Well, "Look" who's here...

amateriat

We're all light!
Local time
5:41 PM
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
4,291
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Yet another interesting exhibit in Gotham:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/arts/design/26look.html

I've never seen most of the photos shown in the article (the Dali photo is a stunner, and likely only slightly less P.C. then than now...but he always did like pushing people's buttons), but an interesting factoid is revealed in one of the photos, taken by a very young Look photographer by the obscure name of Stanley Kubrick. Can't tell what he's shooting with in that pic (a mirror shot in a dreessing room, where he was photographing a showgirl), although it's clearly a 35mm RF of some sort. I'll have a better look at the exhibit.

This reminds me of the short-lived relaunch of Look in the early 80s, alongside a resurrected Life. I preferred Look's harder-edged journalistic format, and their extensive use of photography in the first handful of issues. (I have the first issue, with a gritty color shot of Nelson Rockefeller). I think that their bi-weekly schedule might have been a bit overambitious, and might have ended up doing them in, although I loved it. And now I look at the thin, limp copies of Time and Newsweek on the newssstands, and I know an era has long, long passed.


- Barrett
 
Looks like a IIIc in an eveready case. The lens looks as if it's focused on 2.5 meters, about 8.2 feet.

I often wonder what happens to people in these photos. Not the rich and famous, but the Rosemary Williams'. Where is she now? How did her life unfold?
 
Last edited:
As a kid I always liked Look more than Life, yet I had more admiration for the photography in Life. It seemed richer, more "important". But Look kept me entertained, and the photography was quite good; just different from Life.
 
Back
Top Bottom