photos

Eve Arnold is known for her celebrity photographs, and perhaps most known for her photos of Marilyn Monroe.  This is how I, as a woman with an obsession with Monroe, discovered Arnold.  After reading my last book on Monroe, I had decided to swear-off my obsession and stop buying more Monroe stuff — at least books.  But then I discovered Eve Arnold’s book of Monroe photographs…

Full of photos — nearly 100, including 48 previously unseen — yes; but it’s the quality, not the quantity.

Arnold’s photographs of Marilyn are unique.  Unusually benevolent, these intimate photos of Marilyn Monroe expose the icon’s personality rather than her flesh.  In these photos we see a person, not a sex object; a human, not any kind of object at all.  And while I could go on and on about them, the important thing to know here is that these photos are different for several key reasons.

One is the all important matter of timing — and developing.  The two met at a party and forged a wonderful friendship that would last a decade.  As Arnold says, “We were both at the beginning of our careers, and I believe that neither of us knew precisely what we were doing.”

At the risk of more bad-pun-making, I’ll say what allowed the friendship to develop was the chemistry between the two.  While many dismiss Marilyn’s intelligence, Eve didn’t.  Both women knew what effect being a woman had on the world around her, and as Eve says, “We could make use of it, or we could let it be.”

Arnold would later say, “I didn’t want to be a ‘woman photographer’. That would limit me. I wanted to be a photographer who was a woman, with all the world open to my camera.” (And more recently confirms this belief, saying in a BBC interview, “No, I am a photographer. And you don’t say, a man photographer. So it seems likely that I am a photographer.”) This certainly puts the the two women on decidedly different paths, at least in appearance; yet it would stop neither’s success.

Arnold was the first woman to be nominated for membership in Magnum in 1951, and became a full member in 1957.  In 1995 she was made fellow of the Royal Photographic Society and elected Master Photographer, the world’s most prestigious photographic honor, by New York’s International Center of Photography; and in 2003, she was awarded an honorary O.B.E. (Order of the British Empire) by the British Government.

Looking at her photographs, you can see why.

Through her photos of celebrities, we see more than famous people, more than a time capsule of “us” or “society”.  Even with such famous & familiar faces, we see something — someone — new.

If the mark of a really good novel is that you think of the characters long after the book ends, then photographs of people ought to do the same. Eve Arnold’s photos do that.  Even if you think you know the people in the portraits.

And when you don’t know the people in the photographs?  You long to…

In fact, if I have one complaint about Arnold’s works, it’s that I can’t find out enough.  I know that photographers believe that a photo is worth a thousand words, but often they do not seem to document the details which I long to know…  A perpetual problem for me, I know; but still, why can’t I find out more about Charlotte Stribling aka ‘Fabulous’?  Or Girl Holding Head, Insane Asylum, Haiti 1954?

The titles are stark, in such contrast to such compassionate, deep, rich images.  Perhaps this is by design, so that I, we, move past words and labels into what seeing and feeling.  But I still want to know more about Charlotte and Girl Holding Head.  For now, all I can do is stare at the photos and wonder.

Along with her famous celebrity protraits, there are a few others we can learn more about. Such as the Veiled woman, Muscat, Oman 1969.  She, and others, can (presumably) be seen in Arnold’s 1969 film about Dubai, Behind the Veil. This film is said, not only to capture “a traditional Muslim society just as it begins to become modernized, but also the antagonism between Islamic and Western societies that has been the stuff of news stories throughout the first years of the 21st century.”

I bet it’s amazing.

If there’s one thing I’ve read which seems to sum up the brilliance of Arnold’s photos, it’s this quote from the artist herself: “If a photographer cares about the people before the lens and is compassionate, much is given. It is the photographer, not the camera, that is the instrument.”

This is the gift of this talented photographer.  A gift no doubt noticed & appreciated by Monroe, allowing such a friendship, but by all who were before Arnold’s camera.  Indeed a gift she shares with all who see her photographs.

So now I’ll collect Eve Arnold works — likely in books, due to my modest means.  Not because she knew Marilyn; but because she knew how to take pictures of her.  And of everyone she photographed.

PS  Through June 14, the David Gallery exhibits All About Eve, the single largest collection of vintage and period Eve Arnold prints available for acquisition.  I wish I were close enough to see it.  If you go, I’m accepting souveniers.

