Tuesday, July 31, 2007

White Wall Collective

I’ve been featured on the super-cool White Wall Collective today. Go here to check it out. And if you’re not yet aware of WWC, here’s what they have to say about themselves:
White Wall Collective, WWC, is a Detroit-based photography collective focused on the encouragement, support and nurturing of photographic talent. Recognizing a disconnect between opportunites to showcase work and the photographers, the WWC aims to unite people both in Detroit and outside of the city. Forming strong support systems, networks and a place to showcase photographs, the WWC offers a central system to present critique, information and passion for art. By keeping updated information on contests, openings and shows and other such opportunities, we can form a greatly connected group of photographers that encourage an awareness of the arts community within Detroit.

Labels: ,

Insomnia

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one night of not falling asleep is not chronic insomnia; it’s acute insomnia, and no one is immune. I know this because it’s 3 a.m. and I have been lying in bed for four hours, tossing, turning, wrestling with the covers, getting up, walking around, and looking at my dog, whose own deep sleep mocks me, and because, out of sheer boredom, I did a Google image search on “insomnia” and came across the following image, part of some sort of report from a 2005 NIH conference on the subject.



I like the implications of the color bars, although in the age of cable TV, they’re increasingly rare. I remember, as a kid, getting up so early on Saturday mornings that the color bars were still on the TV screen. It seems hard to believe, so maybe this is a twisting of my memory, but I think my sisters and I actually watched the color bars before the cartoons came on. How that could possibly have held our attention, I’m not sure.

According to the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, CBS Technology Center received an Emmy in 2001–2002 for “Development and standardization of the Alignment Color Bar Test Signal for Television Picture Monitors.” Even insomnia hasn’t driven me to the point of wanting to know what changes were made to the color bars in 2001–2002 from the way they appeared before Super Friends (“Wonder Twin powers, activate!”) on Saturday mornings in the early ’80s.

Labels:

Monday, July 30, 2007

Carpinteria


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball

Tom Snyder, 1936–2007

The blogs are abuzz with posts about Ingmar Bergman today. I’ll take Tom Snyder. Anybody with the following catch phrase is cool in my book, and I can’t think of a better way to pay tribute to the man than to say it again right here:

“Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air.”

Labels: , ,

Friday, July 27, 2007

Cruise America


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

David Alan Harvey on editorial assignments

On the subject of editorial assignments, David Alan Harvey has an excellent post today that gets to the heart of what’s running through a photographer’s mind in anticipation of such projects. (Click here to read it.)

I think a critical part of doing editorial work (or commissioned work of any kind) must be not just asking all those questions he raises—How will I do this? Will I do my best work? Will I satisfy myself?—but thriving on those questions and the unknown answers. I can’t imagine you could really enjoy the work if you didn’t also enjoy all the questioning that happens before you even leave for the airport.

For what it’s worth, I also think those questions are the ones that good photographers ask themselves when they’re doing their own personal projects. Because, in the end, whether the assignment is one you’ve given yourself, or it’s one you’ve been given by someone else, if you accept it, it’s personal.

Labels: , ,

Monday, July 23, 2007

Cattails


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball

Saturday, July 21, 2007

I am Lucy

I have to come clean: I was on a bit of a blog high this week. One of my posts was mentioned by Conscientious and What’s the Jackanory? and Drinking with a Dead Man, and I saw pretty much an 1,800 percent increase in visitors. (It’s been a while since I’ve done much math, but I’m pretty sure that number is correct.) Comments galore, more e-mails even than comments, readers out the wazoo, a general feeling of gushiness about the whole concept of blogging. Enthusiasm run amok.

Meanwhile, I didn’t get a damn thing done at my day job for the last few days of the week, and as a freelancer, that’s especially bad. No work = no $$$. So I did what I always do when I’m getting nothing done and staring down a checking account with a near-zero balance: I went shopping. Online, of course, because I appear, in the past few days, to have forgotten that there is an actual non-Web world out there. And, so between the shopping and the e-mailing and the blogging and blog-reading, I got even less work done.

I am officially Lucy Ricardo (either pressed up against the kitchen cabinet by an 8-foot-long loaf of bread coming out of the oven, or stuffing conveyer-belt candy in my mouth and down my shirt—take your pick).

Worst of all, I have not, in the past few days, taken any pictures.

Somehow, in the midst of all this blog lovin’, I’ve lost touch with why I started blogging in the first place: to get myself photographing every day and to share the results of my work with anyone who wanted to have a look.

