Underwater elephant photography

December 26, 2005 1:48 PM

"Ashes and Snow" is the name, but it's mostly very pretty pictures of brown people with acquatic mammals such as elephants. (Alas, the portfolio requires Shockwave.) The book is itself a work of art.
"The permanent home of Ashes and Snow, the Nomadic Museum, debuted in New York in 2004 and is charted to travel the globe with no final destination." In New York it filled Pier 54 for three months (not usually such a neat art venue).
posted by Aknaton (18 comments total)

I got bored after the fifth child w/ elephant photo.
posted by furtive at 2:05 PM on December 26, 2005

David Byrne compared both the show and the museum to the work of Leni Riefenstahl.
posted by liam at 2:10 PM on December 26, 2005

I thought it was pretty-much awesome, although I only paid $7 to see it. For $20, I'd want to ride one of the elephants. You see these amazing photographs, and I assumed that a few of them were digitally altered- there's no way they could get THAT shot, right? And then, at the very end, you see a video that shows them getting said shot, and I was just blown away.
posted by 235w103 at 2:42 PM on December 26, 2005

You see these amazing photographs, and I assumed that a few of them were digitally altered- there's no way they could get THAT shot, right?

Well according to the website: None of the images have been digitally collaged or superimposed. They record what the artist himself saw through the lens of his camera. While Colbert uses both still and movie cameras, the images are not stills from the film.
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 2:56 PM on December 26, 2005

double
posted by cyphill at 3:46 PM on December 26, 2005

^Although nice to see again^
posted by cyphill at 3:47 PM on December 26, 2005

Since when is an elephant 'aquatic'?
posted by Paris Hilton at 4:04 PM on December 26, 2005

double

Bugger! I did search -- really!

Since when is an elephant 'aquatic'?

Since the link was clicked.
posted by Aknaton at 4:06 PM on December 26, 2005

See? This is what happens when you tolerate that gay marriage thing!
posted by HTuttle at 4:07 PM on December 26, 2005

Alas its pretentious commercialization in either post. I find the work paints a veneer over the reality of these mammals within their natural environments.

Sorry.
posted by Mr Bluesky at 4:33 PM on December 26, 2005

meh. i went to see this last fall and it is the definition of overrated. boring pictures, in a cheesy environment of cliche "buddhist" music and terrible lighting...
posted by yonation at 4:52 PM on December 26, 2005

I find the work paints a veneer over the reality of these mammals within their natural environments.

I remember at least one bird.
posted by ChasFile at 5:28 PM on December 26, 2005

Very nice I enjoyed it ,but it bothers me when I see young children posed with wild animals for some reason.
posted by hortense at 9:10 PM on December 26, 2005

From the "Vision" page: With profound patience and an unswerving commitment to the expressive and artistic nature of animals, he has captured extraordinary, unscripted interactions between humans and animals.

Unscripted, my ass.

There's a lot of good stuff in this work, visually, but it's missing some depth. Just because the photos aren't composited or altered doesn't make them meaningful. For all the "exotic" locales, people, and animals, it just ends up looking like a set of overpriced new-age inspirational posters.

I'd like to see them in person, though; the photographic process sounds neat.

Thanks for the post, Aknaton, I hadn't seen it.
posted by medialyte at 10:14 PM on December 26, 2005

I visited the show when it was in NYC. There were a few good photos, but it wasn't worth the time and energy. I'd agree with Byrne about Colbert's Christ-thing and with hortense about the kids. Also bothered by the pseudo-Buddhist themes. Kind of lazy.
posted by Football Bat at 10:33 AM on December 27, 2005

Just because the photos aren't composited or altered doesn't make them meaningful.

First the 'mamals' crack and now this; I really wish people would know what it is the hell they're talking about before they started talking, but that, alas, is probably wishful thinking.

Indeed a good number of the shots are comp'ed and altered and Photoshopped. While for the most part the foreground stuff is in situ, many times these elements would be combined with a different background, or the existing background would be washed out to give it a more barren (solitarty, meditative) feel.
posted by ChasFile at 1:18 PM on December 27, 2005

I saw this in NYC last summer and the most amazing thing about the show was the building it was in - it was composed of shipping containers, cardboard tubes and sheets of plastic or vinyl or something. Out of that they made a building that looked like a greek temple. Rather cool. The photos were nice but overrated, otherwise.
posted by sirvesa at 8:55 PM on December 27, 2005

ChasFile: I really wish people would know what it is the hell they're talking about before they started talking

Well, not to be redundant, but I read this on the "Vision" page as well as in an earlier comment: None of the images have been digitally collaged or superimposed. They record what the artist himself saw through the lens of his camera.

That's a pretty misleading statement, if what you say is true. And Byrne's review indicates the same. I didn't feel a lot of connection with the artist before; now I'm just mildly disgusted.

Please forgive me for believing the artist's lie.
posted by medialyte at 12:06 PM on December 28, 2005