Concepts of Still Life in Photography - Essay Example

Concepts of Still Life in Photography Contents Introduction 2 Analysis of the Genre 2 Philosophy of still life depiction 5 Irving Penn: Career and Still-Life Photography 7 Irving Penn vs. Dave Nitsche 10 Irving Penn’s Works and My Own Experience 14 Conclusion 15 List of Photographs 16 Works Cited 17 Introduction Still life (or nature morte in French) was initially an object of depiction for painters, forming a separate genre in art with the same name. In painting, the tendency to depict inanimate objects emerged several centuries ago with Dutch painters being the pioneers in this art form. However, still life became an independent genre only in the 17th century, though inanimate objects have been involved in artworks since Paleolithic times. Whereas earlier still life used to be an inseparable part of other genres, for instance, portraits where it formed an important element complementing composition and the message conveyed by the artwork or “communicating allegorical or latent meanings” (Martineau, p.6); it later developed as an independent art form, acquiring its own definition, canons and traditions. Most dictionaries give the following definition to still life: it is a picture that consists of inanimate objects like flowers, fruit, vessels or dead game. But on the other hand, still life as a genre has always been a subject to cultural influences that formed differences in defining and thinking of this genre. Analysis of the Genre The first photographic still life picture emerged about a decade before the official announcement of photography invention in 1839 (Martineau, p.6). Nicephore Niepce, the inventor, was an author of the picture named Set Table depicting a laid table offering a meal for one person. The objects on the picture are rounded by deep shadows (the evidence of lengthy exposure), and the austerity of the photographed meal conveys allusions to Da Vinci’s Last Supper (Martineau, p.6). As photography emerged as a revolutionary art enabling “painting” not with brushes, but with light, the golden age of painting was gradually replaced by the age of digital fine art. Photography virtually borrowed almost all genres from painting, vesting them in the form of new technologies and using new means to create a desirable effect. In this way, still life migrated to photography, carrying all the key traditions of conventional still life painting to the newly invented art. Particularly, the photographers working at the dawn of photography practiced nature morte as one of the principal genres, using the same objects of depiction their predecessors used to paint with oil or watercolor. Thus, first attempts in photography mirrored compositions used previously in pictorial art (Ingledew, p. 57). The reason pioneers of photography such as Roger Fenton chose still life as the most favorable genre and inanimate objects as their favorite “characters” to be depicted is not only artistic and aesthetical. The genre of still life proved to be the perfect outlet for early photography practitioners for a rather pragmatic reason: the properties of still life objects were the most favorable among all the objects that could be depicted. When photography was making its first steps in the world, photographic material were characterized by low speed and exposure was measured not in seconds (as we are used to do nowadays), but in minutes. Taking into account this peculiarities, early photographers preferred to involved inanimate objects as their models – inanimate objects wouldn’t move if an artist didn’t want them to, and thus could be photographed on long exposures allowing an artist to make a desired shot. Still life photographs were predominantly shot indoors, though there still were exceptions justified by the low speed of photo materials. Some of the artists preferred photographing outdoors – in a garden or a dooryard. Thereat, they tended to involve rather diverse assortment of items for in their compositions: buckets, ladders, barrows and others. These objects were in close proximity to the items brought from home as well as flowers and trees. Still life of this kind can be traced in the works of Richard Jones and Hippolyte Bayard. The choice dictated by practical considerations offered the photo artists the great level of control on the contents of their works, though controlling the shot became easier when the time of exposure was reduced with help of chemical experiments in 1840’s. Beginning with the first decades of the twentieth century, still life started changing and improving gradually. Simple depiction of objects arranged in a composition wasn’t enough anymore, and photographers faced the challenge of seeking new forms of this art: they sought more interesting and complicated perspectives, used close-up shooting, experimented daringly with shapes, lighting and textures. Except trivial ready-mades, industrial elements emerged in the shots (for instance, tools, machine details and others), and this is far from being surprising, as photography – similar to any other art form – reflected realia and characteristic features of the period. The significant photo artists that experimented and sought new forms were Andre Kertesz (Fig. 1), Albert Renger-Patzsch, Boris Ignatovich, Bauhaus photographers etc. In the course of time, lighting acquired an extremely important role in composing