Monthly Archives: September 2021

Matthew Rolston, Hittorff, La Fontaine des Mers (Neptune), 2016

Matthew Rolstons exhibition Art People: The Pageant Portraits on view through January 2, 2022, at the Laguna Art Museum is a show as beautiful, as mysterious, as life-affirming, and as much about human creativity and art, as The Pageant of the Masters itself. And in a sense, it is also a metaphor for the career and work of Matthew Rolston himself.

At several exhibition-related artist talks by Rolston that I attended recently, including one where Rolston was in conversation with Merle Ginsberg at the Britely Social Club at the Pendry in West Hollywood, and another at the Laguna Art Museum where Christina Binkley was his interlocutor, Rolston discussed both his career and early influences.

Rolston grew up in Los Angeles and attended pretty much every art school in the area, including Chouinard (the forerunner to CalArts), Otis, and Art Center in Pasadena. He became enamored of Hollywood Studio Portraits that he found among the Collectors stores on Hollywood Boulevard. At an early age, his career was launched when he got an assignment to shoot Steven Spielberg for Andy Warhols Interview Magazine.

Rolston was fortunate in finding an early home at Interview, as fortunate as Interview was to discover Rolston. Back then, in the days when Warhol himself was very much a presence at the magazine, Interview was published as an oversize large format newsprint monthly, with cover portraits of celebrities stylized and colorized by Richard Bernstein very much in a Warhol-esque color/block style.

Inside were short features and longer Q&As with celebrities and other notables, done in a manner that was meant to convey an actual conversation you were eavesdropping on, rather than a 60-Minutes Mike Wallace grilling. Due to Interviews large format, the portraits accompanying the text were also super-sized and often in Black & White (a money-saving strategy that became an editorial point-of-view). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, most mainstream magazine photography was focused on a casual hyper-realism stars in jeans and white T-shirts, or stylized real portraits such as Avedons The American West of West Virginia coal miners that conveyed a hard-won beauty.

Matthew Rolston, Cyndi Lauper, Headdress, Los Angeles, 1986,

Interview tacked in a different direction a post-modern return to Hollywood glamour. Rolstons portraits were the opposite of casual: They were highly staged, with great attention to lighting, every element thought out, with specific references to classic images of stars such as Garbo or Dietrich, and no detail too small to be important.

From Interview, Rolstons career exploded, doing work for magazines such as Rolling Stone (hes shot more than 100 covers), Vogue, W, Vanity Fair, Harpers Bazaar. The New York Times Magazine and O, the Oprah Magazine (He has shot Oprah for more than 40 magazine covers, more than any other photographer). Theres a sense of fun to many of his portraits, even a winking nod at the past.

Rolston went on to make films and music videos, including for Madonna, Jewel, Janet Jackson, Christina Aguilera, Foo Fighters, Beyonc, Seal, and Miley Cyrus as well as advertising campaigns for brands such as Estee Lauder, LOreal, GAP (his Khakis Swing video is particularly memorable), Revlon, Polo Ralph Lauren and Burberry, among others.

Beyond his photo, film and video work, Rolston has also served as creative director on hospitality projects for clubs, restaurants, and hotels (such as the Redbury Hotels), bringing his attentional to detail, style, and flair to every detail from marketing campaigns to staff uniforms.

Having reached the summit of so many facets of his professional career, several years ago Rolston decided to embark on a series of non-commissioned art projects, series that he conceptualizes and executes at his own initiative and own cost, spending at times years on the works.

Matthew Rolston, Joe Flip, 2010, from the series Talking Heads- The Vent Haven Portraits

Rolstons found inspiration for his first Art project Talking Heads: The Vent Haven Portraits in a museum of ventriloquist dummies, the Vent Haven Museum in Fort Mitchell, Kentucky. Rolston set up a portrait studio in the museum and photographed each of his subjects in an identical manner: square format, low angle, monochromatic backdrop, and a single light source. The square format recalls Warhols Polaroids, and the white backgrounds, Avedons late work.

Rolston has said that his photos of the dummies was, on one level, an investigation of what makes us human. Which is interesting when you consider no humans appear in the series.

Matthew Rolston, Art People- The Pageant Portraits, Exhibition View, 2021

Art People: The Pageant Portraits, Rolstons second art project, currently on view in Laguna (with a beautiful catalogue available from the Museum or the projects website) consists of portraits of performers taken during the 2016 Pageant of the Masters. The Pageant is a 90-minute outdoor performance of a series of Tableaux vivants or Living Art in which volunteers are costumed, made-up and inserted into stage sets that, when framed and lit, reproduce art works for an audience of some 2600 attendees every night from the 4th of July to Labor Day, every year since 1933 (except for 1942-1945 during WWII and 2020 due to the pandemic. There is narration and although at times the figures move and even dance, the performers are neither actors nor dancers. They are more akin to reenacters. It is a most unique, uncanny performance and a memorable experience.

