Edgar Martins Shenanigans Update July 31, 2009 7:37 PM   Subscribe

Update: controversial photomanipulator Edgar Martins eventually releases an essay in response to having his shenanigans busted: How Can I See What I See, Until I Know What I Know?. Those hoping for preposterous, opaque and evasive nonsense will be handsomely rewarded.
posted by Beautiful Screaming Lady to MetaFilter-Related at 7:37 PM (219 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite

Those hoping for preposterous, opaque and evasive nonsense will be handsomely rewarded.

It's Christmas in July!
posted by Askiba at 7:42 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


He sure is wordy. He could have said all that in like, 3 digitally manipulated photographs.
posted by Mister_A at 7:46 PM on July 31, 2009 [25 favorites]


Symmetry helps to map the parameters of human existence and communication, moreover its inconsistencies, its dialectic impetus.

Symmetry also gets you busted, matey.
posted by Sova at 8:04 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Omigod, this is genius. I find myself hoping there are language issues but suspecting he's using that as a cloak. I mean, just look at what he's doing here:

Moreover, I have always resorted to digital technology to restore or repair images. Those who have truly looked at my photographs, especially the larger, darker, 3m works, will know that they are dust or scratch free, a condition, which is unattainable in analogue Photography. This implies some kind of mediation.

*falls out of chair laughing*

"I know I've clearly asserted over and over again that I don't use digital manipulation on my photos but come on! What kind of fucking moron are you? Just look at them; it's totally obvious I'm always digitally manipulating my photos. You can't get that kind of effect in real life! Asshole!"

*wipes tears of laughter from eyes*

This doesn't even work as a joke on his critics; it's way too predictable. If there's any justice in the world, this man will soon have a fork in his ass because his career as a photographer is now over.
posted by mediareport at 8:07 PM on July 31, 2009 [9 favorites]


I get the impression he doesn't understand what people had a problem with.

It's fine if he wants to do all that mirroring, but if he wants it in a news publication he has to call it a photo illustration.
posted by starman at 8:12 PM on July 31, 2009


“Where does one draw a line when seeking to represent but also shape reality?

One draws the line between saying "I don't digitally alter my photos" and "I use digital manipulation to emphasize the thematic elements of my artwork."
posted by jschu at 8:12 PM on July 31, 2009 [7 favorites]


And, I should add, photo illustrations should really be obvious that they've been "illustrated."
posted by starman at 8:13 PM on July 31, 2009


This guy reminds me of why I hated art school, where ignorance and stupidity could be turned into virtues if spun correctly. To "coin Susan Sontag"? That's some 5th-grade essaying right there. He's not opaque or evasive -- he's a garden-variety twit.
posted by turducken at 8:15 PM on July 31, 2009 [8 favorites]


Did Alan Sokal ghost-write this for him?
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:15 PM on July 31, 2009 [7 favorites]


This might be a good place to link to this post on the latimes.com Readers' Representative Journal in which they discuss the apparently numerous claims they get from their readers as to their photos being 'shopped because they can see the pixels or whatever.
posted by Rhomboid at 8:20 PM on July 31, 2009


Facepalm: engaged.
posted by Iosephus at 8:25 PM on July 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


turducken: "He's not opaque or evasive -- he's a garden-variety twit."

I don't think he could be this completely clueless about a touchy subject like this (especially when he's the one getting egged), but he might be getting close. He probably thinks people are angry for different reasons then is actually the case. So he dodges the issue by trying to write as fancifully as possible, and when he does actually address the topic at hand he has weak justifications for it.

In the end I think he's a little of Column A, and a little of Column B.

Rhomboid: "the apparently numerous claims they get from their readers as to their photos being 'shopped"

That's one thing I have a love hate relationship with on Internet. Basically everything can be called into question (although sometimes it's just hilarious). Although this prevalent skepticism is great for situations like this, it has to be a pain in the ass in the thorn in their side for a legitimate photographer or otherwise who has to be defensive about their works.
posted by Askiba at 8:28 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Did Alan Sokal ghost-write this for him?

We wish, then the issue would be the almost nonsensical psychology/sociology pap that makes up the bulk of his apology, and not the 'oh so you want me to explain why digital manipulation is necessary to reveal the deeper meaning in my photography' message that he's actually trying to impart.
posted by Sova at 8:33 PM on July 31, 2009


Wow, that's six pounds of bullshit.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:35 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Yeah, these days you can't even post an image of a veiny celeb without somebody claiming it's her face shopped on someone else's body.
posted by Rhomboid at 8:41 PM on July 31, 2009


general reaction
posted by Greg Nog at 8:43 PM on July 31, 2009 [9 favorites]


What an ass-hat.
posted by purephase at 8:50 PM on July 31, 2009


This is all part of his genius plan to quit art photography and become a writer of surreal fiction.
posted by vapidave at 8:52 PM on July 31, 2009


Wow, that's six pounds of bullshit.

Actually, it was ten pounds of bullshit in a five pound bag.
posted by P.o.B. at 8:59 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


Using lots of twenty dollar words.

Well, leave it to an artist to be completely full of bullshit. He doesn't seem to understand the real problems with his lies.
posted by graventy at 9:19 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Too much fake intelligence. Too little real ethics.

The sad part is, I think he really believes his own publicity.
posted by The Deej at 9:19 PM on July 31, 2009


From the NY Times blog: “It is not reality which I have sought to ‘manipulate,’ but its image."

No. Really?! You mean, you were not actually trying to change reality, just how it appeared in a photo? What a relief.
posted by The Deej at 9:23 PM on July 31, 2009 [10 favorites]


I like how he snuck this in the middle of his teeming, nearly-unreadable swill:

Discussions about process are all but irrelevant in today’s world.

I'm guessing he thinks claims about process are too. Fun to make, but irrelevant.
posted by julen at 9:24 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


Using lots of twenty dollar words.

SAIT.
posted by rtha at 9:35 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

As ambiguous and as otherworldly as the remaining work is, these images stand out for their visual prowess. They are as distinctive a construction as the mirrored photographs included in the online slideshow pulled by The New York Times. They are hyperbolic statements.
These images are defined by a gnawing absence. Something, somewhere, seems to screech in despair for its lost symbolism.
They evoke a disturbing elegy of a reason at the point of exhaustion. Meaning is rendered fugitive. One is no longer able to identify or understand the signs and codes that contemporary space yields.
However, whereas the fires (like many of the subtler constructions created for this commission) function as allegories - representing the metamorphosis that each and every reality undergoes every time it is observed (could this be another Romantic appropriation of Heisenberg’s UP?) - the doubling/mirroring of certain images serves another function. Reality is fragmented, repeated and polarized. The doppelganger is introduced.
The doppelganger has become ever more prevalent in recent bodies of work.
The symmetries at play in my images operate not only on the visual level but also beyond the surface. They are intricately woven into the philosophy, which underpins the work.
Hey, artists? Did you ever wonder why sometimes people think you're totally full of shit? This is why.
posted by dersins at 10:14 PM on July 31, 2009 [15 favorites]


Photography is a simulacrum. This essay is a simulacrum of an explanation. To quote Robert Lynn Asprin, (paraphrasing Prof. Harold Hill) "If you can't dazzle them with dexterity, baffle them with bullshit!"
posted by ActingTheGoat at 10:45 PM on July 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


I look forward to having my family portrait taken by him at Sears one day.
posted by bardic at 11:17 PM on July 31, 2009 [8 favorites]


Let's see if I can bullet point his essay (one bullet per para):
  • Everyone else does it, especially CNN.
  • I knew I was lying, but thought I could get away with it. I claim that I'm justified in doing so, but really I just got busted.
  • Seriously, everyone does it.
  • If busted, I planned in advance to claim that removing dust and scratches from the image is no different than using the cloning tool, or just mirroring the damn thing.
  • I've been doing this for a long time.
  • I'm sorry that I'm paying the price for getting busted.
posted by fatbird at 11:17 PM on July 31, 2009 [6 favorites]


I loved this part:

my starting point any project is that all reality is manipulated; all facts are a construction, shaped by those who record them

Oh. Okay. Since reality is an illusion, and we all live in the red king's dream, it's no big. I mean, do you people actually think there is such a thing as reality?

Good lord. I wish I could have heard the editors' first reactions to this piece of nonsense.
posted by brina at 11:24 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


From the New York Times link:
The structural and cosmetic properties of this image are strikingly symmetrical.
Yes, that's kind of what happens when you mirror things.
posted by chorltonmeateater at 11:32 PM on July 31, 2009


You know what sucks? The fucker still got paid for that shit.
posted by item at 11:35 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


graventy: "Well, leave it to an artist to be completely full of bullshit."
dersins: "Hey, artists? Did you ever wonder why sometimes people think you're totally full of shit? This is why."

Thank you for extrapolating but I think sometimes a scumbag is a scumbag, and not necessarily part of a bigger trend. The crime here isn't really his edgy "But what is art?" philosophy, but that he wasn't transparent about it when the NY Times hired him. The LA Times article linked above, its comments, and the official response are all commendable examples of transparency and self policing. The NY Times response is asking him for an interview? Seriously? Come on.
posted by yaymukund at 12:03 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


> Yeah, these days you can't even post an image of a veiny celeb without somebody claiming it's her face shopped on someone else's body.

I'm not one to call out The Pixels™ every time I see something questionable, but I'm pretty skeptical of that photo. The condition of her arms suggest a state of health not seen in the rest of her body. My problem is those arms appear the product of someone who is both suffering from malnutrition and getting extensive upper-body workout. I have seen this before from people doing speed. But her face appears healthy/rounded where I would expect her cheekbones to be protruding. I'm not sure that's enough evidence to call bullshit, but I'd like to see another photo. I absolutely do not trust these celebrity dirt rags.

Also.. the essay/fake apology. Definition of schadenfreude right there. It's embarrassing to read, but he sure dug that hole for himself. It's unbelievable to me that he doesn't seem to understand why people are calling him out, or is being intentionally disingenuous.
posted by cj_ at 12:08 AM on August 1, 2009


Did he not get enough sleep before taking those pictures?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:39 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Mummy, mummy, look! I'm doing a philosophical handstand.
posted by tellurian at 12:49 AM on August 1, 2009


Why won't he just say that he was wrong? And then maybe apologize.

T
posted by anitanita at 12:52 AM on August 1, 2009


In a news-magazine, you say your images are produced without the use of digital manipulation. Your photos are, in fact, digitally manipulated. As Sir Humphrey once put it, using an argumentative form no less opaque than that used by Martins:
"Inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, so far as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logic and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear."
In other words, you lied. Plain and simple. Not only did you lie, you did so to an institution that you well know seeks (on its good days anyway) to uphold the utmost standards of truth. Your justification for lying appears to be that you were seeking to make some sort of epistemological point: "It is not reality which I have sought to 'manipulate,' but its image."

Your images, however, profess to show reality. We see images that lie all the time. Some images lie deliberately through manipulation. Others lie much more subtlety through bias and point of view. I get that, sure, but you promise me images of reality and instead hand me more lies. God knows we're used to getting lied to by practically everyone here in America, but for the love of Hasselblad, don't lie to me and tell me that you're somehow doing a good thing. Seriously. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
posted by zachlipton at 1:45 AM on August 1, 2009 [5 favorites]


That guy's voice is obnoxious. And I went to art school.
posted by interrobang at 1:53 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Why didn't he just put up a photo of himself photoshopped so that he looked apologetic?
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:13 AM on August 1, 2009 [8 favorites]


Reading that I got a mental image of him doing mental gymnastics with the Million Dollar Man sound effects going off in the background.
posted by pyrex at 2:54 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


It's the damndest thing. I've got his essay open in another tab, and it's clearly, clearly something that I should be able to read. I mean, it's made of words and sentences. Undeniably. I know all the letters he's using and there's no punctuation more exotic than a question mark employed. He's not great at paragraphs, but hey, I made it quite a ways through Timecube before giving up, so I should be able to handle writing from a guy who doesn't know what a paragraph is for. And yet, I just can't make any headway through this mess. I can't build up any momentum. Two hours I've been trying to read it and I'm only down to the third little dot-break thing.