and shooting photographs, because this “instrument” that is initially natural, yet can be controlled by the man, allowed photographers to indue objects with certain features, character and mood. For instance, in photographic legacy of Josef Sudec, a Czech photographer, light plays a key role in shaping the general mood of the picture: soft diffused light gives romantic and lyrical air to a trivial flower in a glass. With the development of technology, photographers have been obtaining more and more wide range of opportunities for unlocking their creative potential: today, a photographer has a great number of means at his/her disposal that can help in achieving the desired effect and convey the message via a photograph. Philosophy of still life depiction The most general idea implied in still life photography is “the extraordinary is found in the ordinary” (Jones, 2012). Traditionally, adopting the canons of pictoral art, photographers used various inanimate objects or goods in their compositions: fruits, flowers, dish- and tableware, welfare items, art objects and others. However, as the photographic art evolved with the culture as a whole, new objects of depiction emerge to complement and enhance still life photography. Originally, depiction of still art was far from being independent and was used as an auxiliary tool helping to transmit the idea “locked” in the painting. Depiction of still life in portraits could broaden the understanding of the picture and make it communicate an idea the painter had attached, otherwise this could be a mere depiction of a person conveying only visual aesthetical meaning. Means of still life can help in resolution of complex artistic tasks like showing the inner world of the depicted person, telling the story or adding some narrative element to the picture. In fact, still life is a universal auxiliary tool both in painting and photography. As the matter stands, still life as an independent genre possesses profound conceptual background, being extremely rich and fertile soil for creativity and “speaking” to the surrounding world. Still life is usually defined as an arrangement of inanimate items expressing narrative, pictoral or metaphorical content (Peres, p. 324). Focusing on still life within photographic activity means learning to notice unusual sides of trivial objects and literally making these objects speak. “The most enduring is the symbolic still life, which Saisselin describes as the “image as language” view of art, where the objects could be read as metaphors” (Somers). What’s more, in the modern understanding, conceptual still life doesn’t always have to be visually pleasing, especially when conveying a metaphorical meaning. Here, one could provide a good example - Joel-Peter Witkin’s artworks often referred to as shocking still nature. Witkin chose to communicate metaphorical messages to the viewer via parts of human bodies photographed in the company of those traditional still life objects (fruits, flowers, welfare items). Such still life works certainly evoke mixed impressions balancing between aversion, shock and interest, yet still life objects in them are speaking, communicating ideas. One of the bright specimens of Witkin’s legacy is the photograph of a severed female arm accompanied by the bundle of grapes, an antique clock, a bunch of flowers and a half-nude statue in ancient Greek style (Fig. 2). Naturally, a severed arm might evoke disgust and disapproval, but it is a principal element of the composition helping to communicate the message – the statement about death, life and time. As it was stated above, still life can be conceptual or purely aesthetical in its nature. However, regardless of the purposes, still life composition is often a set of items that were taken out of their usual environment (Peres, 325) and arranged by a photographer at his/her discretion to create a desired composition and mood. When a photographer addresses a certain concept, still life objects depicted by him allude to abstract notions like love, death, sexuality, morality and others that replace their primary physical characteristics. Generally, still life photography lays emphasis on the relations between the objects surrounding us, on their qualities, their outer form and innate message conveyed to the viewers. Working with still life, a photographer is given the fullest control of what he/she sees through the camera lens and thus is entitled to control and adjust the “models” in any suitable way: objects’ position, shadows and highlights, colors, emphasizing or softening texture, enhancing volume, adjusting focus – everything depends on the artist and everything is at his/her disposal for achieving the goal. Photographs made in this genre often please with poetic sentiment, expression in color, texture and volume of the objects, laconic formula, and exquisiteness in tonal and color gradations. No doubt, still life as a genre requires much creativity and masterhood from a photographer. In addition to conveying symbolical meaning, still life photography is also used to demonstrate various objects in all their splendor, in other words, to emphasize their outer aesthetical properties. This direction of application has been used especially actively since the second half of the 20th century, with the popularization of advertising photography. Notwithstanding that still life is incomparable with