Here’s another photo of an item I didn’t purchase at an antique mall — a pair of vintage cowgirl pants, with a risqué & racist theme.

I didn’t get these because, as cute as they are, they were just too pricey for me.  (That’s not to say the price of $40 isn’t fair; I just don’t have the bucks.)  I took the photos just so you could all see them — inappropriate jokes and all.

And then I started thinking about that postcard I didn’t get.

I’ve spent some time — perhaps too much time — thinking about that postcard.  And the only reason I haven’t gone back to get it (yet) is that it started me thinking…

Collectors are like fishermen.  We both like to hang out all day at places that other folks (who don’t fish &/or collect) find about as exciting as watching paint dry.  And we both love to talk about what we do, the great catches we’ve got, and talk about the great ones which got away.

Mostly at this blog we talk about the first two things (what we do and the great catches), but we rarely talk about the big ones which got away.

I don’t know why this is so; certainly any group of collectors will talk about how some “jerk” beat them to The Deal, how Mr. Deep Pockets out-bid them at an auction, or complain about bid sniping software which supposedly helped some other guy “steal” the auction item.  We tell those legendary stories of how we snagged one lucky find at an estate sale, only to discover that they had thrown away boxes of more “just like it” (usually followed by a, “Would you have wanted that? …We didn’t think it had any value…” Ack!)  But sometimes we collectors are just as ignorant to what lies in our hands, and we walk away from something.  Like me and that postcard.  And then we regret it — and annoy family & friends alike just talking about the one that got away.

Just like that fish that grabs the bait or slides off the hook… We almost had it!

I walked away from both the postcard and the vintage cowboy jeans, but I’m only going to go on & on about the postcard.  The difference?

The jeans were too expensive, and, like fish that are too small, I couldn’t keep them so I had to throw them back.  But that postcard… That one I should have got the net for.

Collectors are also like fishermen because we return to our same “lucky spots” for years & years — all because of that one trophy piece we caught that one time.  And as soon as the seasons starts, good weather or bad, we’re out there, “wasting” our weekends when we could be doing something else (i.e. what other people like to do).

Why?

Because we don’t want to let something get away.

Yesterday, the Wifey and I had a couple sawbucks in our pockets and decided to go hit the thrift shops and antique stores. At the Moorhead Antique Mall, one of our favorite ratting-around stops, we found a booth with an appropriately-labeled “junk box” — everything inside $5 or less. It was, of course, mostly junky things, small stuff that didn’t deserve being locked up in the glass cabinets. One of the items in the box is pictured to the right: a small baggie, about 4″ x 7″, labeled “Bag of misc pictures $4.00“. “Misc Pictures”? I’m all over that like stink on our terrier (but that’s another story). In the end, of course, $4 was just the tip of the iceberg, but the mystery of a little sealed baggie of photos is worth sharing.

From the outside, the only really recognizable thing is a photo of a large, art deco style building identified by the huge “FORD” sign over the doorway. The Ford building is the top of a stack of a bunch — 20 to 30 — of small 1-½”x3″ photos. Underneath them are several larger, odd-sized photos, and stuck in the middle are some loose color-printed paper. We’ll start at the top.

The Ford building is one of the many buildings build for the Texas Centennial Exposition — the size and format of the pictures would indicate that these were purchased as a souvenir set, and probably would have originally had a custom sleeve to hold them. The corners of these pictures have glued paper remnants, indicating that the owner had probably moved the pictures from the sleeve to a scrapbook. If you want a better look at these pictures, I’ve uploaded some of them as a collection here at CQ.

Right underneath them, the color paper confirms the origin of these photos — here we have a ticket stub from the expo, and a tourist pamphlet. The ticket is beautiful, and the missing corner is a disappointment; I wonder if that’s how it was canceled, or if something important was there to identify the owner, but whatever it was it is sorely missed. The rest of the ticket is far from disappointing; the bright, vivid colors are excellent, showing banner carriers from the six flags that have flown over Texas in its colorful history. The pamphlet is cool, but is a little short on information — I’d have loved to have found a map, but, ah, well, I’ll just have to be satisfied that I now have a pretty full dossier on the Texas Centennial, all spilled from this little baggie.

