...
... and their drummer was gary oldman's long lost little brother ...
speaking of which... bob log III at the East
see you there.
Posted by reuben at July 24, 2006 9:31 PM
how rad is that guy's hair? of course, 'tis the top shot that boosts its radness. i imagine when it's not captured like that it's prolly quite the boring do.
Posted by: mskp at July 27, 2006 7:00 PM
i will greedily suck that one down as a compliment. thank you, kp – you are an endlessly overflowing font of aesthetic wisdom.
yes, the dusty eye and creaky photog muscles of this time last decade are being respectively de-mothballed and stretched as i acquaint myself with my (still relatively new) toy.
see you next tuesday (shit, not metaphorically ... I mean, I really WILL see you next tuesday...) when we will deliver the trivia smackdown to a certain team.
Posted by: reuben at July 28, 2006 2:04 PM
Post a comment
July 12, 2006
howling bells, july 8, the east brunswick club
jesus wept... if the voice wasn't enough to make you fall in love (although the stage presence was a bit reserved) she's sculpted dark. mercy...
... and here with her, it has to be said, equally hot brother. unfortunately (yeah, sure) i was trapped by juanita's side of the stage. bummer.
yep. the stage show was a little chilled, but the album is pure sex.
i think i need a little lie down.
Posted by reuben at July 12, 2006 10:22 PM
It's women like these that used to make me cry that I was blonde.
And she can sing.
Posted by: elaine at July 13, 2006 12:59 PM
I always had a soft spot for Waikiki, mainly stemming from a hard spot I had for Juanita (that's right, I went there).
I'm definitely digging the Howling Bells album though (hey - the NME told me to, ok?)
Posted by: tim at July 13, 2006 7:09 PM
well, the rules are... there ain't no rules, kids. a blonde is in my days these days, while a brunette messes with my mind...
i used to think of myself as a brunette guy.
love of my life was a brunette lass, from salford, manchester.
my fiancee was a natural sandy blonde. from salford, manchester.
maybe it's a manchester thing!
if man u didn't train there, i'd move. there's clearly something in the water...
Posted by: reuben at July 13, 2006 10:57 PM
Post a comment
July 8, 2006
their dog was lost, but now he's found
fiery furnaces, friday 7 july, the east brunswick club
ps. patrick, i promise to learn how to use flickr and stop embedding HTML images in my posts. you know i'm a fuckin' ludd.
pps. eleanor is an absolute dead ringer for warren de martini from ratt (or is it george lynch from dokken?) circa 1987 in that top pic. it could be worse - she could be the dead spit of WASP's blackie lawless.
Posted by reuben at July 8, 2006 3:34 PM
furnaces! toured again?
ah, i'm green.
lovely shots ruby, as always.
Posted by: jackson at July 10, 2006 3:23 PM
i am aso drunk oai cant typee.
thanks you very much m jaks.
will endea vkhr to poasrt more qaultuiuy stuff soonnn. shitt.
u 4 r se8xeeee
Posted by: reuben at July 11, 2006 12:07 AM
Post a comment
July 6, 2006
the curse of lomo
first and last time i will write about this; apologies to lomo owners...
lomo and lomo-obsessives bug me.
but it's a well-founded annoyance, borne of years of my own hard yards of chemical photographic learning; then unlearning and deconstruction, resisting taking up the digital cudgel (i have only done so very recently, and after much wailing and gnashing of teeth) and finally applying actual critical faculties to all the bullshit and hyperbole, the pseud posturing that cloys, fart-like around this apparent pop-cultural phenom.
for those who came in late: lomo is a (brand, anti-brand) brand of (once) cheap, crappy, russian cameras. this is not merely my opinion; the anti-hero rebel mystique is in full effect in lomo's own self-aggrandisement materials - they play up their basic-ness, stressing that good equipment is not a pre-requisite for interesting photography. about this, they are right.
paying lomo €200 for the 'basic' package (going up to about €375 for their 'deluxe' package) is probably even less necessary - ask any photographer.
what happened was, some clever-dick (probably with a special, special haircut) got lateral with the problem of 'what to do with thousands of shite-y, communist era throwback cameras lying around gathering dust' - and decided to rebuild sales potential by re-branding the whole practice of photography as 'lomography'. as if you could only take a more right-brained, abstract, impressionistic or just plain random approach to burning through film by having a crap old commie compact?