other genres in the sense of quantity, and its appearances are quite incidental in careers of many photographic artists, it has been a successful commercial photography genre used in advertising, promotion campaigns etc. Within this direction of still life photography, food photography is surely the most popular, with hundreds of photographers employed in it. Naturally, food photography is aimed at presenting food products in the most favorable way that would convince consumers to buy them. The process of making food photography involves a qualified team – a food stylist, an art director, a prop stylist etc. (Manna & Moss, 2005). Juicy saturated colors, perfect-looking objects and wisely-adjusted composition – these are key criteria of commercial object photography. On the other hand, even commercial still life photography can be pure art – and this was proved countless times by one of the most remarkable world’s photographers, the revolutionary in photography as an art form, Irving Penn. Next, this paper will give consideration to his career, style and legacy and the way he realized concepts and ideas of still life photography in his works. Irving Penn: Career and Still-Life Photography Born on June 16, 1917 in Plainfield, New Jersey, Penn first focused on advertising business, studying in Philadelphia Museum School of Industrial Art (Wrigley). His mentor was Alex Brodovitch, the famous designer, painter and photographer of Russian descent. After finishing his advertising course, Penn worked as an art editor in a magazine, had a shy at painting, but these ways of self-actualization didn’t win his affection and interest to the full extent. At the age of 26, working as an assistant of Vogue’s art editor Alexander Liberman, Penn had clear understanding of how the cover page should look like. However, the variants offered by Vogue photographers were far from bringing his ideas to life. Following Liberman’s advice, Irving Penn took a photo camera in his hands, and his entire life changed. In 1943 Penn’s artwork was on the cover page of Vogue for the first time. During his career, the photographer created numerous photographic methods, this collection was continuously extended and improved. Many innovative methods in photography belong to him – for instance, it was him who began making photos of his models in front of pure monotonous backgrounds (white or grey). Sometimes he would place his model into the corner symbolizing close space. Some models felt rather calm and confident, while others perceived themselves in a trap or a prison cell. Once he purchased a carpet in one of the stores, and used it as a background for his models for several months. Although the carpet was rather usual and hackneyed, Penn managed to involve it in an interesting artistic solution: he chose a certain patch of the carpet (which were different in shades and patterns) for each model, including Alfred Hitchcock. Professional career of this talented photo artist includes numerous extraordinary projects, like, for example, the project created in Peru featuring photos of local residents made in a peculiar setting of the studio (which he hired from the local photographer). His another portrait project focused on depiction of representatives of various professions. Each model was lighted from the sidewise, standing on the white background and holding the attributes of his or her job. Eventually, such lighting scheme and a monotonous background use became a typical characteristic of Penn’s style in portrait photography which – by the way – was his favorite genre. However, such significant page of his career as still life photography cannot be ignored, as Penn literally raised still life to the higher level, he elevated commercial still life to the rank of art, becoming an example and inspiration for others. Still life in works of Irving Penn is being subverted, reconsidered and given a new face. Taking classical canons of still life – in photography and painting – the photographer complemented them, gave them a new meaning. The innovative element in his still-life photography is surely the way to understand and perceive beauty and sophistication. Whereas early still life photos borrowed objects of depiction from the conventional paintings of the previous centuries – let it be flowers, fruits, game and others, the new tendency introduced by Penn implied using any objects, even the most unconventional and unexpected ones. The classical idea of still life is rethought in his work: one doesn’t have to look for a traditional objects, beauty can be found even in rather contradictory items. The example worth attention is the artist’s series Cigarettes (Fig. 3-4) featuring monochrome depictions of cigarette buds arrange in a so special way that they are viewed as a conceptual artwork. The story behind this series illustrates the process of post-modern reconsideration of banal everyday things so that they present contemporary culture in such a laconic and exquisite way. In this case, objects for the photos were literally found on the street and are litter in a conventional meaning. But, however, taking this litter to the studio, arranging it in an elaborate way, adjusting proper lighting and a fresh look at the banal things can turn such litter into a “symbolic representation of contemporary culture” (Hamilton Gallery). Focusing on black-and-white pictures for the first