There were a few things left in the bag, and these are my favorite: actual, person- photographed pictures that appear to be from the same time. The provenance would indicate that some antique dealer pulled these all from the same scrapbook, so while there’s no real proof they were taken any time around the Exposition, it’d be a reasonable guess to make. What especially appeals to me are the natural settings, not posed portraiture that dominates so many photo albums. These are, by far, the more valuable part of the baggie’s contents. My favorite? The Radium Spa photo to the left. When on your way to the Texas Expo, be sure to soak in irradiated water! The rest of the photos can be found in the Community as well.

So, was it worth the $4? Most definitely — although nothing was earth- shatteringly cool, the fun of figuring out what was in a mystery bag beats anything else I could do for $4, and I was happy to see that the photos fit into the rest of my photo collection.

Those who have read my blogs before will know that I am a seller on ebay and in our ’store.’ I do not traditionally sell ‘widgets’, or a standard product but offer a very wide variety of items. I have sold accordions, cufflinks, buttons, sports collectibles, advertising items, china, tools; pretty much anything I can possibly carry to the house, clean up and ship. One of the benefits of selling such a diverse ‘product line’ is that you continually search for unusual items. And then you have to do some research when you do!

My latest find was a group of old movie photos, some from the original studios with names of the stars and the movie itself. Most did not have dates. My ‘new best friend’, Google, has been a tremendous help in this area. During the course of research, I have learned a lot about these early celebs. Some of it pretty darn interesting!

The first photo I show is Nova Pilbeam. Do you think the studio heads of today would allow her to KEEP THAT NAME? Very doubtful. In fact, one of her bios said she was known as the actress with the odd name. She was the daughter of an actor and at age 5 made her acting debut in a charity show, produced by her father. She was under contract with Gaumont-British and in 1934 was the lead in Little Friend. She was also cast in the Alfred Hitchcock movie The Man Who Knew Too Much. Nova also had various stage roles including Peter Pan. In 1937 Gaumont-British had financial difficulties and went out of business. David O.Selznick had wanted her for the lead role in Rebecca, but Hitchcock thought she was too immature and it did not happen. She also lost her dear husband in a plane crash during WWII. Nova was only 21 years old. She preferred the stage to movies after that. Read more about her fascinating life.

Another lovely lady was Wendy Barrie! This photo shows her in the RKO Radio Picture Don’t Bet on Love. She was born in Hong Kong in 1912 but lived in England in her early years. She started pursuing her career as an actress while still in her teens. Her screen debut was in 1932 in Threads. Later movies included The Private Life of Henry VIII which starred big names such as Charles Laughton and Merle Oberon, etc. Wendy played Jane Seymour. She moved to the United States in 1935 and starred opposite Spencer Tracy in the romantic comedy It’s a Small World. She also starred in the 1936 film called Speed with James Stewart. Other big names she worked with included Lucille Ball, and George Sanders. She made her final motion picture in 1943. With the dawn of television, she turned to roles in that medium. During 1948 and 1949 she hosted a DuMont TV comedy show, but is best remembered as hosting one of the first-ever television talk shows – called The Wendy Barrie Show. She starred in more than 15 films in Britain and 30 in the states – earning her a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Our third ‘femme-fatale’ is Gladys Swarthout. She was not only an actress but an opera star as well. Born on Christmas Day, 1900, in a small mining town, called Deepwater, Missouri. Her family had a lot of musical talent. She began singing at a young age, first as a singer in the church choir, making her professional debut on radio in 1927 for WDAF-AM. While her career began in music, becoming a well-respected opera star, she also had a high level of success in movies.

Her first movie was in 1935 – Rose of the Ranch, for Paramount Pictures. She also starred in a movie with Fred McMurray and Jack Oakie, called Champagne Waltz. Although she was in only 5 movies, she was very highly regarded and also has a footprint in the Hollywood Walk of Fame! To read more about Ms.Swarthout, you can visit this website.

It was good fun learning about these three celebrities and their early and rather modest beginnings. While they were not familiar when I found their old photos, I have come to know and admire them. One wonders how they would have fared today. All three were classy ladies.