'lomography' is marketing in search of a product; it is a poignant exercise in hipster branding, ergo - hollow and completely meaningless.
go to the site, or any of thousands of the 'legendary' lomo lc-a adherents' sites, and wade through the gush about their lomo experiences, and you will soon feel amidst a photographic nirvana akin to the kind of product fetishism reserved for iPod owners and what some feel it has done for their exploration of a wider range of music. except it's the rampant *anti*-populism of using a lomo that is supposed to make you so cool...
the re-branding of this cold war relic essentially explains away all the (known) shortcomings of the cameras - both optical and mechanical - as positives, championing in their place a more punk, DIY aesthetic and *approach* to photography that is a brilliantly achieved obfuscation of the dialectic between praxis and product; lomography is superior to normal photography (in that it champeens the underdog's view, the willingness to play, experiment and see the world differently) and yet can only be achieved with the incredible (enter the brand) lomo. otherwise it's just photography. fuck, really? i baulk at going into detail about vignetting and colour shifts here... the technical stuff is irrelevant. sort of. suffice it to say, the impact of 'lomography' has been such that photoshop wags have come up with many a plug-in to emulate the effects of the lc-a's (shit) lens.
this conflating of ethos with product is soooo frustrating; as someone who stands to gain/would love to be able to communicate more freely about/has his heart's cockles warmed by - a greater understanding of photographic possibilities, some might think it churlish or mean-spirited of me that i want to point and shout 'no clothes!' at this particular butt-naked emperor. because lomography *is* a championing of a freer aesthetic, perhaps i should be quiet? maybe even thankful?
my gripe is not at all with the deconstruction of the process of taking pictures, which is an excellent road to wander down, necessary - even essential, i think, for any broad-minded shooter.
but - and it's a big but - there seems a totally cynical sales purpose behind pushing this product 'mystique'; it's all about making you think you can ONLY bust through your creative limitations with *their* product, and that is a fundamentally false claim. lomo don't champion this photographic vision for its own sake, as a broadening/skewing or changing of staid aesthetics into a new carefree visual dynamism (that, it has to be said, smacks of so much other more western/mainstream 'yay for you, you're YOUNG!' marketing); this photographic vision is a mere by-product solely of the redemptive consumer act of buying a lomo. own the lomo, own the 'eye'deology.
the shot at the head of this post was taken with my old xa, using slide film which was ultimately cross-processed. then again, i've shot my friends having pizzas and beer and it looks good shot on slide and cross-processed... so there's nothing special about the materials or technique used, except that i only had to read a book or two and have a mind hungry enough to find the fuck out how to do shit, you know? - rather than kid myself that the only way i could access some vaunted realm of rarefied aesthetic brilliance could be to pony up stupid bucks for a piece of shit camera that has the fringe benefit of suggesting membership to some self-stroking coolsie club. if the point of lomography is ultimately in how to 'see things tangentially' and pull out all the *mental/perceptual* barriers that make conventional snapshot photography 'boring' then surely you can do it with any camera? no real artist is bound by their tools.
i have been shooting with forty year old japanese cameras for years (in addition to my SLRs) - anyone give two turds? most of the stuff from the first few months of this blog was shot with an olympus xa, the ultimate portable film camera, which i got in a swap for an old SLR, and still use as much as or more than my spiffy digital. the difference between it and the lomo is that the xa - handled with some knowledge - is a vastly more versatile photographic tool than any lomo, available at about a quarter of the price on the second-hand market.
ultimately, the main difference between style and substance is that there are no short cuts to substance.
Posted by reuben at July 6, 2006 9:28 PM
see, this is why i only shoot with my holga®
Posted by: tim at July 7, 2006 11:12 AM
well at least it's medium format – something trickier.
aren't they the made by the same company, though?
it's okay tim; it's far, far worse to be a chelsea supporter than a 'lomographer'...
Posted by: reuben at July 8, 2006 8:56 AM
Sira ulo na ako pag pinatulan pa kita ..
For Sure thats way beyond your sense of comprehension .. ciao ! lomo on !
Posted by: Shadow at October 27, 2006 3:26 PM
re: beyond my comprehension - don't recognise the language, sorry. then again, i'm not the one dumb enough to have fallen for an elaborate marketing campaign, so you questioning *my* comprehension skills is a little rich, i'm afraid.
i checked out your site; some of your photography is great. when i look at good photos, my first thought is not 'what kind of camera did the photographer use?' and it never will be. the tools shouldn't overshadow (pardon the pun) the photography itself. i repeat: lomo is for fashion victims. vision doesn't come from the equipment.
ps. that thing you're sitting on, that's your arse. your elbow is the ginglymus halfway along your arm.
Posted by: reuben at October 27, 2006 4:40 PM
couldn't have said it any better. trends are lame and are only there to make money.
FUCK A LOMO
Posted by: Kevin L at May 7, 2007 3:01 AM