Last June I entered the Nikon Auckland Photo Day competition. Unfortunately I didn't get the second best award, or even get shortlisted - very disappointing. Look at this year's winners and just see for yourselves: http://www.photographyfestival.org.nz/news/index.cfm. I want my name included in that list of 30 people and I want that Nikon D7000 so badly. Next year is a long wait, though. Sigh.
Eversince I got my DSLR back in 2008 I've been joining photo competitions and yet never have I won of any of those. Just seeing someone else's winning work makes me uninspired and want to quit this hobby. Good thing a few friends' comments are keeping me in this game. Or so I thought.. But still, the dream goes on. No one's stopping me now. Doo do doo!
I named my Canonet Julia - just because I can. But it's such a shame that she failed my first roll of Kodak Ultima. It turned out that the spool did not hold well the film as I wound it, so when I opened camera door I exposed the film to sunlight. That's 36 exposures wasted! Sigh. Anyways, I made a quick remedy by taping the film to the spool. And the shots are yet to be made so stay tuned. In the meantime I will looking for some second-hand film scanners. Hmm... what to get?
So, this is my poor attempt of imitating The Sartorialist. I'm trying to do a mixture of both street fashion - which I think looks fashionable or trendy enough - and general street photography - everyday people and their dramas. I hope I could spend the same time stalking people in the CBD now that uni has started.
Some snapshots from our trip back to Auckland. It's been a month or so, and I wanted to go back to Manila. I wish I could spend some more time when I get back
I first witnessed this during my first semester in my Art History paper. First topics include, of course, the common painting and photography media. I've came up with the word common to describe these mediums, just solely because these were the ones most found in art galleries. It barely came in to my mind that videos or film can be thought of as an artwork. I meant, film, for me, is all about theaters and movie houses - in terms of venues - and narrative, of relating to plots and storyline. Film is something commercial, where the masses get to watch a decent, or crappy, movie in a huge screen and share the experience with a few other people and friends, while seats get paid.
So, going back. I thought that this films was gruesome and horrific. It gave me a peculiar impression the first time a saw it. It was not my usual black and white film (I've seen b&w films, but with plausible storylines) because its plot or storyline is rather messed up - or it is actually plotless. It jumps from one scene to another, from one place to another, from one time to another. The actors were also portrayed to do unimaginative things in the most uncommon settings (such as cutting the eyeball, a man cycling in a nun's dress, ants in palm, grabbing a woman's chest and buttocks, etc). Well, I guess these are what make the film work. Or rather, it was because of the Surrealism in it. Maybe that was the reason why I admired it so much and I tried to look for it after 2 years. Eventhough it contains peculiar and random stuffs in it, you cannot call it nonsensical. I guess this is what makes Surrealism work. The automatism of one's subconscious works. It has something Sigmund Freud's discovery of the human unconscious mind, especially in one's dreams (read more here). I loved the idea behind and hopefully one day perform a Surrealist art with my own choice of medium.