As it turns out, January 8th was probably one of the High Holy Music Holidays, if you’re the sacrilegious type. Such a day would likely be celebrated by mildly obscene gyrations and a liberal application of glittery eye makeup. Why? Because it’s the shared birth date of two of music’s greatest revolutionaries – Elvis Presley and David Bowie. Sure, Stephen Hawking shares the same birth date, but I’ve never seen HIM strum a quantum singularity and make the ladies weep. Elvis would be 72.

Elvis, as Deanna has mentioned once before, is probably one of the most collected human beings in history (or else why would they make this Elvis Collecting Software?), with many rooms across the US (often owned by eclectic older ladies wearing airbrushed Elvis sweatshirts, making sporadic appearances on morning shows on slow days) festooned with photographs, rare signatures, framed LPs and sheets of stamps displayed on walls, and perhaps a shred of precious Elvis-DNA dusted fabric in a glass case. He’s one of the closest things that us mortals has to a deity – a horde of people utterly in his sway, and apparently living long beyond his natural life. You know, if you’re to believe the off-kilter propaganda and the grassy-knoll-style hunt for clues to contradict that Elvis Presley was, in fact, made of skin and bones and methamphetamines.

Genuine artifacts from within his lifetime, which are rare or in well-guarded private collections, can fetch ridiculous amounts of money and publicity. In March 2005, eBay saw a copy of Elvis’ ‘Milk Cow Blues Boogie‘ 78 sell for about $2400, and a single 1956 trading card from Topps sold for about $1500. Items that were actually in contact with Elvis can apparently deflect bullets and give the possessor the ability to conjure obedient dinosaurs from beneath the Earth’s crust. I mean, they’re not usually obedient, but as soon as they see that you’ve got a swatch of Elvis’ outfit from Jailhouse Rock, they’re gonna listen. Such is the power of Elvis.

A worn belt? $66,000. A chest x-ray? $2500. It’s the divide between appreciating a celebrity for their talent and wanting to posses an actual piece of the being that was the holder of that talent.

Those things which were produced after his death still seem to be quite collectible, with every scrap of Elvis-related memorabilia adding to the collected energy of that not-so-secret shrine you’ve been building in the upstairs guest bedroom. McFarlane Toys produced a whole series of Elvis mini-statues, detailing his appearances in various stages of his life and in films. Also, of course, was the senses-shattering fat Elvis vs. skinny Elvis stamp debate of 1992.

It’s kind of difficult to determine where to begin and where to end when collecting celebrity paraphernalia. Does it theoretically start with magazine clippings and end with toenail clippings? CQ bloggers have mentioned this before, but man, does it get creepier than that.

Does one need a genuine artifact from Cynthia Plaster Caster? You can look that up yourself. I’m not touching it. Literally. It was Piero Manzoni who actually canned his own… leavings…. and sold them to art buyers at the same cost as the value of gold. He’s quoted as saying, “If collectors really want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there’s the artist’s own s***”, and he’s not entirely incorrect. And yes, people have installed devices in celebrity hotel bathrooms to capture such artifacts.

Nevertheless, Elvis festoons everything, everywhere, for all time. I’m barely aware of Elvis in my daily life, and yet, in a casual perusal of my hideously overcluttered and potentially dangerous room, I’ve come across two Elvis items that I don’t even remember collecting… like some unseen force in the Elvis Conspiracy is slipping these things into everyday situations to preserve the presence and mystery of The Sacred Elvis. Of course, I have the Jailhouse Rock action statue (5th in an ongoing series that has 6, so far), and the Gail Brewer-Giorgio book, ‘Is Elvis Alive?‘, which presents an Elvis-is-alive theory based on a certain audiotape confession made in 1981. This theory seems far more rational than the alternative ones that involve time travel, alien interventions and subterranean kingdoms, but still – very difficult to take seriously. I think if you looked hard enough, you might find very palpable proof that I’m the Indefatigable Queen of Venus (the least of which is my old screen name, VenusQueen4EVA).

If I came across Elvis inspecting a pineapple at the grocery store? If he said hello to me while I stared curiously at him? Yeah, I’d probably go weak-kneed and rush off to the cereal aisle to gather myself, stumbling over the Count Chocula display on the way – and I’m not even an Elvis fan. I tried to be, but probably not hard enough. Secretly, you’d think it was awesome too.