I mean, this jackass got COLDBUSTED! shopping his photos, right? He could respond with a sentence or two and have done with it, couldn't he? "I apologize to the New York Times and that publication's readers for mischaracterizing my photography methods and submitting digitally altered photographs for publication. In the future, I shall endeavor to be more clear as to which images are unaltered photographs and which are photo illustrations." Over and out!

Instead, he drops "whilst" in there six times like he's some sorta bard and includes gems such as "To look at these photographs is to rehearse one’s own exclusion. To understand how they are produced is to call into question the complexity of a collective unconscious." lolwut? Seems like they were produced like so:

1) Take some photos
2) Plug the camera's USB cable into a computer and transfer those photos
3) Open Photoshop
4) import photos into Photoshop
5) digitally alter the photos!

When does the collective unconscious kick in? Did Jung do some work for Adobe? I swear to god I'm trying to read this thing, but every time he makes it another ten lines without an apology or explanation and instead wants to talk about "non-indexical contexts" and how "there is no real end product" and "oh hai lookit all the art school terms I knoez," my eyes slide right off the text. They're "meta-photographs?" No, jerkoff, this is a meta-photograph - your work is mere vulgar shoppery!

I'd probably be less annoyed if he wasn't trying to hide behind his pompous vocabulary and rampant name-dropping. Quote Bowers and Denes and whoever else you like, Martins, and use every polysyllabic term that you can pull out of your thesaurus, too. You sold doctored photos without disclosing they were doctored, which is a huge, huge problem for a publication hoping to retain some credibility. I eventually made it through this hollow piece of writing and found nothing but a lot of puffed-up theories and excuses in it, excuses that don't even go together! "Discussions about process are all but irrelevant in today’s world." absolutely does not compute in a piece where the writer tries to assert that he "I fully understand the need to protect journalism and its ethics," one semi-coherent paragraph later.
posted by EatTheWeak at 3:40 AM on August 1, 2009 [63 favorites]


“It explores an imaginary sense of ‘wholeness’ to the experience of a fragmentary reality.”

Well, any ass can see that.
posted by klarck at 3:41 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


See, now this is why po-mo, post-structuralism, et al have a bad name; they lead to crap like: "my starting point any project is that all reality is manipulated; all facts are a construction, shaped by those who record them" as a defence for diddling photos badly and selling them as news.
posted by rodgerd at 3:46 AM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]


Jesus Christ!

I tried to read that but after a sentence my jaw went slack and my eyes glazed over and I punched my cat in the face.

That was some indecipherable bullshit, right there. It boggles the mind, the reality this douche nozzle has constructed for himself.
posted by kbanas at 3:52 AM on August 1, 2009


I had to do this before I could even get offended:

Firefox -> Stylish -> br { margin-bottom:1em; }

I mean, ouch.
posted by sidereal at 4:28 AM on August 1, 2009


Lisa Simpson: I know those words, but that sign essay makes no sense.
posted by milarepa at 4:38 AM on August 1, 2009


Dude, he completed the fist stage? That stage kicked my ass. With a fist. To the ass.
posted by Eideteker at 4:45 AM on August 1, 2009


I think everyone here reading this is wrong. This is not an apology, and isn't meant to be. If anything it is a rebuke aimed at his critics.

To me it looks like he is convinced he has done nothing wrong (and like others have posted, he doesn't seem to get what he's done wrong), and only regrets that this situation has put a strain on his relationship to the NY Times and its editorial staff. In other words he's sad he might not get hired by the NYT right away because of this.
posted by bjrn at 6:08 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Hello, Internets? Edgar Martins Markov Generator please. Yeah okay, thank you, bye-bye.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:21 AM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]


Also, this mashed with Sarah Palin. Thanks again.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:22 AM on August 1, 2009 [4 favorites]


Hey asshole, your job was to take pictures of a bunch of empty buildings for a newspaper and you fucked it up.
posted by The Straightener at 6:30 AM on August 1, 2009 [27 favorites]


Why won't he just say that he was wrong? And then maybe apologize.

Why don't we just edit his essay so that he does?
posted by FishBike at 6:41 AM on August 1, 2009 [10 favorites]


He thinks his art is above any reproach of the simple application of professional ethics. He believes if only we understood what he was doing, we'd agree, so he sought to explain it to us but got lost in his own vortex of self-reinforcing nonsense. In other words, he's basically every stoner I knew in college who was convinced he had figured out something brilliant about the human condition and began spouting uncertain of how it was going to end.
posted by allen.spaulding at 6:41 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


So this is what's required to bring everyone on Metafilter together.

Edgar, you sly dog, you.
posted by kbanas at 6:43 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


I knew English wasn't his first language, but I'd assumed it was his second. Turns out, it's at least third after Bullshit.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:14 AM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]


> I accept the probabilistic nature of the universe as a fact.

I accept the probability that this guy is a pretentious, hypocritical dick as a fact. Reading this crap took me back to my film school days, when I had to plow my way through similarly obtuse, novella-length essays about, say, the credit sequence of Hart To Hart* by overeducated bean-platers always I longed to hoof in the balls.

* I'm not making this up
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:21 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Wow, this guy could have a future in Alaskan politics.
posted by headnsouth at 7:24 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Wow. I could not finish that "essay," which was more an exercise in post-modernism in art and endurance; if he tires you out before the end of it, he has "won" and is right. He's reached for just about every cliche in the art philosophy playbook. The whole of the essay could be fed into some Markov generator, along with some press releases for Eleanor Antin retrospectives, to spew out high-sounding gibberish on demand.

Thank you, Art, for nurturing guys like this and bringing them to our attention. Without your efforts, we might have to take the arts seriously and give them actual funding.

What a weasel.
posted by adipocere at 7:30 AM on August 1, 2009


> Whilst quietly and reticently watching CNN, in an entirely unconnected part of my brain I realized that history was no longer linear.

*ffffffft* Yeahhh, like, totally, dude!
posted by Stonewall Jackson at 7:34 AM on August 1, 2009


I was really hoping this would be written as a giant palindrome.
posted by dirigibleman at 7:48 AM on August 1, 2009 [3 favorites]


> Regardless of whether our starting points may have differed, regardless of whether I may or may not have embarked on this project with intentions to produce a completely factual approach, regardless of what my decision making process may have been throughout the production and post-production phases of this work, regardless of whether I may have been the right person for the job, the question which I believe to be most relevant to ask is this: in the same way as journalists derive their authority from a binding relationship to truth, would it have been possible for an artist, such as myself, to render his views obsolete and tackle this project in any other way than its present form? I suspect that, if I had done this, I would surely have misrepresented my work, moreover the viewer.

In other words:

"The New York Times hired me to produce a work of photojournalism, but tough nuts to them because I wanted to do my own thing. I might have used the original photographs if they'd looked cool enough on their own, but I decided that they didn't. Obviously I'm an art world douchebag, but for some reason the New York Times thought I could be trusted to act as a journalist long enough to put a photo essay together. But here's the question; journalists are professionally bound to tell the truth, but was it really realistic to expect an art world douchebag such as myself to cut the bullshit for five minutes and do the job I was hired to do? If I had, I would have had a hard time showing my face at the next trendy gallery opening."
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:54 AM on August 1, 2009 [5 favorites]


His next gig is to document Silvio Berlusconi's conquests.
posted by hawthorne at 8:26 AM on August 1, 2009


Why don't we just edit his essay so that he does?

This would be so brill I'm already wearing shades.
posted by DU at 8:31 AM on August 1, 2009


Is it possible that even the artist can start loosing track of the real and the boundaries between objectivity and fiction, reality and its image start blurring and overlapping?

Protip: before you tackle words like "anthropophobic," "contravene," or "heteronyms," learn the difference between "lose" and "loose."
posted by Metroid Baby at 8:39 AM on August 1, 2009 [11 favorites]


No, he means that he was getting Palin's oldest son high. He just forgot to capitalize.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:48 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


For all his "all reality is manipulated; all facts are a construction," why doesn't he just get a nice copy of Autodesk's Maya and go to town? Camera's are obviously crimping his style.

You need quality 3D software buddy! Any news organisation would love to publish your pixel-perfect, symmetrical mediations as actual news coverage. "Real" pixels are just weighing you down, man.
posted by Glee at 8:49 AM on August 1, 2009


Now that I think about it,as an artist his work, this essay, did leave me with sensations - the length simulated a room filled with the wafting, sweaty scent of defensiveness, and all that language was equivalent of the continual feeling of being sucked down some convoluted dark vortex. (No small feat, so kudos on that)

But I'll throw M&Ms at anyone who can explain to me how an artist can 'misrepresent the viewer' by "rendering his views obsolete and tackling this project in any other way than it's present form." I'm a viewer. How exactly does not lying to me about the nature of your work 'misrepresent' me?
posted by anitanita at 8:54 AM on August 1, 2009


Yeeikes, in the entire history of onanism, not since Onan has there been anything so onanistic.
posted by FelliniBlank at 8:57 AM on August 1, 2009 [4 favorites]


I liked his essay very much, and I'm sure it will be included in theory texts for many years to come. I think the misunderstanding is more important than anything else, because it exposes a bigger misrepresentation in the medium of journalism, much greater than his little misrepresentation. People typically want to know that the pictures they look at are correctly informing them of what they're being told in the caption. They might think that if the picture and the caption are out of sync, then reality is more difficult to understand. If that's the case, then then maybe that's not the wind making that rustling sound outside. And the decoder ring from the cereal box might be collectible, or maybe even real. You can only imagine how it might feel to think that your Bible has an error in it. Or maybe not.

The point is that some truth can only be expressed as art. It's the way of fiction. It's the way things "really" are as historical meaning, not just in one instance. This also works both ways, like when we don't want children to know that the film Titanic is also about human civilization. Social interpretations will always be a public relations issue, especially for some publications under scrutiny in the age of propaganda, because the media have an unwritten social contract to tell it objectively, excepting of course the artificial political balance of the message to appease certain playground rules. Not for the pictures, though, because we think that's the innocent part. Yet some photographers are more talented than that, and they have an artistic agenda. They know how to fool the eye and draw the viewer deeper into the main idea, making it the issue. The problem is that substituting art for reality for the viewers means fooling the employer too. The bigger message here is that if we feel we are victims of an injustice, then we are fools anyway.
posted by Brian B. at 9:05 AM on August 1, 2009


I could not resist plugging that text into a Markov generator:
In the latent potential of the latent potential of the doubling/mirroring
of the job, the importance of these challenges is able to find new
experiences of Photography's failings. These photographs included
in Physics Uncertainty broke down the physical process of the metaphor
of consuming essence where the contract between poetic failure and
where one does not about asserting artistic authorship. To look at
play beyond the process leading up the work whilst alluding to fiction
than it is taking place, I produced (and best part of these photographs
is broken it creates a previously unannounced way than observations.
I'm pretty sure that makes just as much sense as the original.
posted by bookish at 9:37 AM on August 1, 2009 [7 favorites]


The point is that some truth can only be expressed as art.

"Art," "fraud," same diff.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:40 AM on August 1, 2009


The point is that some truth can only be expressed as art.

The problem with statements like this is that they're very useful for some rhetorical sleight-of-hand. "Truth" in your statement means something like "metaphysical/metaphorical truth". "Truth" in the sense of a NYT photo essay means something like "corresponds to physical reality". Eliding the distinction by using the same word for them is exactly how Martin is trying to rationalize his actions: people expect the second sort of truth, Martin offers the first, and then claims that he did nothing wrong because they're both "Truth" even though he was willfully deceiving both the Times and the viewing public.
posted by fatbird at 9:49 AM on August 1, 2009 [10 favorites]


Anitaanita asks: How exactly does not lying to me about the nature of your work 'misrepresent' me?

I'm betting that he would explain, in four-syllable words that have tangential proximal logicicity, that telling the full unvarnished truth would be the real lie, that it would rob you of your right as the viewer to see and understand the trueness of the art and of the meaning of his gift to the world. It would be a betrayal of your best interests, and he would have represented you and your artistic consumership as something less than brilliant. By crafting this experience, he led you to the purity of the vision he was trying to convey, the essential truth of his message that was obscured by the unfortunate reality of what he was trying to show. By stripping away the distractions, he ensured that you - the people he was representing as a brilliantly talented surrogate who could capture the perfect image to blow your mind - would get the message in the reality he wanted you to find.