Everything has felt off-kilter, and it’s clear to me why. The conveyor belt must stop. The bread must fall. I must get back to work, and back to photographing.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Expectations

A few days ago, I posted my thoughts and questions about Todd Hido’s work in the July 15 issue of The New York Times Magazine. I said then (and it bears repeating) that I’m firmly on the side of artists-doing-whomever-whatever-whenever. Andrew Hetherington responded to my post and took it in different directions on his own blog, writing from his own extensive experience as an editorial photographer and pointing out the many and varied difficulties in editorial assignments. (His post is definitely worth a read if you haven’t checked it out already, as is John Loomis’s own follow-up.)

Hido’s photo isn’t my favorite of his; the word I used to describe it in my initial post is unremarkable, and I still think that fits. But I don’t have any judgments about who gets hired for (or accepts) which assignments. Curious is a more accurate description of how I feel about it. I’m simply interested in how Hido came to do that assignment, what his experience was working on it, and how he felt about the pictures he got and the one the magazine chose to run.

Today, Jörg Colberg posted saying:
. . . it is interesting to see how once editorial work (done by fine-art photographers) is concerned, there is a new complex of topics. For the photographers there are some new problems to tackle, . . . and it seems to me that everybody else has to deal with expectations. We know what photographer X has been doing for a while, and we simply expect to find something along those lines in his or her editorial work—an expectation that (just like any other expectation) is not very helpful (even though it’s exactly the kind of expectation that certain magazines seem to count on when hiring well-known fine-art photographers for editorial work).
I read this and the line that stuck in my mind was “an expectation that (just like any other expectation) is not very helpful.” Really? I think expectations are inherent, and for good reason. Each of us is filled with expectations—expectations are part of what it is to be alive. We expect all kinds of things from ourselves and from each other, and those expectations are what not only get us into trouble but bring us joy. If we had no expectations, we could never be surprised. Part of an artist’s job is to challenge people’s expectations. In fact, I’ll even go so far as to say that, without expectations, art might not exist.

Besides, to think that a person could possibly approach a photograph, any photograph, without expectations is unrealistic. Break it down: If I tell you that I’m going to show you a photograph, instantly you have an idea about what a photograph is. Your expectations will depend on who you are and what experiences you’ve had with photographs (as well as on who I am and what you know about me), but no matter what, you will have expectations. If I tell you I’m about to show you a Todd Hido photograph, your expectations may or may not change, depending on whether you know Hido’s work (and which of his work you know).

The fact that I had certain expectations of a Hido photograph isn’t a bad thing: It means that I not only have had experiences looking at photographs (experiences that shape my thoughts and feelings when I look at new photographs for the first time), but that I have experience with Todd Hido’s photographs in particular. I approach that photo with all those experiences inside me. And so, in that moment of seeing the photograph for the first time, I may love it or hate it or feel something in between those two extremes. But that initial moment of looking is exciting for exactly that reason.

When I was walking to the newsstand, about to see Alec Soth’s work in W magazine for the first time, I was excited to get my hands on a copy because I had expectations and I knew that those expectations might or might not be met. I might think the photos were crap, or I might be blown away by them, or worst of all, I might not feel anything, and then what? But all those feelings of anticipation that were running through my mind were set into motion specifically because of my expectations.

I expect things of myself, of people known and unknown to me, of my government, of my camera, of my car, of my dog. My expectations are often proven wrong—for better or worse. The world continually surprises me, and I continue to surprise myself.

Expectations may not help, but I wouldn’t want to live without them.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Faculty

I’m sure there are all kinds of wonderful benefits that come with getting your education formally (i.e., in art school), but I am so thankful that my photographic education is coinciding with the burgeoning of blogs and that I’m able to use those blogs, along with my own work and reading and study, to cobble together an informal education for myself.

In the past few weeks I’ve been increasingly overwhelmed with all the technical stuff I don’t know about photography (lighting, in particular). My god, how can I be a photographer if I only use natural light? Entire categories of my lack of knowledge were growing in my mind; subcategories were being created. Why? Because I now have several ideas for projects that I’ve either just begun or am planning to begin soon, and I want to get them right. What if I’m missing some key piece of information, some critical technical expertise, that could make all the difference?

