File :-(, x, )
heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I just saw Marie Cosindas' lecture, shook her hand, and had a lovely conversation with her for a good ten minutes.

She's a living legend. Wow. Wonderful stories.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
Another awesome picture of hers. Great portraiture, and her still lifes are fascinating.
>> Anonymous
They're nothing special. You're supposed to marvel at the photo because it's Andy Warhol? That's the reason the photo is supposed to be appreciated?
>> Anonymous
>>39701
Oh, get off it. The photo is fantastic, it has little to do with the fact that Warhol is in it.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>39701
Seriously. Her early work is so similar to excellent oil portraiture, it's uncanny. She's a fantastic photographer, with more experience and talent than any of us here possess.
>> Anonymous
they're OK. Wouldn't class them as genius ... or particularly interesting. The warhol doesn't add any insights of him. They look like those pictures you get in mail-order catalogues. Oh, look, it's Andy wearing a striped teeshirt and black suit. FFS, she's got *the AG artist of the 20th century and she has him hanging round a fire-escape modelling clothes. The other one is far worse, as that looks like an up-market clothes catalogue.
>> Anonymous
It's not what he's wearing, or where he is. It's how the two things work together in the composition. The contrast of his dark suit against the more vibrant fire door, and that all the other colors are similarly warm- with that same worn appearance. Agh.. What's the point of arguing composition with you. You obviously don't understand it.
>> Anonymous
>>39919
well, can you find a building where the walls and door have aged the same and the colors work well together? or do all the buildings you see have sections that age differently and are painted in highly contrasting colors? yes, they are nice looking photos, but they dont particularly strike out as super-de-duper fascinating as the OP makes them out to be.