Because he was only playing a journalist in the media (and not really, when it came to that, he was just Edgar being Edgar. But it's all OK, because both he and the Times are all about the truth, and it's a bit sad really that a beautiful truth-based relationship has been damaged by these misguided criticism by people who don't squat), he wasn't really bound by journalistic ethics or standards, and, he would explain, it's a bit ludicrous to expect him to betray the truth as he knows it by having to follow some art-limiting guidelines. That would misrepresent the truth and the people who seek it.

Can I request blue M&Ms only? My spine hurts from carrying that bullshit.
posted by julen at 10:07 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Check the word order on that page title.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:18 AM on August 1, 2009


Social interpretations will always be a public relations issue, especially for some publications under scrutiny in the age of propaganda, because the media have an unwritten social contract to tell it objectively

That's the problem, the contract isn't unwritten, it is actually written, and actually agreed to at the start of the project by all parties. Your compensation is based upon your ability to produce what the publication needs in a set time frame. I understand that contracts, money, accountability...it's all very not art, but that's how you get your shit in the NYTimes, if you want your shit to reach that kind of audience.

Yet some photographers are more talented than that, and they have an artistic agenda.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not under the impression that I am James Joyce or some shit but I do write for publication fairly regularly and a lot of times the way I approach writing isn't what newspapers are totally comfortable printing. You could say I have an agenda, though the phrase artistic agenda when applied to what I do does make me wince a little. I like to write from a story telling perspective, often informed by my biography and the work I do, as opposed to the straight reportage typical of newspaper stories. Now, when I pitch a story written from my perspective and a publication agrees to print it, it's understood up front by everyone involved that what we're doing is not straight just-the-facts-maam type journalism. I just did a story for the Daily Beast that was very much like this, weaving drug memoir style material into a newsy backstory about a girl who was murdered over drugs here in Philly. They loved the material, and it worked out great, it was a big hit, everyone was happy -- me especially because they let me write it just the way I wanted to.

However, after that story worked out they came back to me a requested a couple more stories, one they printed and another they killed (no biggie, it happens). For these stories I was told up front that they wanted straight journalism. I actually got a phone call from an editor explaining, "You know you have to identify yourself as a reporter when you're getting quotes from people, they have to understand it's on the record?" And I'm laughing, like, yeah man. I know that. I've done straight reporting before, though I'm not a journalist by trade, and I generally don't find it as enjoyable to report as I do to tell stories.

Now, what if at that point I decided that what they wanted -- that they stated up front -- was not what I was going to do because what I do is better at representing the truth, anyway? And then I went even further, assuring them that the memoir material I submitted as real time reporting was actually real time reporting and not a bunch of stories I wrote from memory, and then this was represented to readers as such?

I understood going into these latter assignments that I wasn't going to be able to do the articles exactly the way I like to, and did my best to produce something that I would be happy with and they would be happy with, because that was the only way to see the articles through to completion and posted to the Daily Beast's website. If it's on their website it's going to be read by a whole shitload more people than it is going to be if it's sitting on my hard drive.

Martins took this same agreement, an agreement that requires other artists who work with the Times to make accommodations all the time. He wanted the eyeballs, and I'm sure the money didn't hurt either. Another photographer, yes, perhaps even one of equally grand artistic vision, would have jumped at the chance and done the work in good faith. Seriously, this essay is just childish. You're a Big Boy working in the Big Leagues. If you don't want this kind of work, if you feel it's beneath your artistic capacities, don't take the assignment in the first place.
posted by The Straightener at 10:26 AM on August 1, 2009 [13 favorites]


For some reason, I blame John Keats.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:43 AM on August 1, 2009


For some reason, I blame Lewis Carroll.
posted by ericb at 10:45 AM on August 1, 2009


I just wonder if there really are people who, upon reading that long winded and confusing "explanation", will say: "Oh yes, I see! I was very upset with the fact that you lied about altering the images. But now, because of what you wrote, I totally understand and condone what you did. You made me see the obvious fact that we just failed to understand the genius in the pictures and how you used them. All is forgiven!"

Because it seems to me that is what he is trying to accomplish. So it's kind of heartening that a lot of people - judging by comments on the NYT blog post, here, and elsewhere online - see the essay for the dictionary-flaunting claptrap that it is.
posted by gemmy at 10:46 AM on August 1, 2009


Well I'm just pleased as punch that the thread following his spew pulls no punches. He's not getting away with it unchallenged.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:58 AM on August 1, 2009


I'd like to see him carry around a Walkman for a while and have him write about that.

But more seriously, as mentioned upthread this definitely reads like the work of an overzealous non-native speaker. I recognize some of myself in it: as an (educated) ESL speaker myself, I have a strong subconscious tendency to compensate for my lack of, let's say, immediacy when speaking -- when writing I can at least take a minute or two to chew on words like "overzealous" or "immediacy", plus you get to edit out all the "um"s and other stumbles -- by gratuitously throwing in every twenty dollar word I know (which you'd pay in town as well, incidentally).

As one American noted IRL, "you always sound like you're writing a term paper". Ouch.

It's an embarrassment of riches of sorts, where you know you have a vocabulary larger than many native speakers but none of their day-to-day speaking background that puts thousands of those words squarely on the tongue all ready to go instead of packed away in a box somewhere in the back of your mind. You've got a thousand words to convey your feelings and none for honeysuckle. (Until you look it up -- see what I did there?)

So it's sort of like a chess gambit, one where you risk being mistaken for a sort of mildly insufferable Frasier Crane type by ruling out the impression that you're some monosyllabic foreigner.

It's taken me a long time to shake the more comically extreme manifestations of this syndrome; it's still a struggle for me to write, let alone speak, "straight" in English. By contrast, purposely speaking like (or with) a fifth-grader in Dutch is no problem at all for me.

Not that I desire anyone's pity: I'm mostly satisfied with my foreign language skills, and the terrible affliction of using too many big words (woe is me!) is hardly a cause for sympathy. Nor do I mean to rise in defence of Martins' horrid "essay": I'm relieved I wasn't an arts major, at least!

But I recognize some of me in him, I'm sorry to say: and I hope the above serves to give a little insight on what it's like to reach a tantalisingly near-native proficiency in a foreign language, knowing that you will never truly be "native".
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:05 AM on August 1, 2009 [11 favorites]


But I recognize some of me in him, I'm sorry to say: and I hope the above serves to give a little insight on what it's like to reach a tantalisingly near-native proficiency in a foreign language, knowing that you will never truly be "native".

goodnewsfortheinsane, I think the difference between what you wrote and the Martins essay is that what you wrote makes sense. I don't think it's the inclusion of large words that bothers many people directly. I think it's the feeling that they are used in an attempt to disguise that what he wrote is utter nonsense.
posted by FishBike at 11:12 AM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]


For some reason, I blame October.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:16 AM on August 1, 2009


You're a Big Boy working in the Big Leagues. If you don't want this kind of work, if you feel it's beneath your artistic capacities, don't take the assignment in the first place.

Or, he could have the balls and integrity to do it his way and screw what lesser minds may think. But then he might have to write an essay explaining his viewpoint, which is really screwing what lesser minds may think.

I personally don't think we can have it both ways. Either we persecute him on moral grounds for altering the meaning of something, which means higher truth is on trial, which is what he's claiming, or we persecute him on lower technical grounds, which means we don't really have a reason to be indignant. Those with a sense of humor might see potential problems and dangers in another scenario, but not this one, because this is not the same thing as editors placing a cigar in Bonnie Barrows mouth while holding a machine gun (instead of the long stemmed rose she clenched in her teeth). But let's assume it is now claimed to be.

In Bonnie and Clyde's case, the higher objective criticism against editors misleading people doesn't rest on the technical purity of the photograph, because that raises the side issue of moods created by lighting and contrast, cropping, and the total context of all other photos involved, ie, what didn't they print? Instead, the main criticism rests on the act of altering the meaning entirely. It's an aesthetic critique regardless. We needn't confuse it with the technical purity because it leads to cases like this one where they don't ask for permission to make art when the dry subject matter could really use it to convey the same point the POV was trying to make. They guy was obviously more worried about artistic integrity, while as a reader I'm more worried about the meaning conforming to reality, and those aren't opposites as many want to believe.
posted by Brian B. at 11:19 AM on August 1, 2009


They guy was obviously more worried about artistic integrity ...

The guy was worried about "artistic integrity" and "getting paid for upholding his artistic integrity by lying about his work".
posted by kiltedtaco at 11:31 AM on August 1, 2009


Or, he could have the balls and integrity to do it his way...

Well, that's exactly what he did do, but I don't think it was a matter of balls or integrity.

He could have honestly pitched the Times, telling them up front how he was going to do the project, giving them the opportunity to appropriately label the images as illustrations and explain to their readers what they were looking at. Only, he didn't do that, and the reason he didn't do that is because he couldn't. He already had an artistic manifesto circulating that lead off by stating that he never digitally manipulates images. If he had honestly told the Times what he was going to do, he never would have been assigned the project because their editor would have caught this inconsistency and become concerned that he had an extant body of work that was possibly fraudulent. He had to maintain the lie to get the assignment.

And stop with the "lesser minds" shit, it's dumb.
posted by The Straightener at 11:31 AM on August 1, 2009 [4 favorites]


Hey Edgar Martins... whats that place you like to eat all the time with all the goofy shit on the wall???

You mean shenanigans???

posted by P.o.B. at 11:32 AM on August 1, 2009


The guy was worried about "artistic integrity" and "getting paid for upholding his artistic integrity by lying about his work".

The second quote is not mine, as some may interpret from the poster's poor phrasing.
posted by Brian B. at 11:34 AM on August 1, 2009


mediareport - did you cross-post your comment here to the NYT blog? Cuz someone did.
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:42 AM on August 1, 2009


I call bullshit on this essay.
posted by DU at 11:50 AM on August 1, 2009


I call bullshit on this essay.

Hey! Language!
posted by The Deej at 12:04 PM on August 1, 2009


Or, he could have the balls and integrity to do it his way and screw what lesser minds may think.

Let's check the New Oxford Lesser English Dictionary to see if you're right:
in•teg•ri•ty |inˈtegritē|
noun
1 the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness : he is known to be a man of integrity.
2 the state of being whole and undivided : upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty.
• the condition of being unified, unimpaired, or sound in construction : the structural integrity of the novel.
• internal consistency or lack of corruption in electronic data : [as adj. ] integrity checking.

ORIGIN late Middle English (sense 2) : from French intégrité or Latin integritas, from integer ‘intact’ (see INTEGER). Compare with ENTIRETY, INTEGRAL, and INTEGRATE.
Okay, let's take a look at the bulletpoints:
1. Got caught violating his contract with NYT. Doesn't appear to be honest.
2. Pictures are found to be halved:
• Not too sound a construction job, if he can get caught.
• Lots of data corruption in those images, by definition.
Nope, no aspect of the word "integrity" has any application to this liar — except perhaps that he defines its meaning by being everything it is not. Sorry, buddy.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:08 PM on August 1, 2009


mediareport - oh, wait, it was you. my bad. must complete my double-checking before commenting. *kneels on broomstick* that'll learn me!
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:08 PM on August 1, 2009


Okay, let's take a look at the bulletpoints:

1. Got caught violating his contract with NYT. Doesn't appear to be honest.
2. Pictures are found to be halved:
• Not too sound a construction job, if he can get caught.
• Lots of data corruption in those images, by definition.


Violating a contract and doing it his way is proof of doing it his way and stepping over the lind to do so. Pictures found to be halved is interesting. Let me think about the moral implications of that subjective taste quality. Wait. I like half pictures sometimes. No problems yet. And he got caught? I guess that's a moral failing in someone's book. Data corruption? You have me there. He is guilty of corrupting the data. Oh my, that is terrible indeed.
posted by Brian B. at 12:17 PM on August 1, 2009


Violating a contract and doing it his way is proof of doing it his way and stepping over the lind to do so.

