181;

you can find me here: http://rachaelevelyn.wordpress.com/

180;

i have too many blogs. so, i'm probably going to quit this one. jus sayin.

179;

178;

i'm not going to lie; after seeing and hearing some of the songs live, i am beginning to like the glass passenger.

what get's you off?

177;

officially the best week ever.

176;

if i don't get in to see jack's mannequin tonight, i might die. although, if i do get to, i will still probably die. i'm a bit disappointed in you andrew, you should know better than to do secret shows! i probably shouldn't speak too soon, but it will have officially gone from the worst week to the best week if i get to see this man. not to mention bethany is going to go see brand new with me next week, since the person who i was originally going to go with bailed. score!

175;

In 1936, Walker Evans photographed the Burroughs, a family of sharecroppers in Depression era Alabama.


In 1979, Sherrie Levine rephotographed Walker Evans' photographs from the exhibition catalog "First and Last."

apparently, you can photograph someone else's photograph and pass it off as your own art. some people argue that there's "nothing left to do" in the art world, so therefore we are reduced to reproducing other peoples' work just to "push the bounds" of this world.

uh, what? WHY ARE YOU AN ARTIST THEN???

i don't buy it. i think it's bullshit and uncreative and a mockery to the original artist. i can understand photographing 3D art, at lest you're projecting YOUR particular view of the object, having the viewer see it the way YOU want them to. playing with light and shadows and composition. but photographing a photograph? without any manipulation? cropping? coloring effects? collaging? [although i don't always agree with those either.] cheap. what's the point of being an artist if you can't even come up with your own art? am i the only one that this doesn't sit well with? someone explain this to me.