Rolston attended The Pageant as a child and many times since. On several occasions he approached The Pageant about doing portraits of the performers, to no avail. Then at a certain point, Rolston enthused about The Pageant sufficiently that journalist Christina Binkley pitched the Wall Street Journal on doing a feature on The Pageant and then suggested that Matthew be the photographer. The resulting 2015 article, At California Pageant, Volunteers Inhabit Works of Art provided Rolston the entre with Pageant officials such that they allowed him to make portraits of the following years 2016 Pageant performers.

Rolston set up a studio backstage for photographing the costumed (The Pageant uses two complete casts, so they can appear one week on, the other off) during breaks in rehearsals, at intermission, and immediately after performances, and shot the dummy heads that are used as makeup guides.

Rolston used an extremely high-resolution camera (100 megapixels) and then printed the color photos on 60-inch sheets of cotton rag paper. As a result, the detail is incredible, the colors rich, the effect otherworldly. Although each shoot was fast, Rolston nonetheless had ideas of how he hoped to pose the performers. Rolston shot them as is in their costume and makeup and did no retouching. To the contrary, the imperfections we see (acne, crows feet, sagging skin) are, here, critical to finding the human in the faked. Rolston did engage in some digital manipulation (for example, in one image the hands are enlarged for reasons of proportion, as a sculptor might do). And if you look closely enough at the photos, you can see Rolstons reflection in their iris taking the shot.

Matthew Rolston, Barye, Roger and Angelica (Angelica), 2016

The results are striking: There is a golden girl, who seems very much a Greek nymph come to life. Her right palm faces forward in a sign we might see in a Hindu goddess. Although her eyes are open and piercingly blue, there is something of a somnolent haze about her, like a girl who has not yet awakened to her adulthood. In contrast, Rolstons Eve, taken from Rubens and Brueghel the Elders Garden of Eden, is no youthful nubile, but a mature woman whose face carries its share of sorrow and who grasps the apple at her side as if its secrets were her own. The Laguna exhibition features a selection of images including portraits of the Pageants traditional closing image, Jesus and the Apostles from Da Vincis Last Supper. Rolston has said this project is an exploration of: What is Art? and Why do we make Art?

Matthew Rolston, Untitled, #Pa834-460, Palermo, Italy, 2013, from the series Vanitas- The Palermo ... [+] Portrait

Rolston has also completed a third art project which he has not yet exhibited, Vanitas: The Palermo Portraits which grapples with death. Rolston traveled to the Capuchin Catacombs of Palermo, Italy, where there is a collection of upright mummified corpses, fully dressed, ready for the Resurrection. But there is also a message posted at the crypt that states simply, What you are now, we used to be. What we are now, you will become.

I confess that at first, I struggled with Rolstons stated premises. What can wooden dummies say about being human? What can non-artists creating a staged derivative of a real artwork teach us about making Art? And what do mummified corpses in a crypt teach us about death?

The answer came to me when watching a TED lecture on YouTube: According to Historian Yuval Noah Harari, what distinguishes us from all other creatures, what makes us human, is our ability to be creative, to tell stories.

Therefore, in photographing ventriloquist dummies, Rolston is attempting to give life, as much as Geppetto to Pinocchio, or Dr. Frankenstein to his creature. In his portraits of the inanimate we see our own need to infuse objects with life - that is what makes us human.

Similarly, when showing us the human in those who make a tableau vivant, the element Rolston adds to the already costumed and made-up is his art. Simple but true.

And in photographing the corpses in the Capuchin Crypt in Palermo, Rolston is giving us a vivid demonstration that what us separates us from corpses is our ability to make art of them. What is death if not the end of our potential to create?

One can argue then, that in Rolstons editorial and commercial work, even in his work as a creative director, the collaborative constraints imposed by his subjects or employers are an application of his creative talent, but not Art.

By contrast, in photographing ventriloquist dummies, or stand-in performers in tableaux vivant, or even the staged corpses in Palermo, we can see that without Rolstons intervention, without his creative act, they remain inanimate, imitations of art, rather than Art itself.