There's not much integrity in reaching an agreement with someone and then ignoring it entirely, while knowingly misrepresenting the final product, describing it as something it was not.

I'd say that pretty much defines dishonesty, wouldn't you?

Wait. I like half pictures sometimes.

Well, I'm guessing you didn't read the original article, then.

Those photos were presented as part of an article that was telling a story of fact. Those pictures were deliberately modified so as not to present fact, but to misrepresent fact. Yet the photographer claimed the photographs were unmodified: a factually accurate visualization of the subject.

Your and my subjective opinions about the aesthetic qualities of the photographs are completely and totally irrelevant to his getting caught lying.

I can tell you for a fact that if this guy was in science, he'd have been shitcanned for what he did, journal articles pulled and awards rescinded, and his career ended. I guess the NYTimes has a more lax policy about truth, to rehire a known liar to write an essay.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:33 PM on August 1, 2009


They guy was obviously more worried about artistic integrity, while as a reader I'm more worried about the meaning conforming to reality, and those aren't opposites as many want to believe.

The problem isn't that people think those are opposites. The problem is the bait-and-switch of Martin pretending that the former is the latter. Martin is defending the bait-and-switch by pretending that the issue is about artistic integrity.
posted by fatbird at 12:36 PM on August 1, 2009


Martins as never-say-die protagonist of an Ayn Rand novel is a comparison I hadn't considered before. I'm not sure it's one that helps him.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:37 PM on August 1, 2009


Further, Martins previously said that the integrity of his art lay in not ever digitally manipulating his images; to say now that the integrity of his art lies in the digital manipulation of his images is bullshit.
posted by hattifattener at 12:57 PM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]


I have a feeling that the integrity of Martins' art lies in whatever he thinks will make him the most money at any given moment.
posted by Justinian at 1:03 PM on August 1, 2009


There's not much integrity in reaching an agreement with someone and then ignoring it entirely, while knowingly misrepresenting the final product, describing it as something it was not.

I'd say that pretty much defines dishonesty, wouldn't you?


And for a spy to have integrity they have to lie to someone. I'm just glad he wasn't lying to me with his art, because he never corrupted the meaning of his theme, and whether the theme was based on reality or not is not even the issue here. And he owns the photos. Nor am I assuming the telling of lies went down the way you report, which is you filling in some blanks at will.

Those photos were presented as part of an article that was telling a story of fact. Those pictures were deliberately modified so as not to present fact, but to misrepresent fact. Yet the photographer claimed the photographs were unmodified: a factually accurate visualization of the subject.

I don't even agree that telling a story must present things called fact, but is either rhetorical or artistic. Again, if he was lying about large homes going abandoned, or whatever his point was, then someone should call the caption police immediately.

Your and my subjective opinions about the aesthetic qualities of the photographs are completely and totally irrelevant to his getting caught lying.

I have no idea why you persist in making is sound like getting caught was a separate violation of his.

I can tell you for a fact that if this guy was in science, he'd have been shitcanned for what he did, journal articles pulled and awards rescinded, and his career ended.

I can tell you that your misapplication of science in this case is blinding. Artists typically create a version of reality, they don't need to record it as evidence of a theory of reality.
posted by Brian B. at 1:06 PM on August 1, 2009


Martins as never-say-die protagonist of an Ayn Rand novel is a comparison I hadn't considered before. I'm not sure it's one that helps him.

Actually, Rand's egoism only applies to art or athletics, and never to economics and politics, where we are all invested. Glad you raised the issue.
posted by Brian B. at 1:14 PM on August 1, 2009


What the bloody hell vapor nonsense are you people arguing here?
posted by Burhanistan at 1:15 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


I went to art school and his "writing" about his "art" is giving me hives and some PTSD flashbacks to some particularly bad crits. There is no image! The image is fugitive! Long live the image! Meaning is constructed through a deconstructed reality in the lens of our minds!

Hold me.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 1:16 PM on August 1, 2009 [3 favorites]


Brian, if the NYT had hired him as a photo-illustration ... uhm ... espionage expert, that'd be one thing, but he was hired in this case as a photo journalist and the absence of digital manipulation of said photos was an element of that deal ... your defense of Martins is beginning to sound as strained and bizarre as Martins' own "explanation"
posted by EatTheWeak at 1:20 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Further, Martins previously said that the integrity of his art lay in not ever digitally manipulating his images; to say now that the integrity of his art lies in the digital manipulation of his images is bullshit.

No, no, no. Don't you see?! The integrity of his art lies in the claim that the integrity of his art was in no digital manipulation.
posted by graventy at 1:23 PM on August 1, 2009


Brian, if the NYT had hired him as a photo-illustration ... uhm ... espionage expert, that'd be one thing, but he was hired in this case as a photo journalist and the absence of digital manipulation of said photos was an element of that deal ... your defense of Martins is beginning to sound as strained and bizarre as Martins' own "explanation"

You are seriously wasting your time attacking someone who altered his own architecture photos to make them more artistic, based on what his contract was? I was defending the abstract freedom of expression so that next time I call Reagan an idiot I won't go to jail for misreporting dictionary reality. Oh, and can carry on in the choir, because it is strained and bizarre to me, if that matters, but I feel guilty citing my evaluation of you as having weight in this discussion. Note that the emotional responses to his perceived offenses to the masses and the NYT have psychological implications that provide data for somebody.
posted by Brian B. at 1:32 PM on August 1, 2009


> as a photo-illustration ... uhm ... espionage expert

Nono, I think what Brian meant is that Edgar Martins is like a spy. He's fighting the nazi NYT editors for our freedom. The NYT thinks he is working for them, but really he is part of the resistance movement!

Seriously though, likening Martins to a spy in enemy territory is just stupid. You know what would be proof of his integrity? Just standing up for what he claims to believe in instead of lying about it.
posted by bjrn at 1:32 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


So who wants to pony up a fiver to get Eddie in here to face the music?
posted by educatedslacker at 1:36 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


I was defending the abstract freedom of expression so that next time I call Reagan an idiot I won't go to jail for misreporting dictionary reality.

What the hell are you talking about, Brian? No one has attacked Martin's freedom of expression, or freedom to digitally manipulate photos, or freedom to present his manipulated photos. We're slagging him for having deceived the NYT, and by extension us, for presenting manipulated photos as non-manipulated photos.

Seriously, are you actually trying to defend art here? Because no one is attacking it. We're calling out someone who was trying to pull a fast one (and is now trying to defend it with a lot of pomo handwaving that misses the point).
posted by fatbird at 1:44 PM on August 1, 2009


You are seriously wasting your time attacking someone who altered his own architecture photos to make them more artistic, based on what his contract was? I was defending the abstract freedom of expression so that next time I call Reagan an idiot I won't go to jail for misreporting dictionary reality.

Hmm, well based on that logic, wouldn't it also be fine for a writer to fabricate elements of their news story for the New York Times, if they felt it made for a more artistically pleasing article?

There's no problem with that when they are writing a work of fiction, so no restriction on freedom of expression that I can see. But there is a problem when the work is represented as entirely non-fabricated and in a journalistic or documentary context.
posted by FishBike at 1:44 PM on August 1, 2009


Does anyone know of a good bullshitmeter repairman? Mine is smoking and has springs sticking out of it now.
posted by double block and bleed at 1:44 PM on August 1, 2009 [4 favorites]


Is this the thread where we dance about architecture ?
posted by iamabot at 1:46 PM on August 1, 2009 [3 favorites]


screw what lesser minds may think
perceived offenses to the masses

Seriously, have you ever had any luck whatsoever using that kind of pseudo-elitist sentiment in lieu of substantive argument?
posted by Burhanistan at 1:47 PM on August 1, 2009 [3 favorites]


Brian B., with respect, I think you are straining very, very hard and failing badly to defend the actions of someone who got caught lying, someone who is clearly using verbiage as a way to distract readers from the fact that he got caught.

The day is too nice for me to argue the matter with you further. I suggest that you consider whether your own novel leaps of rhetoric are perhaps making you too much like the photographer you're defending so stridently, here.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:50 PM on August 1, 2009


Hmm, well based on that logic, wouldn't it also be fine for a writer to fabricate elements of their news story for the New York Times, if they felt it made for a more artistically pleasing article?

And they do. That's editorial discretion, every story has a slant, and some of it is not even news, but a focus article launched in tandem with political action, and with a major slant. For this case, I recall they presented it as a photo essay with it's own montage links. An essay of any kind is rather rhetorical, like editorials, and photo essays have their cachet of aesthetics, and people should assume alterations, I know I do. Regardless, photos of interior architecture can be fair game at the artists discretion if the placement of walls aren't integral to the "facts" of the story. Note that the facts of the story are undisputed thus far. The real issue here is metafilter's claim to fame as the caption police. You can have it for what it's worth.
posted by Brian B. at 1:57 PM on August 1, 2009


Julen, I bequeath you 100 Blue M&Ms, currency which was conveniently transferable into one favorite.

Thanks for your explanation!
posted by anitanita at 1:59 PM on August 1, 2009


Brian B., you're the same guy that was defending this asshole the first time this was brought up. Now you're really stretching your defense and you sound like a moron. Do you know this guy or what? Because this is getting ridiculous.
posted by dead cousin ted at 2:00 PM on August 1, 2009


Just so we're clear, Brian, do you consider we here in this thread who object to Martins' flim-flammery "lesser minds" or "the masses?" I'm trying to recalibrate my personal plebe-o-meter. kthnx!
posted by EatTheWeak at 2:04 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


goodnewsfortheinsane, I think the difference between what you wrote and the Martins essay is that what you wrote makes sense. I don't think it's the inclusion of large words that bothers many people directly. I think it's the feeling that they are used in an attempt to disguise that what he wrote is utter nonsense.

Of course you're right, FishBike. I should have added that I (used to, hopefully) do that too sometimes: IMO there's a continuum between the two, not a line. But this guy? Extremely on one side of it, yeah.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:05 PM on August 1, 2009


Oh, and can carry on in the choir, because it is strained and bizarre to me, if that matters, but I feel guilty citing my evaluation of you as having weight in this discussion. Note that the emotional responses to his perceived offenses to the masses and the NYT have psychological implications that provide data for somebody.

You know, the more excited you get, the more you sound exactly like this guy.
posted by creasy boy at 2:08 PM on August 1, 2009


And they do. That's editorial discretion, every story has a slant, and some of it is not even news, but a focus article launched in tandem with political action, and with a major slant. For this case, I recall they presented it as a photo essay with it's own montage links. An essay of any kind is rather rhetorical, like editorials, and photo essays have their cachet of aesthetics, and people should assume alterations, I know I do. Regardless, photos of interior architecture can be fair game at the artists discretion if the placement of walls aren't integral to the "facts" of the story. Note that the facts of the story are undisputed thus far. The real issue here is metafilter's claim to fame as the caption police. You can have it for what it's worth.

I would like to know, then, how you reconcile all of the above with:
  1. The very clear artist's statement that digital manipulation was not used in the creation of these images. (We should assume alterations even in the face of clear statements that there are none?)
  2. The very clear policy that the NYT has against these sort of alterations.
  3. The NYT's decision to immediately remove the feature once they were made aware of the alterations.

posted by FishBike at 2:11 PM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]


Brian B., you're the same guy that was defending this asshole the first time this was brought up. Now you're really stretching your defense and you sound like a moron. Do you know this guy or what? Because this is getting ridiculous.

dead cousin ted, where is that thread? I seriously don't recall ever defending this guy. I definitely want to see what it is that I wrote that is bothering you all over again. I know I'm not repeating myself here, and to answer your question, I don't know this guy. You are projecting about me knowing this guy by the way, because it doesn't make sense to you otherwise. Why is that?
posted by Brian B. at 2:14 PM on August 1, 2009


You guys are being trolled, and I'm surprised that you're falling for it. Brian B. is throwing up dorm-room bullshit that has zero application to the real world, and I don't know why you're bothering to rebut it.
posted by Bookhouse at 2:19 PM on August 1, 2009 [4 favorites]


You know, the more excited you get, the more you sound exactly like this guy.

creasy boy, the more you become suspicious of me, the higher you rate on EattheWeak's plebe-o-meter.
posted by Brian B. at 2:19 PM on August 1, 2009


A couple of things.