And then tonight, I read Alec’s post about lighting setups and Mirrors and Windows and The Americans, and I was relieved. I don’t have to know all that lighting shit. I don’t have to do anything but follow what interests me. I can learn it if and when I want to. Or I can never learn it. But where did I get the idea that that was necessary to make great photographs?

I read Alec tonight, and it was exactly what I needed. I am not in art school, but I have assembled, without setting out to do so, my own personal faculty for my photographic education. They include: Jen Bekman, Armando Bellmas, Lane Collins, Jörg Colberg, Mrs. Deane, Amy Elkins, Martin Fuchs, Shawn Gust, Raul Gutierrez, David Alan Harvey, Andrew Hetherington, Ben Huff, Shane Lavalette, John Loomis, Shelly Lowenkopf, Christian Patterson, Susana Raab, Justin James Reed, Kevin Sisemore, Alec Soth, Amy Stein, Zoe Strauss, Brian Ulrich, Greg Wasserstrom, and Shen Wei. Every day, at least half a dozen of these people open my eyes to something I hadn’t considered, introduce me to the work of a photographer I hadn’t heard of, challenge me to find my own answers to the questions they raise. Every day, they push me—most without knowing it—to work harder, be better. And this list doesn’t include teachers like Mitch Epstein and Joel Sternfeld, those who don’t blog but whose books I’ve learned just as much from as I have from the rest.

The best part about this school I’ve cobbled together for myself? There is no graduation. It never ends.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, July 16, 2007

Todd Hido, editorial work

Todd Hido had a photo in The New York Times Magazine on Sunday. A portrait of Milton Katselas, an acting coach in Hollywood who also happens to be a Scientologist.


Copyright © Todd Hido

The photo is unremarkable, really, except for the fact that Hido shot it. In fact, the story ran with two photos, and I wrongly assumed on first read that both images were shot by Hido. (Turns out the second one was shot by Stephanie Diani of Getty Images.)


Copyright © Stephanie Diani/Getty Images, for The New York Times

Note: This version of Diani’s photograph, available on The New York Times Web site, is a cropped version of the photograph that appeared in the print magazine on Sunday.

Even before I realized that only one of the photographs was Hido’s, it made me think about that whole artists-doing-editorial debate. After realizing my mistake, I’m thinking about it even more so.

I’m firmly on the side of artists-doing-whomever-whatever-whenever. That said, I couldn’t help but wonder why The New York Times Magazine wanted Hido for this particular story, and what Hido brought to the portrait that someone else couldn’t have. I love Todd Hido’s work, but this photo seems incongruent in a way that raises lots of questions for me.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Yellow car, phone booths


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Hey, Hot Shot! featured me!

Hey, so I was featured on the Hey, Hot Shot! blog today! (Greg Wasserstrom broke the news to me in his comment on my last post. I would’ve seen it anyway—I love checking out all the work of the HHS contenders and winners—but how cool that I got the word from such a great photographer instead.)

If you don’t know about HHS, definitely check it out—and enter your own work! It’s one of the best outlets for emerging photographers. Getting your work in front of those jurors is a big deal in and of itself, and if you win, well come on. The deadline is August 7 at 11:59 p.m. (Psst! I’ve been following the HHS blog for a while now and they seem to extend the deadline every time. No guarantees they’ll do it this time, though. All the more reason to get your stuff in early.)

P.S. When I got out of bed this morning, this was what my bed looked like. Jack did not move. He was like that nearly all night. See that tiny little strip between his head and the edge of the mattress? That’s where I spent most of the night, seriously considering getting down on the floor and onto his dog bed that I paid an arm and a leg for. Where is the justice in this? Let’s not get into the fact that the first thing I did after getting out of bed was take this picture.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Exercise in patience

I got a lovely e-mail last night from photographer Werner Engelen in Belgium, who asked for some feedback on his work and was kind enough to offer me feedback on my own. Werner pointed out, however, that on my Web site, in the South of Cota series, image #11 is the same as image #11 in the In Store series. Sure enough, he’s right. Plus, 13 of the 20 images are in the wrong order in South of Cota.

To say that I went over the site with a fine-toothed comb before it went live would be an extreme understatement. I was paying such close attention to detail that I’m sure my Web designer, Brad Phillips, was on the verge of losing his mind. I’m talking exhaustive lists of edits, including such things as asking him to move the copyright notice to the right by one pixel, and other stuff like that. After the site went live, I went through it all again. I was entering a competition and asked my sister Cara to go through and choose her favorite images. We talked about many of them, looked at the site together (over the phone), blah blah blah.