In this sense, the answer to the fundamental and existential questions Rolston asks in his Art become simple: Creating is what makes us human. Because we are human, we make Art. And when we die, we cease to have the capacity to be creative. And, finally, as long as we are alive, we can appreciate Rolstons Art People: The Pageant Portraits in all their beauty and mystery.

See the rest here:

The Art of Matthew Rolston - Forbes

For months Ive been watching the construction of our new garage. The breeze-block walls have been built, soffits are in place under the eaves, the concrete floor has been poured and slate tiles are being fixed on to the roof. Soon it will be time to render the exterior with sand and cement, to seal and waterproof the walls, to varnish the new fencing, and finish it all off with a shiny coat of paint.

That means a trip to the DIY store, where the shelves are full of marketing appeals. Glossy varnishes promise to colour wood for five years. Fence treatments are UV resistant and rainproof within half an hour and protect against rot. Masonry paint is no longer just about the colour: do I need pure brilliant or ultra-smooth, anti-mould or weatherproof?

Many of these items rely for their seemingly magical properties on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), known as forever chemicals. This group of synthetic chemicals are used to prevent corrosion, reduce friction and make products waterproof and stain-resistant. Used in everything from cosmetics to food packaging, PFAS also show up in paint (as a binding agent and to give a smooth finish), wood lacquers (for repelling oil and water, and stain resistance) and sealants. They are used in the top layer of solar panels, artificial grass and firefighting foams.

PFAS incredibly strong carbon-flourine bonds mean these chemicals do not biodegrade. Renovations will not last for ever but PFAS persist and accumulate in soil, water, air, wildlife and our bodies. PFAS have been found in human breast milk and the blood of 97% of Americans. Exposure to some PFAS has been linked to fertility problems, changes in metabolism, and an increased risk of obesity and cancer yet so much still remains unknown about their long-term consequences.

Eroded by the elements or dumped down drains, PFAS end up in the water system. Once there, remediation removing the pollution is impossible. Water-treatment plants can use activated carbon to filter out some, but not all, PFAS and other contaminants, but it is expensive and requires high-temperature incineration. Most of the chemicals from that silky smooth painted wall or rust-free railing ultimately end up in the ocean.

Globally, PFAS have been widely documented in rivers, lakes, wetlands and every ocean; they are on Mount Everest and in Arctic sea ice. But they are most prevalent where there are lots of people in European cities river catchments, for example.

Wherever there is society, theres use of PFAS, says Prof Ian Cousins, an environmental chemist at Stockholm University, who has studied this huge, diverse group of chemicals for 20 years. PFAS are raining down everywhere youll find them in rainwater wherever you live at higher concentrations than the environmental standards set for rivers.

Cousins thinks this is a bigger problem than we have acknowledged. We shouldnt be releasing these man-made substances into the environment because theyre cycling around in water systems. Some transform into more harmful PFAS before coming back into air from the oceans, then raining down back on to land. The upstream solution is to not use these persistent chemicals in the first place.

The market for just building materials containing PFAS, however, is worth $26bn (19bn), according to the American Chemistry Council (compared with $753bn for the semiconductor industry). Two of the most widespread and hazardous PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), used to make Teflon, and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulphonic acid) have been phased out in most of the world but remain in the oceans. PFOA and PFOS were most detrimental at the manufacturing stage, where factory workers were exposed.

However, not all PFAS are toxic to humans: the chemistry is much more nuanced. Mapping the universe of PFAS, and trying to understand which are bad and which arent, is an important activity but that is going to take decades [to calculate] and by then it could be too late to do anything about it, says Cousins.

Some PFAS used in building materials include big molecules, such as fluoropolymers, used as coatings on roofing, that are not released when it rains. But they leach into the soil once a building gets knocked down and goes into landfill. Substances that add water-repellency or are used to make paints, inks, varnishes and lacquers are more of an immediate environmental concern, because they have smaller residual PFAS molecules that wash off more easily.

Many short-chain PFAS dissolve in water. In the ocean, most remain near the surface, in a layer between 50 and 200 metres deep. Gradually, this layer mixes with deeper water. Some chemicals sink, ending up in sediment or in the marine food chain; others remain in the water column. Some, such as PFOA, act like detergents, repelling water and rising back to the surface, to be released again into the atmosphere; Cousins and his team found that some PFAS get released as marine aerosols or droplets in sea spray, when wave movements create air bubbles.

In fact, sea-spray aerosols from the ocean are the biggest source of atmospheric PFAS. There, they can affect climate and cloud generation and all sorts of things, says Cousins. In North Americas Great Lakes region, PFAS levels in rainfall exceed that of other legacy contaminants, such as mercury and pesticides.