1) In response to "Hmm, well based on that logic, wouldn't it also be fine for a writer to fabricate elements of their news story" you answer "And they do." Note that you have not answered the question, which is "wouldn't it also be fine?" Is it, in your opinion, morally permissible to fabricate elements of a news story?

2) You go on to talk exclusively about the "slant" of the news story as if this were the same thing as fabricating elements of the story. Do we really need to explain to you what the difference is? The photographer has leeway in how the "slant" they give the object. No-one tells him where to stand when he takes the picture, what exposure to use, etc.

3) You write: "Regardless, photos of interior architecture can be fair game at the artists discretion if the placement of walls aren't integral to the "facts" of the story." Who decides what is "fair game"? I ask because NYT times didn't think it was "fair game" and they were the ones paying him. No-one here thinks it's fair game. And apparently the artist himself had doubts as to whether it was fair game, since he claimed that he didn't use digital manipulation.

4) This is the elephant in the room you still haven't tackled. How is he justified in claiming that he doesn't digitally manipulate when he does? Is lying an integral part of the artwork?
posted by creasy boy at 2:21 PM on August 1, 2009


A nibble of troll-bait here and there helps my digestion, Bookhouse. Stimulates the humours, it does!

But yeah, that's probably enough. Who wants pie?
posted by EatTheWeak at 2:28 PM on August 1, 2009


Ha! He actually footnoted Nietzsche. As Mark Kermode would say, he's like a fourth former who just read the back of the NME and decided philosophy where it's at.
posted by Partario at 2:29 PM on August 1, 2009


Pecan, please.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:30 PM on August 1, 2009


What I want to know is why my multi-state murder spree has still not been recognized as the boundary-smashing artistic statement that it is. You filthy lesser creatures will acknowledge my art one day, I swear it.
posted by aramaic at 2:32 PM on August 1, 2009


of greater importance is the need to renegotiate the terms of the wider contract between author/newspaper/reader

i quit reading right there - i don't know whose idea it was to redefine "negotiate" as "i'm going to do what i want and keep talking to you until you just learn to live with it" but i'm getting sick of it

and yes, that's precisely what he means
posted by pyramid termite at 2:33 PM on August 1, 2009


creasy boy, you shouldn't insult people before demanding better responses from them. To indulge you for a moment, the photos don't cross the journalistic bamboozle line without a policy indicating their purity, which is a commercial demand, and which is PR that serves another purpose. Let's not forget their recent problems with journalists who made stuff up recently, while internally they ignored warning from people who tried to alert them.
posted by Brian B. at 2:34 PM on August 1, 2009


*resolves to keep slicing and serving pecan pie until everyone gets along with everyone*

Hoo! Gonna need more pans!
posted by EatTheWeak at 2:37 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


You are seriously full of shit. Full of it.
posted by kbanas at 2:38 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Oh wait, sorry, I didn't know there was pie.

We're cool, everybody. Nobody's full of shit at all.
posted by kbanas at 2:38 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


The point is that some truth can only be expressed as art.

the point is you send that kind of truth to a museum or a gallery, not a newspaper
posted by pyramid termite at 2:43 PM on August 1, 2009 [5 favorites]


I was promised punch and pie.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:52 PM on August 1, 2009


[Fade in. EXTERIOR. DAY. Main street USA. Light traffic and happy strolling couples cross the shot. Across the street, a shop window is filled with elaborate floral arrangements. Above, centered, in elegant black cursive, reads: Edgar Martins, Wedding Photographer. In the bottom right corner, "Passport Photos, $10". Fade out.]

[Fade in. INTERIOR. Camera slowly zooms in on the backs of a man and woman, tanned from their honeymoon, seated at a desk and holding hands. The studio walls are covered with framed photographs of newlyweds, ranging from classic smiling shots with church doorways as backdrops to more intimate portraits of couples gazing into each other's eyes.]

[Cut to MARTINS, seated across from the couple.]

As I took an immediate liking to the both of you during our preliminary arrangements, I took the liberty of applying the full intensity of my unique artistic vision to your case. After much heavy toil, I have crafted an image that perfectly captures the truth of your ceremony, that renders all other images superfluous. You will receive no album today, my dear Sir and Madam; after seeing what I have wrought, such a thing will be revealed as the pedestrian trash that it truly is.

[Martins tilts up a 8x10 print that had been laying face-down on the desk. The photograph is a carefully mirrored shot of the groom at the altar, each reflection slipping a wedding back onto the other's finger. Tears sparkle in his eyes, and the officiant looks on with a doting smile.]

It is rather complex and the uninitiated may not appreciate its finer points, so let me explain. With this image, I strove to articulate the subconscious longing of all marrying men. Oh, they may go on at length about the perfection of their wives-to-be... but this is a superficial internalized delusion, my friends. Secretly, in the very depths of their psyches, all men fervently wish they could marry themselves. After the pomp of the ceremony and the rush of lust wears off, "If only she were more like me..." is the inevitable unverbalized sigh off all husbands, once the nagging and bickering begins. This, I have learnt, is the doom of all unions.

[The couple blink wordlessly at Martins. Their grips tighten.]

If you look closely, the hands hint at an ouroboros. It expresses the truth that you are doomed to repeat this folly, pushed on and on by societal expectations, symbolized by the officiant. In that light, he is a truly twisted figure; smiling contentedly while forcing such torture upon you and us all.

[The woman yanks her hand out of her husband's and takes a breath to speak.]

I knew you'd love it! Don't worry, I've taken care of it for you. The wedding planner sent me your guest list and I've gone ahead and sent prints out to all of them. It's been a pleasure.

[Martins stands and walks off into his back room, nearly skipping in self-satisfied glee. Fade to black over muffled yelling between the couple.]
posted by CKmtl at 2:53 PM on August 1, 2009 [5 favorites]


We're making pie this afternoon. Really. gingerbeer's gonna make the pie dough in a little bit (she's the pie-dough maker in this family) and then I'm gonna cut up the fruit. We've got excellent nectarines, white and yellow (the peaches weren't ripe enough). Might throw a few apricots in there too. Then we'll take the pie over to gbeer's sister's house - her boyfriend is a PIE FIEND - and meet their new kittens.

So. Pie. Tastier than troll, always.
posted by rtha at 2:55 PM on August 1, 2009


Martins's essay and his individual photo explanations to the Times are truly amazingly incoherent works of bullshit, and it takes quite a bit of work even to figure out what he's trying to claim. Half the time his prose is borderline illiterate word-salad, and even when it's making some kind of superficial sense, he seems to think that simply using words like "psychology" and "reality" provide a universal get-out-of-jail-free card. Here's the most direct attempt at an excuse I could find, from the Times's Lens blog statement on one of the (not one of the published ones, I think?) manipulated images:
As with most of the visual hyperbolic statements which pervade my work, the symmetry is not subtle in its psychological nuances. [...] These houses are also a psychological interior.
The gist of this seems to be something like a claim that his Photoshopping was so obvious ("not subtle") that it wasn't attempted deception, despite his directly and unambiguously lying about it, and that its purpose was "psychological." (Elsewhere he says that he wants things to "resonate with the viewer at a subconscious level.") What makes this so amazing is the added claim that it's other photographers who are failing to engage in the proper discussion of their creative process – since Martins's own idea seems to be that making pictures that achieve his own relatively cheap, puffed-up thematic goals, by the easiest possible means, trumps the more difficult work of actually taking pictures.

Also, by the merest happenstance, I had a slice of delicious apple pie with vanilla ice cream just before reading this thread.
posted by RogerB at 3:02 PM on August 1, 2009


her boyfriend is a PIE FIEND

What are his hit dice?
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:11 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Let's not forget their recent problems with journalists who made stuff up recently, while internally they ignored warning from people who tried to alert them.

Far from forgetting about them, those are the kind of incidents I had in mind while writing a previous comment in this thread. These acts were seen as pretty much universally unethical once the scandal became public. Are these the sort of things that fall into the category of editorial discretion? Because I don't think they do, and I think parallel between fabricated stories and fabricated photos, in basically the same context, is quite strong.

Oh, and why can't we have a serious discussion of opposing viewpoints and have pie? Do I have to pick one or the other? Because if so, I'm going to have to go with pie, I'm afraid.
posted by FishBike at 3:24 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


[grabs +4 vorpal fork of NOMNOMNOM]
posted by waraw at 3:39 PM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]


What are his hit dice?
πeDπe+πe, clearly.
posted by juv3nal at 3:40 PM on August 1, 2009


In the world of art, lying to an employer and misrepresenting your work to the public is always a demonstration of integrity, because it both sticks it to the man somehow and exposes weaker minds somehow. That's why people who walk into modern art galleries for the first time always feel as though they were being tricked and made a fool of. They are! That's the art! All the rest of it is just slathering paint on canvas, which takes, at most, a few minutes, and then the artist retired back to their bedroom to watch illegal porn, laugh at everybody's else's expense, and light a hashish hookah with one of the hundred dollar bills that always seems to be just lying around on the mansion floor.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:49 PM on August 1, 2009 [5 favorites]


I'd be laughing right now but the NYT seem to be allowing his rehabilitation.
posted by fire&wings at 4:24 PM on August 1, 2009


I was promised punch and pie.

*punches Blazecock Pileon in the eye*

*offers him pie*

Hey everybody, I brought peach pie. And ice cream!
posted by zinfandel at 4:35 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


That photoshop really tied the room together, and Metafilter peed on it.
posted by iamabot at 4:56 PM on August 1, 2009


hey hey hey, i'm eating pie here.
posted by needled at 5:03 PM on August 1, 2009


That photoshop really tied the room together, and Metafilter peed on it.

Every time a rug photograph is micturated upon digitally retouched in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner write a ridiculous essay?
posted by axiom at 5:06 PM on August 1, 2009 [3 favorites]


Is it being prepared to do the right thing, whatever the cost? Isn't that what makes a man?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:18 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


What are his hit dice?

I was going to go with 8dπ (also his license plate).
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:33 PM on August 1, 2009


The truth is that at the core of this issue lies not a debate about deception or misrepresentation

I am going to bust out that line every time someone catches me in a lie.
posted by nanojath at 6:30 PM on August 1, 2009 [4 favorites]


tl;don't care.
posted by flabdablet at 7:09 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Don't hate him! He wrote a decent, heartfelt apology.

I just wonder why he stuffed it in a blender with some Pomo lit & posted that instead.
posted by Pronoiac at 7:23 PM on August 1, 2009


I just wonder why he stuffed it in a blender with some Pomo lit & posted that instead.

it was a mistake - he doubled the pomo lit part and lost the half where he apologized

do they have a 12 step group for addicts to symmetricity?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:27 PM on August 1, 2009


do they have a 12 step group for addicts to symmetricity?

It probably involves staring at lots of asymmetric things. Which I think would be painful for me too, eventually.

He might need a 12 step for "putting together lots and lots of big fancy words to form a sentence, but not actually saying anything".
posted by Askiba at 7:42 PM on August 1, 2009


Two hypotheses:

Maybe he told his assistant, whom he had treated like shit for years and who was ready to quit anyway, to write the apology.

-or-

He used a Markov filter on a combination of selected psychology works and non-apologies as a homage to Metafilter, the very people who called him out. Maybe he thought it would make us happy but overestimated the power of our weak intellects.

As for pie, I'm really hungry and now, thanks to all of you, I have to go get pumpkin pie filling and a pie crust at 11 at night. Fuckers.
posted by double block and bleed at 8:01 PM on August 1, 2009


Don't forget your plate of beans.

I think this entire situation can be boiled down to art school pretentious-ness. The little scum coating the bottom of the pan will probably be something resembling Martins' apology.
posted by Askiba at 8:22 PM on August 1, 2009


Well, I do have to hand it to the guy.