half of his career, he managed to transmit all the brightest properties of the photographed objects and make the message vivid and understandable. What is very peculiar about his work is that he never looked for easy ways to create his artworks – he used no special devices or props, deploying only the simplest light sources to create his famous side lighting effect (Hopkinson, 2009). In Penn’s still-life pictures, banal things are transformed into exquisite ones with help of creative mind and attention to details. Photographic art in this case addresses the conventional ideas of still life genre in an innovative way, using basic principles and unconventional objects to create an artistic message. Even approaching commercial still-life photography, Penn sought to read between the lines and turn even most trivial items into images worth attention. Opening his studio in 1953, he said that photographing a cake can be art, and this statement is probably the motto of his creative work. It was his still-life photograph that got to the cover of a fashion magazine for the first time ever. Irving Penn vs. Dave Nitsche To point out Irving Penn’s peculiar individual approach in still life photography, it would be reasonable to compare him to another photographer resorting to still life as to the essential part of his creative work, and I would prefer to take Dave Nitsche for comparing. Nitsche as a contemporary photo artist focusing on still life as the key genre of his works has already gained much recognition and popularity, being featured in many magazines, museums and exhibitions. The photographer doesn’t have years and years of experience behind him, his career began inly in 2002. However, he has managed to become extremely successful with help of his creative conceptual works. Similar to Irving Penn, Dave Nitsche seeks to attach some metaphorical subtext to his photos, both artists arrange the objects in front of their cameras in an exquisite way that would turn a mere set of objects into a symbol. However, there comes the main – to my thinking – difference between them. Penn makes use of more classical forms of still life depiction, resorting to simple lighting schemes and minimum of auxiliary devices. Probably, this is – to some extent – the result of the period in which his style formed. Penn is much closer to classical early canons in still life depiction, and hence his works remind of still-life paintings much more. On the other hand, revolutionary feature of his photos lies in use of unconventional objects and elaborate arrangement of the composition to communicate his message. Thus, the style of Penn is more traditional in its nature, incorporating also some realistic features, as he doesn’t try to make his objects look more visually pleasing, glamorous or beautiful, he shows them in their real form, no matter pleasing or disgusting. In contrast to Penn, Nitsche tends to use more traditional objects for his photographs, for instance, glasses that are depicted in many of his works. He makes photos of still life only, enlivening them with allusions to human emotions and abstract concepts as well as with dynamic. Dynamics is an essential part of Nitsche’s photos – adding an element of movement to an inanimate object changes perception of its depiction. As it is stated on his website, he never intended to place humans into his photographs, yet his primary purpose was to “to bring out human emotions in inanimate objects” (Dave Nitsche Website). Generally, the objects are rather usual and traditional for still life photography. Notwithstanding this fact, the way of presenting these objects in photos differs much from Penn’s methods: Nitsche gladly enjoys all the fruits of digital age of photography, using more complicated lighting schemes and processing methods. Furthermore, a characteristic feature of the artist’s photos is very bright saturated colors, while Penn preferred using either monochrome array or calmer, more close-to-reality colors and shades (this can also be one more reflection of the difference in ways of creating the photographs). Among the most remarkable still life photo series communicating ideas through careful work with inanimate items is the series depicting seven deadly sins. Whereas many photographers have been recreating this theme in their portrait works, Dave Nitsche faced the challenge of making simple glasses expressive and “speaking” enough to communicate this motif. The series consists of seven exquisite photographs, each mirroring one of the deadly sins through the prism of mere glasses. The author deploys dynamics, position and colors as the key means of achieving the goal. Each picture is made on the black background – which has already become a hallmark of his works – featuring different types of glasses. The arrangement of glasses in the shot as well as use application of “traditional” colors that signify the sins gives a viewer a clear clue and help him/her identify the message implied in the photo. For instance, the photo called Envy (Fig. 6) features two glasses crossed with each other containing green liquid – the position of the objects combined with green color create symbolism in this work and give a hint for the viewer. Forms of the photographers Let us take a closer look at the photographs of these two artists, comparing and contrasting them in order to identify common and distinctive features in their work. First of all, I would like to draw your attention to the way both authors understand and interpret same objects. In the photograph of Irving Penn mentioned above, 12 Apples (Fig. 5) we see the photographer’s unusual view on apples. He shows them in their natural form and in natural colors, using simple lighting and no modern devices. The look of these apples – rotten or with some imperfections – evokes thoughts about people. Drawing parallels from these apples to people, one could think that this photo is conveying the message that there aren’t ideal people in the world. On the other hand, Nitsche’s depiction of apple, the photo called “Eve” (Fig. 8) unfolds completely different policy of working with the same object. Dave Nitsche depicts a red lush apple as a symbol of Biblical sin, and the name of the photo tells us about that. The dangerous nature of the apple as a symbol is expressed through the smoke wrapping it. It is important that the smoke as a component of photographical implication created, obviously, with technological means of post-processing. Another pair of photos I’d like to contrast is a quite unusual combination. Nitsche’s “Indifference” (Fig. 9) and Penn’s “Pear with seeds” (Fig. 12). The reason I decided to contrast these two photos is that they reflect brilliantly, how different are the styles of dealing with still life of these two artists. Both photos feature still life objects with “Indifference” depicting simple small balls and Penn’s photo showing… a pear. Here, one can see, how differently the authors deal with texture and color. Objects in Nitsche’s picture are almost deprived of texture, preserving only sharp distinct lines. At the same time, the key point of Penn’s pear is texture of it. The composition here is rather “narrow” and simple, featuring only the fruit and white background. Approaches to color also differ: whereas Penn excludes everything that could distract from texture and forms (including color), Nitsche grants much importance to color, using juicy saturated colors. In one of the most unusual pictures made by Dave Nitsche, “Salvation” (Fig. 10), the author uses such extraordinary objects as mannequin hands for his composition. This brings the photo closer to human depictions and distances it from conventional human depictions at the same time: although blatantly artificial, the objects remind of abstract concepts and feelings typical for people. Generally, this is an extraordinary and unusual still life photo. Contrasted to it, the picture belonging to the Cigarettes Series mentioned above (Fig. 4) depicts rather unconventional objects, too. Cigarette buds here are depicted as they are, also with emphasis on their texture and color shades and are the allusions to certain aspects of modern culture. “Salvation” also alludes to global concept of human relations and morality, but the ways in which photographers approach depiction of these issues differ. Irving Penn’s photos seem to be more spontaneous and natural, whereas Nitsche’s works speak for hours of elaborate preparation and post-processing. And one more pair of photos I’d like to draw attention to are “Alone” (Fig. 11) by Nitsche and “Fish made of fish” (Fig. 13) by Penn. These two photos are very different in terms of color and texture use as well as of lighting. Whereas Penn used almost monochrome pattern with emphasis on texture (again) and simple lighting scheme, Nitsche resorted to vibrant yellow color and no texture. However, the common feature of these two works lies in the broad concept of relations between and individual and the society, mirrored in both of them. “Alone” obviously reflects the idea of being alone in among people: when you are happy, there’re many people around you willing to communicate and share your happiness, but once you get in trouble or suffer, it becomes much more difficult to find someone to share even your darkest days with you, because – in fact – people don’t need others’ problems. Except that, there’s an interesting juxtaposition of opposites: cheerful yellow color and smiling balls are opposed to the general conceptual coloring of a picture, which is far from being positive. On the other hand, Irving Penn reflected another aspect of these individual-society relations using fish for that. Small fish here makes up a big one, i.e. a big impressing fish consists of smaller ones. This might convey the idea of collectivist culture or just value of unity. When people are united, they are stronger. And, to draw the line under the comparison, it is necessary to mention that works of both photographers have their own distinctive features. Irving Penn preferred working with food products as objects for his photos (mostly), but Dave Nitsche never uses food for his still life pictures. In Penn’s case, it is probably impact of his devotion to advertising photography. Moreover, to my thinking, Irving Penn’s works are more intimate, conveying somewhat narrower ideas (again – not always, but often), and Dave Nitcsche’s photograph seem to deal with broader – more global – issues and concepts. Moreover, due to intense post-processing and abundance of artificial elements, these pictures are perceived as more “distanced’. Irving Penn’s Works and My Own Experience The huge legacy of Irving Pen that is difficult to overestimate produces a great impact on my perception of working with still life