The point: I was incredibly anal in looking at this site, and it’s not like I’ve not been back to it since it went live. And still, something like this slips through the cracks. Oh, the frustration.

A quick call to Brad, I figured, would do the trick. Sure enough, he got back to me right away. But he’s in the middle of moving from Utah to New York City, and his computer with all his files on it is still in Utah, and he’s in Brooklyn, and he won’t have it until June 23 at the earliest. He was very sweet and apologetic and all that, and I’m not upset with him in the least—it’s my fault for not catching the problem in the first place.

But still, this is an extreme exercise in patience for someone as anal as I am. Seriously.

Labels: ,

Monday, July 09, 2007

California girls, yellow carts, girl in window, and mattress

A few photos from the past couple days.


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Looking

I’ve gotten a great response on my In Store project since relaunching my site last month, and I’m looking for ways to expand the project. I’m seeing lots of possibilities right now, and feeling the need to try at least a few to see if they work. One that I’m starting with is photographing people who have belongings in storage, with their stuff, as well as photographing the stuff alone. I’m not sure how this’ll fly. Imagining what’s behind closed doors may be more interesting than the reality.

Part of my reason for wanting to include people in the project is because I realized that all my favorite photo books include a mix of portraits and everything else (landscapes, photos of objects, photos of buildings, etc.). That’s not necessarily the best reason: What works for those projects may not work for this one. But it’s a strong enough argument to get me to at least try a few rounds with people and see what I get.

I’m currently looking for people who have belongings in storage and who would be willing to let me photograph them and/or their stuff. I’m also looking for managers of storage facilities who would let me photograph there. If you or anyone you know fits this description, I’d love to hear from you.

Labels:

Friday, July 06, 2007

With myself

David Schonauer has an interesting interview with French photographer Bettina Rheims over on the American Photo site. I hadn’t known of Ms. Rheims’s work before, but I checked out her gallery’s site, and found some portraits that I really like.


Copyright © Bettina Rheims


Copyright © Bettina Rheims


Copyright © Bettina Rheims

A few months ago, Alec Soth posted about artists doing editorial work, which sparked an interesting debate (should they or shouldn’t they?). Being new to this game, I thought maybe I was just being naïve in wondering why this was even a question: Why not do editorial work, or commercial work, or any work that interests you? I found Ms. Rheims’s comments on this subject pertinent (and helpful to someone trying to figure out where she fits in):
I have always believed that whether the work is my idea or a commission, it is personal work. When I do advertising jobs, I always think, “Will one of these pictures have another destiny? Will it become a lasting, important picture?” In the end, as my old master Helmut Newton used to say, there are only two kinds of pictures: the good ones and the bad ones.
And then this:
I’m proud that I can’t be categorized. I think a lot of artists find something and do everything in that way. They are careful not to change, and to make pictures that can be identified instantly. I would be happy to be recognized, who wouldn’t? I like it when someone comes up to me and says, “I like your work.” But I’m with myself most of the time and I want to be happy with what I am doing.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Evoking, conveying

E-mailing with Shawn Gust the other day, and congratulating him on his recent inclusion in Flak Photo, I mentioned another recent Flak photographer, Lane Collins, and her photograph of her grandparents, which I really love.


Copyright © Lane Collins

Shawn said that Lane’s photo reminded him of one of Justin James Reed’s photos from his Westward series.


Copyright © Justin James Reed

Very similar at first glance. And yet the expressions on the faces of the subjects communicate entirely different messages and leave me with entirely different feelings. I like both images equally well, but the more I look at them, the less alike they look.

Since my post yesterday about Taryn Simon’s work, and since raising the whole issue of the feeling evoked by an image (or the lack of feeling), I’ve been thinking a lot more about my own work and what I’m trying to convey. I had the discomfiting realization that most of my own images in my In Store series don’t evoke any strong feelings in me (pot, kettle, black). So I started trying to figure out what exactly I’m trying to convey in the project. And that’s when I realized that the difference is in conveying versus evoking. Am I trying to convey a message to the viewer? Or am I trying to evoke a feeling in the viewer? One way isn’t better than the other, and both may apply. But I need to get a better grasp on what my intention is (convey vs. evoke, message vs. feeling, what message, what feeling) if I hope to take my photography up a notch.

Nothing like critiquing someone else’s work only to discover what’s lacking in your own.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Accessing Taryn Simon

I bought Taryn Simon’s An American Index of the Hidden and Unfamiliar recently, and I’ve finally gone through it in detail. I like to pay attention (even if it’s after the fact) to my emotional response when I get new photo books, and also to my response as I look at them. When I got this book, I was pleased, but as I read and looked at it, my pleasure slowly turned into respect, and that’s where it stayed.

I don’t know about you, but I think respect is overrated.

Don’t get me wrong: I want to earn people’s respect, and I don’t think it’s a small accomplishment that Ms. Simon has earned the respect of so many. But if that’s all I elicit through my photographs—as it was all she elicited in me—I think I’ll have done something wrong.

I feel about Ms. Simon’s work the same way I feel about Susan Sontag’s writing. Respect, definitely. But that’s the extent of it. I don’t feel anything when I read Sontag, and I don’t feel anything when I look at Simon’s photographs. I think things, but I don’t feel.


Copyright © Taryn Simon

Proof: I had Simon’s book for several weeks before I’d finally finished looking at all the photos and reading all the text. I had Mitch Epstein’s Family Business for forty-eight hours and I’d already read it in close detail, twice. Alec Soth’s NIAGARA, twenty-four hours. I didn’t want to put those books down.

What’s the difference? Why the connection to Epstein’s work? Or Soth’s? I have as much trouble describing it or defining it as I do describing or defining why I’m attracted to certain people. I just know it when I feel it.


Copyright © Mitch Epstein

I respect Ms. Simon for her skill, her commitment, her follow-through, her ability to get a camera into some pretty unusual places. But I found that I rarely moved past the question of “How’d she get access to shoot there?” There’s a place for this work, of course. (Justin James Reed has a recent post about Burtynsky, Polidori, and Gursky along these lines.) It just isn’t a place I want to spend much time.


Copyright © Alec Soth

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Independence

Lots of talk lately about photographers’ rights being restricted. On Independence Day, take a few minutes to read the Declaration of Independence. Then ask yourself what we, as the governed, have consented to in the past six years. To what forms have we become accustomed? Are we more disposed to suffer than abolish? If not, what can we do to abolish that which we abhor?

A starting point: Register to vote, and exercise your rights, inside and outside the voting booth.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Labels:

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Beach

I feel weird now if the day’s wrapping up and I haven’t taken any pictures. I think it’s a good thing.


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball

Monday, July 02, 2007

Freedom and fear

Later this month, I’ll make my first trip up to the Salinas Valley, to a place where I’m working on a long-term project. I say that in the present progressive, even though I haven’t really begun photographing there in earnest. Just a handful of images; a few dinners; a deepening enthusiasm about the place, shared with my boyfriend (nothing is more intoxicating than enthusiasm batted around between us in the front seat of his Toyota); the growing sense that this is a place I (and we) want to spend more time. I’ve planned a three-day weekend later this month, hopeful that he’ll be able to get away with me, aware that I may be going it alone, and comfortable with either scenario.

This first trip will be the easy one. I’ll have a lot to do—getting the lay of the land, seeing places I haven’t seen before, making lists of things I want to photograph on future trips. The later trips, the ones after I’ve done a lot of the groundwork, are the ones that scare me. To do this project the way I’m starting to see it in that imaginary museum in my basement, I’ll need to hang out, talk to strangers, ask to take their picture. How will I explain this project to them when I don’t really have an explanation for myself? Will it be enough for them that I’m just drawn to the place? Will it be enough for me?

Answers in time. Meanwhile, here are some photographs from yesterday. (I’m likin’ this freedom-to-post-whatever-whenever thing.)


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball


Copyright © 2007 Liz Kuball

Labels:

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Update your feed reader

I’ve transferred my feed over to FeedBurner, so if you’re subscribed through a feed reader, please update my feed address to http://feeds.feedburner.com/lizkuball.

If you’re scratching your head and wondering what the hell I’m talking about, you don’t have to worry about this. But if you’re curious, you can click the link above (or click the orange feed icon on the right-hand side of the page), and subscribe. (Subscribing is just a way for you to keep track of all your favorite blogs without having to visit each blog one by one.) You can subscribe to blog feeds using Google Reader (or one of the many, many other feed readers out there). Finally, if you’d rather not deal with feed readers, you can enter your e-mail address in the box to the right and get my latest posts delivered to your inbox. Pretty nifty.