It must have been hard to type that much when his pants were on fire.
posted by louche mustachio at 9:23 PM on August 1, 2009 [8 favorites]


Ooooohhhh, PIE! I love pie.
posted by louche mustachio at 9:23 PM on August 1, 2009


Metafilter: don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 9:31 PM on August 1, 2009


the artist retired back to their bedroom to watch illegal porn, laugh at everybody's else's expense, and light a hashish hookah with one of the hundred dollar bills that always seems to be just lying around on the mansion floor.

Hey hey hey hey hey! That camera feed isn't for you!
posted by The Whelk at 10:09 PM on August 1, 2009


Christ, what an asshole.

(somebody had to)
posted by tula at 10:28 PM on August 1, 2009


yoink wins at Lacanian bingo:

For Lacan, it is the mirror phase, an early constituent for identity (and best understood as a metaphor for subjectivity), which provides an imaginary sense of "wholeness" to the experience of a fragmentary reality.
For this Neo-Freudian psychoanalyst the mirror stage establishes the ego as intrinsically dependent on an Other.
The concept of lack, as essential to human consciousness and behavior is therefore pivotal to Lacan’s work.


"Inexorable links to the real"--he's not just a weasel, he's a fucking Lacanian weasel. You wait--there'll be some crap about the "mirror stage" in whatever BS excuse he's desperately working on.
posted by yoink at 1:55 PM on July 9

posted by taz at 5:03 AM on August 2, 2009 [13 favorites]


tl; dr
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:49 AM on August 2, 2009


I bet you're a huge fan of that cockmunch who defaced Guernica too, aren't ya, Brian B.?
posted by orville sash at 7:26 AM on August 2, 2009


Ha ha ha. This guy is why the right hates the left, and they may have a point.
posted by thinkpiece at 8:04 AM on August 2, 2009


Seriously, have you ever had any luck whatsoever using that kind of pseudo-elitist sentiment in lieu of substantive argument?

He's pretty sure it might have got him laid, once.
posted by Floydd at 8:10 AM on August 2, 2009


I missed the part where the artitst said "oh yeah and that part where I flipped the shot and the stairs in the house led to nowhere? Yeah, that was really dumb".
posted by Nelson at 8:11 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Seriously, have you ever had any luck whatsoever using that kind of pseudo-elitist sentiment in lieu of substantive argument?
...
I bet you're a huge fan of that cockmunch who defaced Guernica too, aren't ya, Brian B.?

No.

In the world of art, lying to an employer and misrepresenting your work to the public is always a demonstration of integrity,

Many photos and films from the Soviet era were misrepresented to their censors, and the public by extension, and they managed to slip through. I even assume Hollywood is has its own lame demands that the artist must bend around, especially in the codified past. But that's not saying this case has any such heroics at all. The NYT packaged his photos with their own purity demands labeling them, and his violation of their demands was artistic, or personal, but not journalistic. Mirrored photos suit their own brand of duplicity, it seems, and I speak of their withholding of damning evidence against GWB, regarding the Plame affair, until after the election with Kerry, while few seemed to notice the history making censorship. The point is that the news is more perceptibly biased than his photos were mirrored. "But he lied to us!"

Most people lining up for an apology would travel for miles to get any stranger to apologize to them, and they do this at the very basic level of existence, to convince themselves that they can be taken seriously and worthy of respect, because they don't have self-respect. They have inherited a pasty mental disorder akin to Puritanism, and I like to think of them as those little uglies in Children of the Corn, all dressed up with nobody left to crucify.
posted by Brian B. at 9:32 AM on August 2, 2009


Yes sir, there is nothing quite like a slice of warm pecan pie.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:42 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Ha ha ha. This guy is why the right hates the left, and they may have a point.

what

Wait, do you mean because the right is completely artificial, a creation of compositionally-challenged anal retentives, opposing the left solely to provide symmetry?
posted by Sys Rq at 9:44 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


He was always already full of shit.
posted by Falconetti at 10:15 AM on August 2, 2009


The NYT packaged his photos with their own purity demands labeling them, and his violation of their demands was artistic, or personal, but not journalistic.

I'll bite for a second: Hasn't the guy been misrepresenting his work all along, even before the NYT affair? I don't know much about art, maybe it's ok to lie to your audience about how the work was produced.

Most people lining up for an apology would travel for miles to get any stranger to apologize to them, and they do this at the very basic level of existence, to convince themselves that they can be taken seriously and worthy of respect, because they don't have self-respect.

Well played sir, well played. I haven't seen this kind of fine trolling in ages.
posted by Dr Dracator at 10:21 AM on August 2, 2009


This just begs for a symmetrical punishment. Draw and quarter him.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:27 AM on August 2, 2009


Now, is it better a la mode or with a bit of whipped cream? With some pies, the best way to add dairy is clear - pumpkin is best with whipped cream, for instance, and berry goes best with a scoop of vanilla ice cream.

Pecan, though? I've never been sure. Obviously, it's delicious both ways, but which one is best?
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:35 AM on August 2, 2009


Only one way to find out: two pieces of pie, each hosting a different dairy accompaniment.

(I'm thinking ice cream, but I'd be okay with being wrong. There's no way to lose, really, if you've got two pieces of pie.)
posted by rtha at 10:38 AM on August 2, 2009


I feel that if the pecan pie is warm, the only reasonable choice is ice cream, the coldness of which creates an artful symmetry.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:47 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Is it possible that even the artist can start loosing track of the real and the boundaries between objectivity and fiction, reality and its image start blurring and overlapping?
I can only hope so.


*pours one out for the tortured conscience of Edgar Martins*
posted by ~ at 10:48 AM on August 2, 2009


Ah, yes, and the places where the ice cream melts together with the pecan jelly become nothing less than the Tonic of Joy.

Is that the right term for the gelatinous bits of pecan pie? "pecan jelly?" You would think I'd know my pie anatomy with more authority, but I'm really only familiar with the basics (crust, filling, NOM).
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:00 AM on August 2, 2009


Double fisting pies should be an Olympic event. Especially if you were to randomly heat or cool some of the pies.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:01 AM on August 2, 2009


I feel that if the pecan pie is warm, the only reasonable choice is ice cream, the coldness of which creates an artful symmetry.

It is the juxtaposition of of the hot and the cold that produces a sense of conflict in the culinary work, while at the same time the consumer senses the mutual struggle of the two halves to preserve their fleeting victory over the laws of thermodynamics.

The satisfaction comes not from the taste and texture, but from the resolution of these conflicts via the diner's consumption of the dish. Lesser minds merely think the combination tastes good, but clearly they don't enjoy it on as many levels as I do.
posted by FishBike at 11:04 AM on August 2, 2009


One of my life's ambitions is to get into a legitimate, spontaneous pie fight. By this, I mean that it cannot be a pie fight that is in any way planned or prepared for - it needs to break out and escalate organically, among combatants who had no idea they would be flinging pastries at one another that night. I'm not at all talking about some lame, contrived battle - flinging cheap cream pies in the yard while wearing disposable clothing doesn't interest me in the slightest. There must be fine clothes and furniture at risk. There must be august guests in attendance. The pie-fight I hope to see in my time cannot be one that anyone expected - it must a be an ever-widening disaster, Stooges-style.

Of all my life's ambitions, this one may well be the most difficult to ever realize. Think of all the factors that must come into play perfectly for my ideal pie-fight to take place! It would have to be at some sort of banquet or catered dinner - there would have to be some kind of buffet line or well-stocked dessert tray if we are to have the ammunition to sustain the battle beyond a few throws. Furthermore, these pies must be distributed throughout the room in such a way that provides a fair spread of ammunition and prevents any one group from just blockading the dessert table. Also, the people present must fall into a razor-thin portion of a Venn diagram wherein they are A) of such social standing that it's gonna be funny to see'em get pied and B) they are of such humor and personality as to be willing to return fire. And among everyone there, there must be a sort of tension already present that will make the outbreak of delicious hostilities possible in the first place!

But the most quarrelsome factor in this scenario is the pie itself. At any event that will bring all the above elements together - that is, a large number of dignified guests and an ample supply of pie, said pie is almost certain to be served hot and, for the pie fight to be fun and not tragic, the pie absolutely must be cold - can you imagine the shrieking agony of catching a face-full of steaming boysenberry pie? Of hot, runny rhubarb? Why, it would feel like sugared napalm! The burns would be horrific!

So, I'm not sure I shall ever see this dream of mine become real. I can only take comfort in the fact that I am such an advanced curmudgeon that I've managed to concoct a life-long ambition that warm, delicious pie would ruin.
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:42 AM on August 2, 2009 [13 favorites]


Most people lining up for an apology would travel for miles to get any stranger to apologize to them, and they do this at the very basic level of existence, to convince themselves that they can be taken seriously and worthy of respect, because they don't have self-respect. They have inherited a pasty mental disorder akin to Puritanism, and I like to think of them as those little uglies in Children of the Corn, all dressed up with nobody left to crucify.

Speaking of pie, where's Noël Godin when we need him most? There's a troll here who desperately needs to taste custard.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:45 AM on August 2, 2009


Lyer! Lyer! burning bright
In newspapers of the night,
What photoshopping hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:12 PM on August 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


How is he justified in claiming that he doesn't digitally manipulate when he does? Is lying an integral part of the artwork?

It apparently is, since he has consistently claimed over the years that he does not use digital manipulation. I don't find anything fundamentally wrong with this; artists lie about their methods and intentions all the time, it can be interesting and fun. Hell, Joseph Beuys made a career of it. My problem is that in Martins' case, it's not particularly interesting. The lie in the artist's statement adds little to the work. Now, if the work were more obviously manipulated, and he made a much bigger deal in his statements about how it isn't manipulated, that might start getting interesting. But this is just too subtle to seem intentional.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:27 PM on August 2, 2009


My problem with it is that he was selling his works of art as journalistic photos. I don't give a fuck what artists are doing to make their art. But I want a news photo essay to contain something that, if I were standing next to the photographer when they tripped the shutter, I would have also seen. That's the unforgivable lie he was perpetrating in my book. YMMV.
posted by hippybear at 12:42 PM on August 2, 2009


Yeah, I was speaking aside from the NYT thing. That was clearly unethical, at least. I'm finding it hard to get worked up about, however. It wasn't really substantive news-wise; this was just a cute little magazine piece, right?

I'd be pissed if I were the editor who had hired him, though.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:47 PM on August 2, 2009


Just to double-clarify: in the original Metafilter thread, people were scouring this guys oeuvre and finding similar examples of manipulation, which run consistently against his published statements. I was speaking to that.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:48 PM on August 2, 2009


I hope you like my pie. As you know from reading my chef's statement, my pies never contain rat poison or shards of glass. What may seem to lesser palates to be uncontrollable bleeding is but the product of illusion. The illusion of the culinary process.
posted by hattifattener at 1:02 PM on August 2, 2009


that is, a large number of dignified guests and an ample supply of pie, said pie is almost certain to be served hot and, for the pie fight to be fun and not tragic, the pie absolutely must be cold

Might I suggest peanut butter pie? It is served cold and features a fluffy layer on top that splatters satisfyingly. It is a pastry difficult to master, but quick and easy to produce in mass quantities once proficient.

I was once the recipient of one delicious peanut butter pie flung spontaneously in anger during a family holiday gathering (landing on my dress that I had JUST PICKED UP FROM THE DRY CLEANER THAT DAY, plus I REALLY WANTED TO EAT A PIECE OF THAT PIE, BITCH, but NOW IT'S ALL OVER MY TORSO AND THE FLOOR) and I can vouch for its suitability.
posted by little e at 5:03 PM on August 2, 2009


Wait. Fisting pies? What?
posted by cavalier at 5:08 PM on August 2, 2009


little e, I beg of you, tel us the whole story!
posted by rtha at 5:10 PM on August 2, 2009


Who can? We can! We Vegan Toucan Clan? No! We Pecan Man Clan Who Can Can-Can!
posted by The Whelk at 6:02 PM on August 2, 2009


My little sister has a violent temper and is very particular about certain things. One of these things is NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO TASTE HER FOOD DURING PREPARATION WITHOUT INVITATION.