Cousins recommends that manufacturers take a precautionary approach, by designing alternatives that biodegrade. Some PFAS-free alternatives do exist. Roofing materials can be made with silicone or acrylic coatings. Acrylics can be used to make paints durable and glossy. Silicones or paraffin waxes can make wood lacquers repel water; silicones and epoxy resins can seal porous building materials.

However, because ingredients are not always listed on the tin, it is tricky for shoppers to make informed decisions. A simple guide is to avoid anything labelled as perfluoro, polyfluoro or fluoro, which indicates they contain PFAS.

And it is not just amateurs doing up their homes who can vote with their wallets. Owners of large buildings, such as hospitals, universities and commercial property developers, have a lot of focused buying power too, according to Hannah Ray, of the Green Science Policy Institute. She wants PFAS chemicals limited to essential use only, where no feasible alternative is available. There has been some progress, she says: Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have submitted their intention to restrict PFAS as a class and the US state of Maine will ban most uses of PFAS from 2030.

The Green Science Policy Institute warns of regrettable substitution replacing a hazardous PFAS with a slightly different PFAS not yet found to be toxic.

In the meantime, I am looking for safer PFAS-free alternatives for my garage, such as linseed oil to coat the wooden fence, and water-based eco paint ranges, although even these do include small amounts of PFAS as binders. The Cradle 2 Cradle certified building products list is a good place to start, and if there is a choice between glueing something or mechanically fixing it together with screws, I will choose the latter, because otherwise it is hard to know what the long-term effects of my choices will be.

Some PFAS could have effects that could be catastrophic, but its hard to predict, says Cousins. We could discover weve all been using a chemical thats going to make us sick but thats very difficult to remove from the environment.

Read the original here:

Forever chemicals: the hidden threat from the toxic PFAS on your shelf - The Guardian

New Zealand is not part of a new security pact between Australia, the UK and US, in what experts say is an illustration of the distance between the country and its traditional allies.

On Wednesday, the three countries announced a trilateral security partnership, Aukus, aimed at confronting China, which will include helping Australia to build nuclear-powered submarines. New Zealand and Canada were notably absent.

New Zealands longstanding nuclear-free policy also means that Australian submarines developed under the deal are banned from New Zealand waters. New Zealands position in relation to the prohibition of nuclear-powered vessels in our waters remains unchanged, the prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, said on Thursday.

She said the new agreement in no way changes our security and intelligence ties with these three countries, as well as Canada. Asked by reporters if New Zealand had been offered a place, Ardern said, We werent approached, nor would I expect us to be.

However, New Zealand is conspicuous by its absence, said Geoffrey Miller, international analyst at the Democracy Project. Canada and New Zealand are sort of being relegated here. It shows how far apart Australian and New Zealand foreign policymakers are.

Prof David Capie, director of the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University in Wellington, said New Zealand was not being sidelined, but the deal more starkly illustrated existing differences between the country and its security partners.

It highlights that much deeper level of Australian integration into US defence and security planning and thinking about China and about the region, he said. Theres no doubt this is a big deal. But New Zealand and Australia were in a different space to begin with, and this has perhaps just made that look sharper again.

Australia and New Zealand are culturally quite similar and geographically in similar positions, but they are poles apart in terms of the way they see the world, Miller said. I think this alliance underlines that theyre going in very different directions.

The opposition National party has been critical of New Zealands absence from the deal, saying it looks like New Zealand was left out of the loop.

The government needs to come clean about what happened here. Does this new partnership affect our Five Eyes relationship? What about our relationship with Australia, the one country that we have the closest defence and economic partnership? And will this have an impact on our standing as a responsible international citizen? defence spokesperson Gerry Brownlee asked.

The government needs to explain why it looks as though New Zealand has been left out of the loop, Brownlee said. Were we consulted or at the table to discuss with a group of countries that weve considered likeminded for quite some time?

While the agreement does not specifically cite China, Beijing looms large in the background. The pact comes at a time of rising tensions in the Asia-pacific region, especially over Taiwan, and Chinas increasing presence in the South China Sea. US officials speaking to reporters before the announcement did not mention China, speaking instead about sustaining and improving deterrence, but left little doubt which power Aukus was supposed to deter.

This is driven overwhelmingly by concerns about China, Capie said. Notwithstanding the fact that China is not mentioned in the statements, its all about China.

And as Australia has adopted increasingly hawkish rhetoric on Beijing, New Zealands milder positioning has sometimes raised eyebrows across the Tasman and in the UK.

