themindislimitless:

falloutboy:

when we were beginning the journey of making this record we wanted to find some inspirational images. we came across the punk and monk image on the Internet and it really solidified what we were trying to get across on the record- the idea of old and new clashing. tradition and change coming together. there was something striking about it. obviously this is an image that means a lot to many people- we felt like we wanted to be part of this conversation. these kids represent the youth, change and irreverence that we hope our record is listened to with. at the end of the day we just want to take the rules and start all over with save rock and roll anyway.

shout out to Roger Stonehouse for capturing the original photo and allowing us to share it with the world

Save Rock and Roll out April 15th and 16th worldwide, preorder here.

This picture’s of kids in Burma, and showed up on my radar- and considering the lack of exposure Burma gets, imagine my surprise at this showing up on the radar! That said, clashing of the old and new?! No, that’s a horrible misinterpretation. There’s no “old” here. There’s only the “new”. There IS only “new”. The monk kid? That’s not old- that’s new. I don’t want to end up sounding RAGING ANGRY RAWRR but this is a picture from Burma, my homeland, and misrepresentations of my homeland hurt me. Immensely. I’m going to just copy/paste something I’ve written about this before, if no one minds:

“The image is often captioned with something akin to “cultural clash between modern and traditional lifestyles” and the ability of two different people who live different lifestyles to live together peacefully, and while it can and often is true, it’s a somewhat stereotypical misreading of the issues and lifestyles in Burma. Punk rebels have been a major underground resistance force in the country, as have graffiti artists, both perhaps perfect examples of ‘modern’ rebels, but Buddhist monks have also always been catalysts for change. See both the 2007 “Saffron Revolution”, anti-government protests originally started by Buddhist monks, and the monk protests over political prisoners in the war against ethnic rebels in 2011.

Both of these boys very likely have much more in common than you’d guess. And this really is a beautiful picture.”

Considering the amount of stuff kids- these kids, and the ones like them- have endured, and the power they have in them, it seems more than a little bit weird that someone were to use them as a symbol of youth resistance and then not mention who they are, by the way. Don’t you think?

I was hoping someone would blog about this. I was really uncomfortable when I saw it earlier…

hiphopfightsplaque:

leonardodiretardo:

tommilsom:

You can not be serious

Fuck

please.

can we ruin his life please

Uggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I am about ready to destroy everything he loves.

ETA: I just checked his witheringly terrible instagram account and he has put up his business address. So I guess we could ruin it a little by making use of that address?

jomc:

Can the camera be racist? The question is explored in an exhibition that reflects on how Polaroid built an efficient tool for South Africa’s apartheid regime to photograph and police black people. The London-based artists Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin spent a month in South Africa taking pictures on decades-old film that had been engineered with only white faces in mind. They used Polaroid’s vintage ID-2 camera, which had a “boost” button to increase the flash – enabling it to be used to photograph black people for the notorious passbooks, or “dompas”, that allowed the state to control their movements. The result was raw snaps of some of the country’s most beautiful flora and fauna from regions such as the Garden Route and the Karoo, an attempt by the artists to subvert what they say was the camera’s original, sinister intent. Broomberg and Chanarin say their work, on show at Johannesburg’s Goodman Gallery, examines “the radical notion that prejudice might be inherent in the medium of photography itself”. They argue that early colour film was predicated on white skin: in 1977, when Jean-Luc Godard was invited on an assignment to Mozambique, he refused to use Kodak film on the grounds that the stock was inherently “racist”. The light range was so narrow, Broomberg said, that “if you exposed film for a white kid, the black kid sitting next to him would be rendered invisible except for the whites of his eyes and teeth”. It was only when Kodak’s two biggest clients – the confectionary and furniture industries – complained that dark chocolate and dark furniture were losing out that it came up with a solution. The artists feel certain that the ID-2 camera and its boost button were Polaroid’s answer to South Africa’s very specific need. “Black skin absorbs 42% more light. The button boosts the flash exactly 42%,” Broomberg explained. “It makes me believe it was designed for this purpose.” (via ‘Racism’ of early colour photography explored in art exhibition | Art and design | guardian.co.uk)

gradientlair:

Exactly.