I made the mistake of scooping a bite of filling from a half-complete pie I found in the fridge, because, hey, the fluffy stuff has to go on top so nobody will see that part anyway, no big deal. Later that evening, she informed me that IT WAS A BIG DEAL and I RUINED THE PIE and I KNEW NOT TO TASTE HER FOOD and RARRRRR ANGRY WORDS. Then she called me a fat ass.

I noted that the then-complete pie appeared pristine, and that she actually weighs more than I do, so she might want to choose her insults more carefully, and oh, if it's ruined anyway can I have a piece? Then I laughed.

She picked up the pie and threw it across the dining room at me. Her aim was true. Peanut buttery goodness and bits of graham cracker crust splooshed all over my chest. I yelled at her, because, seriously, dry clean only!! but then I realized that while deconstructed, the pie was in my possession. So I made a big show of tasting it and complemented her on its deliciousness. Had my dad not arrived at this point she definitely would have kicked my ass.

This was, embarassingly, Christmas before last, and yes we are both too old for this shit.
posted by little e at 6:20 PM on August 2, 2009 [19 favorites]


A peanut-butter pie sounds delicious right about now. Especially if there's chocolate involved somehow.
posted by CKmtl at 6:30 PM on August 2, 2009


Wait. Fisting pies? What?

As in double fisting two drinks at once. Or ice cream
posted by P.o.B. at 6:44 PM on August 2, 2009


little e, thank you! I am laughing very hard!
posted by rtha at 6:45 PM on August 2, 2009


That is why I chose not to have little sisters. Plus, more pie for me. Fruit if you please, though. Blackberry, apple, peach, just about any fruit'll do. and don't come near it with that melty ice cream shit that is going to fucking sog up my crust.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:02 PM on August 2, 2009


One of my life's ambitions is to get into a legitimate, spontaneous pie fight. By this, I mean that it cannot be a pie fight that is in any way planned or prepared for - it needs to break out and escalate organically, among combatants who had no idea they would be flinging pastries at one another that night. I'm not at all talking about some lame, contrived battle - flinging cheap cream pies in the yard while wearing disposable clothing doesn't interest me in the slightest. There must be fine clothes and furniture at risk. There must be august guests in attendance.

....Not quite what you were looking for, but close: a food fight broke out at my parents' housewarming party when they were younger.

This was the house I grew up in, mind. And at some point I learned that they had had a housewarming dinner party in the basement, because that was the biggest space, and were serving spaghetti, And two of the people there suddenly started discussing the "spaghetti/linguini" scene from THE ODD COUPLE, where Walter Matthau stops Jack Lemmon's protestations that "it's not spaghetti, it's linguini!" by hurling the plate at the wall and snorting, "now it's garbage."

A third person was listening in, and because a lot of other conversations were going on, he missed the ending. "WHAT did Walter Matthau do?" he asked a couple times, which for some reason annoyed one of the two people discussing the scene. And that person finally picked up his plate and said, "he did this!" and hurled the plate at the wall.

The whole table fell silent.

At which point, the second person who'd been discussing the scene said, "no, I think it was more like THIS --" and hurled HIS plate at the wall.

Another silence.

"Oh, are you guys talking about that scene from the ODD COUPLE," someone else piped up. "The scene where they did THIS?' and he too picked up his plate and hurled it against the wall.

"Nah, it was more like this!" a fourth person also flung his dinner at the wall.

More and more people got into the act, hurling food first at the wall, and then at each other, and starting an all-out food fight in my parents' basement.

alas, this was before I was born, and nothing remotely like that happened during my own existance in that house.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:30 PM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


I've got a food flinging story! I was once eating dinner at a little dive Thai restaurant at the corner of Sunset Blvd. and Tamrind Ave. in Los Angeles. It was the kind of restaurant that weird things happened occasionally, which I was party to witness because I ate dinner there a lot when I worked late. A Thai family, father, mother, and adult son, walked in, were seated and began to eat dinner two tables away. Triggered by something unknown to me, the son stood up, grabbed his plate and smashed it on the table. The father jumped up, upended the entire table and lunged for the son, dinner knife in hand. The son grabbed a broken plate shard and both father and son stood blade-to-blade screaming at each other. The mother was still in her seat with her head in her hands yelling at the two of them through her palms. Just as suddenly as the violence broke out, the son and father uprighted the table and sat back down and ordered beer. All of this happened in the order of 15 seconds. The waitress came over and began cleaning up up while the father and son drank their beer. The mother did not look back up at them for the rest of the time I was there.
posted by mrmojoflying at 6:08 AM on August 3, 2009 [6 favorites]


a giant palindrome:

A man, a plan, a casa, a bait, a lag, a malt, an ami, an abr, a bayard, a liang, an apa, a jager, an adder, a gaw, a nut, an oca, a net, a caps, a rail, a karat, an amalaka, an agron, a brev, a kit, a ballet, an eel, a bar, a lama, a dan, a patina, a grama, a tin, a manak, a japer, a pupa, an oka, a lev, a trad, a cab, an ala, a papaya, a loma, a cam, a catalpa, a mon, a kor, a tam, a haloid, a regal, a lub, a war, a peen, a stob, a gad, a spin, a ward, a slag, a toom, a we'd, a pos, a marg, a cedar, a daraf, a wat, a dater, a carapa, a lot, a tennis, a laic, a farer, a dame, a haemin, an agal, a tsar, a misaim, an enate, a halo, a garrot, a gip, a rom, a lca, an elem, a yell, a ganoin, a waver, a boma, a ball, a waxer, a tid, an agr, an app, a y-axis, a lion, a lack, a burg, a motmot, a rata, a vil, a satrap, a mart, a rank, a lex, an annot, a pol, a tael, a drub, a nome, a dale, a batwoman, a mara, a lob, a tarp, a res, a drawer, a rot, a doh, a nib, a saw, a harem, a gater, an imam, a llama, a let, a bel, a hamal, a gasser, a cadi, a ramrod, a saga, a bass, a cad, a ya-ta-ta, a flan, a cig, a malam, an anus, a keep, a cuda, a crum, an alapa, a doc, a nett, a laggen, a loofa, a cola, a roman, a vac, a snug, a mass, an ass, a tarpan, a frt, a neb, a reel, a corp, a yob, an ana, a but, a tpd, a pant, a cate, an alb, a napper, a gum, a knot, a daud, a pipa, a ruse, a call, a haar, a matador, a bot, a mod, a cor, an aug, a dop, a bud, a buran, a sika, a nork, a yoga, a kip, a rood, a tanga, a pap, a loop, a rein, a pat, an anadem, a leman, a brocatel, a says, a jad, a nomad, a tau, a nunatak, a drab, a gob, an amt, an andron, an orc, a maim, a kaiak, a saber, a puca, a rab, a rabal, a kabala, a rem, a canoe, an aid, a water, a minah, a yarak, an okay, a redan, a gala, a liza, a coir, a car, a vav, a hail, a guna, a min, an aroma, a mix, a manikin, a capita, a cap, a tsi, a waw, a spira, a rub, an att, a matsu, a hat, a fan, a taj, a ray, a jar, a lah, a datum, a gayal, a bus, a coss, an alias, a lin, a gata, a cabana, a nail, a nod, a vas, a lam, a recall, a nasal, a bat, an aba, a rec, a nim, a gauss, a baba, an ign, an agura, a gleba, a lune, a pastel, a yew, an inner, an exon, a moor, a mir, a pas, a dir, a canalis, a bason, a beg, a kop, a yam, a fader, a citer, a pan, a lunarian, a mot, an alif, a yes, a jaw, a pay, a salad, a poll, a waggon, an ore, an asp, a tabor, a cariama, a kab, a kabob, a lac, a deb, a mun, a dalasi, a daff, a raki, a halal, a sanies, a cast, a hwan, a cay, a dad, an ogam, a ma'am, a japan, a vakeel, a fac, a duel, a sial, a patin, a magot, a roll, a pain, a rall, a fats, a bap, a cerat, a call-up, an abb, a radiov, a gid, a loot, a god, a tenner, an eta, a gar, a grad, a dap, a dirt, a hair, a parr, an agon, a dual, a nonet, a mural, a soda, a teff, a tal, an omasum, a tug, a vat, a doom, a deil, a str, a dam, a gaff, a camoca, a mud, a flow, a fed, a gpm, a tod, a fcp, a reflet, a hay, a nav, a lulab, a tail, a maniac, an ikan, a maid, a salep, a lass, a pall, a gab, a watt, a bay, a map, a lair, a sax, a mar, a madam, a palet, a ramon, a won, a wet, a fen, a nipa, a dBm, a lai, a bag, a haeres, a bun, a ratton, a tana, a sem, a gtc, a giron, a bros, a navar, a carotin, a jab, a dayan, a lever, a fun, a macoma, an iter, a nies, a dak, a yaw, a sera, a tef, a nek, a xat, a boob, a haler, a cir, a daw, a camass, a topaz, a gator, a taw, a lapser, a mut, a biga, a nag, an atlas, a bad, a doodah, a manas, a puna, a fut, a sima, a gen, a facsim, a liard, a gym, a spot, a sex, a nae, a wap, a zax, a way, a tapis, an ord, a habu, a datura, a mel, a kadi, a qat, a mas, a banana, a cran, a bird, a pus, a drain, a lacer, a valor, a pav, a lad, a wamus, a garg, a tamis, a kaon, a tort, a leg, a baht, a lapin, a ref, a wall, a mac, a samaj, a boar, a sunn, a pappus, an aced, an ann, a manor, a barege, a jai, an alap, an acad, a fakeer, a remit, a get, a toil, a gat, a local, a baff, a wain, an akela, an uta, a slab, a rattan, a lyc, an atoll, a banian, a retem, a dorp, a poort, a vug, a supr, a canon, a far, a fanatic, a dep, a caid, a qaf, a kas, a carfax, a patness, a nabob, a catnip, a minima, a must, a sal, a caracara, a manioc, a til, a lip, a rag, an amir, a hareem, an arcs, a teel, a cram, a yawn, a main, a ban, a rasa, a lud, a ragi, a tapir, a top, a dil, a lat, a razz, a jag, a sass, a jalor, a calix, an asb, an ayre, a nap, a tannin, a garb, a sports, a gem, a reed, an esu, a hap, a raglan, a sis, a baronet, a snit, a madras, a plug, a gula, a ros, a scf, a gelder, a terr, a gag, a fay, a fag, a garret, a redleg, a fcs, a sora, a lug, a gulp, a sard, a matins, a tenor, a basis, an alg, a rap, a hausen, a deer, a meg, a strops, a brag, an inn, a tap, an aery, an abs, an axil, a carol, a jass, a sag, a jazz, a ratal, a lid, a pot, a rip, a taig, a radula, a saran, a bani, a manway, a marc, a leet, a scr, an ameer, a harim, an agar, a pil, a lit, a coin, a maar, a caracal, a satsuma, a minim, a pint, a cabob, an assent, a pax, a fracas, a kaf, a qadi, a caped, a cit, an afar, a fanon, a carpus, a guv, a troop, a prod, a meter, an ain, a ballot, an acyl, an attar, a balsa, a tuna, a lek, an ani, a waff, a bal, a colat, a galiot, a teg, a timer, a reek, a fad, a canap, a lanai, a jaeger, a baron, a mannan, a decan, a supp, a pannus, a raob, a jam, a sac, a mall, a wafer, a nip, a lath, a bagel, a trot, an oak, a sim, a tagrag, a sum, a wad, a lav, a parol, a varec, a laniard, a sup, a drib, an arca, an anabas, a mat, a qaid, a kalema, a rut, a daub, a hadron, a sip, a tay, a wax, a zap, a wae, an axes, a tops, a myg, a drail, a misc, a fanega, a mis, a tufa, an upas, an amah, a doodad, a basalt, a nagana, a gib, a tum, a resp, a law, a tarot, a gaz, a potass, a macaw, a daric, a rel, a haboob, a tax, a ken, a feta, a resaw, a yak, a dasein, a retina, a moc, a manuf, a revel, a nay, a dab, a janitor, a caravan, a sorb, an orig, a ctg, a mesa, a nat, an ottar, a nub, a sere, a hag, a bai, a lambda, a pin, a nef, a tew, a now, a nom, a ratel, a pam, a damar, a max, a sari, a lap, a may, a batt, a wab, a gall, a pass, a lapel, a sadi, a manakin, a cain, a mali, a tab, a lulav, an ayah, a telfer, a pcf, a dot, a mpg, a def, a wolf, a duma, a com, a caff, a gam, a darts, a lied, a mood, a tav, a gut, a mus, a monal, a taffeta, a dos-, a larum, a tenon, a laud, a nog, an arr, a pariah, a trid, a pad, a darg, a raga, a ten, a rennet, a dog, a tool, a dig, a void, a rabban, a pull, a cat, a recap, a bast, a fall, a rani, a pallor, a tog, a manit, a palais, a leud, a caf, a leek, a van, a pajama, a mam, a gonad, a day, a can, a what's, a casein, a salal, a haik, a raff, a dais, a ladanum, a bed, a cal, a bob, a kabaka, a mair, a carob, a taps, an aeron, a nogg, a wallop, a dal, a say', a paw, a jasey, a fil, an atom, an air, an ulan, a paretic, a red, a fam, a yapok, a geb, a nos, a basil, an acarid, a sap, a rim, a room, an oxen, a rennin, a wey, a let's, a paenula, a belga, a rug, an angina, a babassu, a gamin, a cera, a banat, a balas, an all, a ceramal, a sav, a don, a liana, an abaca, a tag, a nil, a sail, an assoc, a sub, a lay, a gamut, a dah, a lar, a jay, a raj, a tan, a fat, a haust, a matt, an abura, a ripsaw, a waist, a paca, a tip, a canikin, a maxima, a mor, an anima, an ugali, a hav, a var, a carioca, a zila, a lagan, a deray, a konak, a rayah, an imaret, a wadi, an aeon, a camera, a lab, a kal, a barabara, a cup, a reb, a sakai, a kami, a macron, an ordn, an atman, a bog, a bard, a kat, an unau, a tad, a monad, a jasy, a salet, a corban, a melamed, an anat, a panier, a pool, a papa, a gnat, a door, a pika, a goy, a krona, a kisan, a rub-a-dub, a pod, a guan, a roc, a dom, a tob, a rod, a tamara, a hall, a caesura, a pip, a duad, a tonk, a mug, a repp, an abl, an aet, a catnap, a dpt, a tuba, a nan, a boy, a proc, a leer, a ben, a trf, an apr, a tass, an assam, a guns, a cav, an amora, a loca, a fool, an egg, a latten, a coda, a pal, an amurca, a duc, a peek, a sun, an amal, a magic, an alfa, a tat, a yad, a cassaba, a gas, a dorm, a raid, a caress, a gal, a mahaleb, a tela, a mallam, a minaret, a gamer, a haw, a sabin, a hod, a tor, a reward, a ser, a prat, a bola, a ram, an amowt, a bael, a daemon, a burd, a leat, a lop, a tonn, an axel, a knar, a tram, a part, a saliva, a tar, a tom-tom, a grub, a kcal, an oil, a six, a yapp, an arg, an adit, a rex, a wallaba, a mob, a rev, a wanion, a galley, a melena, a clamor, a pig, a torr, a gaol, a haet, an enami, a simar, a stalag, an anime, a haem, a darer, a facial, a sinnet, a tola, a par, a caret, a dat, a waf, a radar, a decagram, a sop, a dew, a moot, a gals, a draw, an ips, a dag, a bots, a neep, a raw, a bul, a lager, a diol, a ham, a tarok, a noma, a plat, a camaca, a mola, a yap, a paal, an abac, a dart, a vela, a kona, a pup, a rep, a jak, an amanita, a marga, a nit, a panada, a malar, a baleen, a tell, a batik, a verb, an organa, a kalam, an atar, a kali, a rasp, a catena, a con, a tun, a wag, a redd, an areg, a jaap, an agnail, a dray, a barb, an aim, a natl, a mag, a lati, a baas, a canal, Panama!