Over the past year, foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta has repeatedly emphasised New Zealands independent and values-based foreign policy. In April, the minister caused a minor stir with comments that New Zealand was uncomfortable with expanding the remit of the Five Eyes, a remark that some saw as a shift away from that alliance. In China, state-run media heralded the comments as New Zealand secure[ing] its interests by distancing from US-led clique.

To be clear, New Zealand values the Five Eyes relationship, Mahuta told the Guardian in May. Its a security and intelligence framework from which we can work with trusted allies on those specific issues. But we dont need the Five Eyes to articulate where we stand on human rights issues.

The Aukus agreement illustrates some of those differences between Australias increasingly close alignment with the US on China issues, and New Zealands relative distance.

The pact does not include Canada, the other Five Eyes partner, either. In recent years, Canada and New Zealand have had similarities in their orientation toward Beijing condemning human rights breaches on specific issues in a case-by-case way, but avoiding strong statements on the country more broadly.

Miller said both countries were trying to walk the tightrope a bit, and not trying to get into a big spat with China.

There had been quite a lot of pressure put on New Zealand to join the western position on China, Miller said, but New Zealand largely held firm through all those overtures. I think in the end, this is the alternative.

The primary focus of the Aukus agreement is supply of nuclear submarines to Australia a development that would see parts of the Australian naval force barred from New Zealand waters.

Since the mid-1980s, New Zealand has had a strict policy keeping its territorial sea, land and airspace as nuclear-free zones. The policy, made partly in solidarity with Pacific islands suffering the fallout of nuclear testing, created a rift with the United States, which suspended its obligations to New Zealand under the Anzus treaty.

Although any nuclear-powered submarines are barred from New Zealand ports, that prohibition may be more theoretical than logistical, given Australian and US submarines likely have little reason to be in New Zealand waters. I dont think in practical terms, its going to create a problem, Capie said. But the principle that some of the defence capabilities of your only ally are unable to visit your waters is an uncomfortable one.

In her statement, Ardern emphasised New Zealands Pacific connections in what Capie said could be read as a nod to the countrys nuclear-free history. New Zealand is first and foremost a nation of the Pacific and we view foreign policy developments through the lens of what is in the best interest of the region, Ardern said.

We welcome the increased engagement of the UK and US in the region and reiterate our collective objective needs to be the delivery of peace and stability and the preservation of the international rules based system.

Capie said Arderns statement reinforced the message of her other recent speeches, that NZ prefers to focus on its immediate neighbourhood rather than on maritime Asia where that much sharper military confrontation with China is playing out, he said. [Thats] where the new Australian subs would be operating.

See the rest here:

Aukus submarines banned from New Zealand as pact exposes divide with western allies - The Guardian

New premiere of the Marvel Cinematic Universe this Wednesday with the sixth episode of What If? on the streaming service Disney+. On this occasion the central characters were Killmonger, voiced by Michael B. Jordan, and Tony Stark, although without the interpretation of Robert Downey Jr. It was another vibrant episode and the fans made it clear on the networks are their reactions.

This program takes the viewer to know worlds totally different from the conventional reality of the MCU, something that can be given thanks to the power of animation. Todays delivery was called What if Killmonger rescued Tony Stark?, with the following synopsis: An American soldier named Killmonger rescues Tony Stark when his Humvee is attacked in Afghanistan.

When the antagonist of Black Panther interrupts the events in Afghanistan, at the same time displaces any future project of Stark to become Iron Man, which means that in that universe the Avengers could not get together. Killmonger serves as a US Navy SEAL and manages to gain Tonys trust after revealing Obadiah Stanes plans against him.

This leads to Killmonger conveniently introducing him to an automated combat robot under the excuse that it is his doctoral thesis. The genius, millionaire, playboy and philanthropist helps him without problems by contacting the arms dealer, Ulysses Klaue, since they need vibranium, but it is all about a trap in which James Rhodes and TChalla die, with the voice of the late Chadwick. Boseman, and until then we did not know his true motivation.

Upon returning to the United States, he betrays Stark and assassinates him, something that intensifies a war with Wakanda that had begun after Rhodes death. Killmonger arrives with Klaue to his nation, but he also turns his back on him and kills him to offer it as proof that he is no longer with the Americans and only wants to return home. The war conflict unfolds and finally the villain achieves what he was looking for from the beginning: to be the next Black Panther.

Still havent subscribed to Disney + to enjoy exclusive Marvel content? Subscribe in this link. Do not wait more!

Originally posted here:

Memes and fan reactions for episode 6 of What If ? on Disney + - Market Research Telecast