and photography as a whole. First of all, it’s the way of looking at the world around us: owing to Penn’s works, I have realized that one can find interesting objects for photos everywhere, they can be unconventional and noticed in unexpected places, yet, the photographer can make them speak, if he catches the moment and arranges the shot properly. For instance, on the attached photo (Fig. 14) was made near the railroad – hardly a usual place to make photos of still nature. However, inspired by Penn’s unusual and conceptual works, I caught the moment. The photo contains a toy bear and cigarette buds scattered along the rail track. As I see it, these objects, photographed side by side in this unusual combination, speak for people that travelled this way by train. They embody numerous people’s stories, allowing a spectator to make up the story by him/herself. To my thinking, people have gone far from the depicted place, but splinters of their stories remain there, indicating that they were there – though only for a moment. This photo is not beautiful or aesthetical in a conventional meaning, yet it contains an idea that is communicated by the way objects are positioned in the photo. Similar to the way Penn found his “models” for Cigarettes series right under his feet, I found this composition under my own ones. What is peculiar about that, it was even needless to rearrange the objects or touch them, because everything had already been done. Conclusion Although often underestimated in contrast to other photography genres, still life is one of the primary forms of photographic art and a priceless space for communicating ideas to the world. The most distinctive feature of it is surely the opportunity to control almost every single aspect of shooting and processing and thud customize depiction of objects at one’s discretion. With invention of photography, artists were granted more power over their objects of depiction, photography gave us an opportunity to capture an instant of time, to preserve a moment in the picture: whereas flowers could wither while being painted with oil on canvas, a camera is capable of capturing them on the peak of their splendor or in any moment needed. Looking at still life through the prism of photography - and works of Irving Penn and Dave Nitsche in particular – opens new horizons of understanding of this genre. Works of these two photo artists are conceptual and recognizable, expanding the boundaries of perception and properties of inanimate objects. Penn as a great classic of photography illustrates that almost every object can speak, and Nitsche as a modern artists shows that a photographer shouldn’t be shy in using digital means and creative mind in his/her solutions. The way these artists address still life in their works inspires to seek your own peculiar voice and be bolder in creative search. List of Photographs 1. Andre Kertesz, “Melancholic Tulip, NY”. 2. Joel-Peter Witkin, Still Life with a Female Arm. 3. Irving Penn, Cigarettes series, 1975, 1. 4. Irving Penn, Cigarettes series, 1975, 2. 5. Irving Penn, 12 Apples, New York, 1985. 6. Dave Nitsche, Seven Deadly Sins: Envy. 7. Dave Nitsche, Reach. 8. Dave Nitsche, Eve. 9. Dave Nitsche, Indifference. 10. Dave Nitsche, Salvation. 11. Dave Nitsche, Alone. 12. Irving Penn, Pear with Seeds (A), New York, 1993. 13. Irving Penn, Fish Made of Fish, New York, 1939, printed 1983. 14. My photograph Works Cited Dave Nitsche Website. About, from: http://www.davenitsche.com/#/About/ Hamilton’s Gallery. Irving Penn, from: http://www.hamiltonsgallery.com/artists/27-Irving-Penn/series/cigarettes/ Hopkinson, Amanda. “Irving Penn obituary”, The Guardian, 2009. From: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/oct/08/irving-penn-obituary Ingledew, John. Photography, Laurence King Publishing, 2005. From: http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=JpKAmEmrlygC&pg=PT58&dq=still+life+photography&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=q-tfVMLNAvOw7Aa7uICACA&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=still%20life%20photography&f=false Jones, Jonathan. “Still Life Photography”, The Guardian, 2012. From: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/nov/16/still-life-photography-jonathan-jones Manna, Lou; Moss, Bill. Digital Food Photography. Course Technology, 2005. Martineau, Paul. Still Life in Photography, Getty Publications, 2010. From: http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=EUJSM5zB_goC&printsec=frontcover&dq=still+life+photography&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=q-tfVMLNAvOw7Aa7uICACA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=still%20life%20photography&f=false Peres, Michael S. The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, Taylor & Francis, 2014. From: http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=NMJxyAwGvKcC&pg=PA325&dq=still+life+photography&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=q-tfVMLNAvOw7Aa7uICACA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=still%20life%20photography&f=false Somers, Lucy. The implications of the Still Life in the context of Contemporary Art. From: http://www.academia.edu/1773640/The_Implications_of_the_Still_Life_in_the_Context_of_Contemporary_Art Wrigley, Tish. “Irving Penn: Still Lives”, AnOther, 2013. From: http://www.anothermag.com/current/view/2746/Irving_Penn_Still_Lives Read More