(the credit is not mine for the taking: source)
posted by filthy light thief at 10:31 AM on August 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


*notes with some odd satisfaction that filthy light thief's palindrome pivots on "a fay" and "a fag", which somehow seems to be how the entire universe should be.*
posted by hippybear at 12:44 PM on August 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Sorry filthy light thief, you lost me at abr.
posted by tellurian at 4:42 PM on August 3, 2009


This didn't do anything either way for my opinion of this douchebag.

But by posting the followup the NY Times pretty much gave up all integrity in photojournalism. What they should have done is posted a deep apology to the readers for not doing their due diligence, and also given this clueless twit a public dressing down. He can defend himself with hand wavy bullshit when attacked by the vague horde of the Internet, but not against the NYT saying "Edgar Martins is a contract breaking, unethical, lying hack". It should show integrity in the NYT and put a bullet in the heart of this sociopath's career.

But they didn't do that, and now there's yet another section of the NYT that's gone.

If the NYT had published a news story that I entirely made up, would they let it slide and give me a place to explain why I made up my story? No, they'd bury my burned corpse under the crossroads at midnight and never look back. I don't understand why they don't do the same to this guy.
posted by Ookseer at 7:38 PM on August 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Has no one mentioned cherry pie? I do enjoy cherry pie.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:58 PM on August 3, 2009


Blackberry is actually my favorite. Baked after a sweaty afternoon of tromping around in the hills, braving briars, snakes, and danger to pick the berries, so that you've really earned that pie. The best I've ever tasted were in Washington state, but the ones around home are good enough. Homemade whipped cream on top. The canned stuff is blasphemy.

Aw, that story's nothing compared to some of what happens when my family gets together. For example, "The Roadtrip When We Convinced (little sister) to Feign Ignorance of Many Sexual Acts and Ask Dad (Who Is Easily Flustered) the Meaning of Several Common Slang Terms", or my personal favorite "We Really Blew Some Shit UP Hell Yes a Propane Tank We Could've Died But It Was Cool".
posted by little e at 8:15 PM on August 3, 2009


Has no one mentioned cherry pie? I do enjoy cherry pie.

I was trying to do that whole brevity thing, but cherry is high on the list, too. Though sometimes you can get a bad cherry pie with too much corn starch, so I'm leery of restaurant cherry pie. but the real thing? Yes.

Now, let us discuss Cobbler. It has the reputation of being pie's unemployed trailer-cooking cousin, but seriously: Cobbler! Especially peach cobbler. Can I get a fuck yeah‽

You know what's awesome? Let me tell you. Campfire peach cobbler. It's done like this: Dump about 3 cans of peaches in the bottom of one of those cool camping cast-iron dutch ovens -- you know the kind -- it's got a rim on the lid to hold the coals on -- then pop a couple rolls of those pre-fab Pilslbury biscuits out of their cardboard tubes, and cover peaches with a layer of biscuits. Place lid on top, nestle dutch oven into the campfire & cover with coals. Takes ~20-30 minutes. Maybe it was the 500 feet of rope I'd climbed at the end of a 16 hour cave trip, but maybe it was just the freakin' awesome.

little e -- when I lived in Portland (age 9-10), we were two houses from a vacant lot that had been totally overtaken by a house-sized blackberry bush. We (me & the neighborhood kids -- a motley crew, for sure) ate blackberries until we were bloated for weeks on end. That bush could not be conquered. The Pacific northwest is for sure the berry capital of the currently known universe.

Did I mention that my daughter just made a real carrot cake totally from scratch yesterday? weeell, let me tell you it was a freakin'a awesome carrot cake with real from-scratch cream cheese icing and gooddam it was good I just had a piece let me tell you oohh, I think there's stil more...

posted by Devils Rancher at 8:39 PM on August 3, 2009


gloating/

There've been ripe berries available here and there for about two weeks around Olympia, WA, but the treasure troves I've found over the past couple of days compel me to declare Washington's 2009 Free Blackberries Everywhere season officially open! Tomorrow's my day off and tonight, I picked up an eighteen pack of one-gallon freezer bags. Along the lakeshore down the hill from my apartment lies a sprawling snarl of blackberry bushes, heavy with fruit. I'm picking me some berries tomorrow, people. I'm gonna pick'em so hard. Maybe half of tomorrow's haul is gonna fit in my freezer, so the rest I'll have to cook or consume with a quickness - blackberries in my porridge, blackberries on my ice cream, blackberries replacing jam in my peanut butter sandwiches, blackberry syrup on my waffles and you bet your ass I'm whipping up some blackberry pie. And cobbler. And crumble. Oh, it's happening. It's happening.

/gloating

Hmm. Maybe I oughta host a meet-up to eat all this stuff if I don't wanna gain a hundred pounds or so between now and September. It wouldn't have anything to do with my burning desire to be in a pie fight. Honest.
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:40 PM on August 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


I have a field of blackberries outside my door. I've been keeping an eye on them for awhile now and I decided tomorrow I'm going to pick loads and loads of 'em. By the way, blackberries last forever in the freezer.
posted by P.o.B. at 12:27 AM on August 4, 2009


Has no one mentioned cherry pie? I do enjoy cherry pie.

No one has mentioned unixrat, and y'all wouldn't be in this thread if it weren't for him. So three cheers for unixrat, the man who called bullshit.
posted by tizzie at 5:57 AM on August 4, 2009


No one has mentioned unixrat, and y'all wouldn't be in this thread if it weren't for him. So three cheers for unixrat, the man who called bullshit.

I think we should send him a real pie.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:51 AM on August 4, 2009


Hey has anyone taken sections of that theoretical explanation essay of Martin's and checked them with previous authorship? Not that it makes much sense to me (as others have said, just trying to read through the thing - ugh) - but bits and pieces of it sound like some of the more fluffy art history crap I can remember reading in college. Plus I kept thinking that if Martin was as lazy in his photoshop he'd be the same in his text creations.
Just wondering.

Also a really good pecan pie rocks. Must have whole pecans in a thick layer on top though - the crushed tiny bits of pecans spread across the top just won't do.
posted by batgrlHG at 2:48 PM on August 5, 2009


I checked to see if his statement was a lazy copy, following BatgrlHG's lead.

CopyTracker & Plagium stall on parsing it, & SeeSources & PlagiarismDetect found the references he quoted or people who re-blogged his statement.

If he copied it, either the source isn't available online or he edited it heavily.
posted by Pronoiac at 5:10 PM on August 5, 2009


Cool - I knew someone would know what to check - thanks Pronoiac.

...Maybe it's all some sort of Mad Libs experiment. And he's just filling in the blanks by pulling phrases randomly out of art theory books or something.
posted by batgrlHG at 8:14 PM on August 5, 2009


Ah, it was nothing. I just googled "plagiarism detection," then went to the Wikipedia page. And I do wonder if he did the Burroughs cut-up editing thing. He seems to rhetorically ask questions, then says, "well, yes, those very definitely appear to be questions, yes. Now moving along, there are these other questions, which you might not have considered. You can tell they're questions worth pondering because they have question marks."

Epistemologically speaking, due to the nature of imperfect communication, it is not clear that when I say that he talks like a fag & his shit's all retarded, that anyone else truly understands that he talks like a fag & his shit's all retarded. He appears to have spent quite some time on approaching & communicating the Platonic Ideal of Bullshit.
posted by Pronoiac at 11:08 PM on August 5, 2009


The cobbler silence (Not you EatTheWeak!) in this thread is deafening. WTF MetaTalk?

COBBLERIST!
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:19 AM on August 6, 2009


Oh well I guess I consider cobbler to be a subset of pie. I suppose the blackberry confection I had in mind is technically a cobbler. But pie is more fun to say, whereas cobbler is a funny word and not in the good way. Try shouting it

PIE
PIE
PIE
PIE!

Cobbler?

PIE!!!
posted by little e at 6:19 AM on August 6, 2009


You brought 'ler to the party.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:16 AM on August 6, 2009


New Yorker cartoon this week: Redundant Beach, California
posted by moonmilk at 7:51 AM on August 21, 2009 [1 favorite]


« Older Anon Y. Mous   |   Trolling techniques Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments