Hey, there! Log in / Register
The photographer in love with his city
By adamg on Wed, 02/11/2009 - 12:37am
Peter Vanderwarker with some of his work.
For 30 years, Peter Vanderwarker has made a name for himself photographing iconic Boston buildings and locations, both in books (Boston Then and Now) and on newsprint (he and Globe architecture critic Robert Campbell collaborated on a "then and now" feature in the Sunday Globe Magazine).
But while a new exhibit of Vanderwarker's work at the Boston Athenaeum has some of the types of photos you'd expect - it starts with four large images of the Hancock against the clouds - there are also portraits of people.
In some cases, portraits of the people behind the buildings, such as Henry Cobb, the Hancock's architect, but in other cases, people who have done unusual or dramatic works, such as two Brigham and Women's doctors who have worked for 20 years to improve health care in third-world countries.
Yesterday, Vanderwarker explained that as much as he enjoys photographing the city's history through its buildings, when he started going through his photos for the Athenaeum show, he realized: "God, they're dry."
"The buildings don't tell the stories of the people behind them, of people doing things. ... When you take somebody's picture, it's all different. I thought I knew Robert Campbell. I learned a lot more about him shooting him."
And, he adds, recalling the old Globe magazine feature, it's easy to gloss over the problems in the good old days - and miss the good of today: "The old city wasn't as good as it was in the pictures - it was smelly and dirty - and the new city isn't as bad."
Vanderwarker recalled that one of the things he tried to do with Boston Then and Now was to show how the city was rapidly losing its architectural heritage and soul. Not long after the book came out, then Mayor Kevin White summoned him for a meeting. Great, he thought, he'd have the ear of power and put a stop to all the nonsense. White opened the book to a spread that showed some great old buildings of the past on the left and some "giant ugly towers on the right."
White, Vanderwarker said, pointed at the towers and exclaimed: "See what I did?!? Isn't that great?!?"
Vanderwarker's Pantheon: Minds and Matter in Boston starts today and runs through May 2 at the Boston Athenaeum, 10 1/2 Beacon St. Admission is free.
Vanderwarker once shot the Hancock from a helicopter hovering around the 40th floor, getting a great impressionist-like mirror image of the surrounding cityscape:
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Great show
It's a great show. I was at the opening reception this evening and was able to take a look. (Wait, were you?)
Adam, were you at the Athenaeum reception last night?
And if you were .... how did we miss each other?
I was there earlier in the day
They had a small press tour in the morning. I think my favorite part was just listening to and watching Vanderwarker explain all the photos - not only did he add interesting details (my favorite was off in the smaller room - the butcher in the North End holding a copy of an old photo from like 80 years earlier of the street he was standing in), but it's just great to see somebody so enthusiastic about his work.
How was the reception?
Busy and crowded
I'd never been to an opening there before, and ran into a few other people I knew (such as John Keith, who invited folks on ArchBoston.org).
However, it seemed to live up to the old stereotype that Yankees like bland food. Lots of cheese and dry crackers and celery, but no salsa.
I'm on the wrong email lists
Wish I'd heard about the opening in time, but thanks for posting this so I can still see the show.
I had a perhaps similar reaction when I looked at my first few years of (much more novice) architecture photos. That was a big part of what pushed me to wanting to shoot photojournalism, dance, and portraiture.
That's nice
i see that he wasn't arrested on the way over, because his photos are inoffensive.
They do make pretty postcards, however!
i see that he wasn't
I guess its the difference of taking images OF a wall and putting images ON a wall...
I really like that shot of the John Hancock, its an interesting angle that most of us never get to see so its great to be able to catch a view of it.
Anyone know if its free to get in or is there a charge at the door?
Free and open to the public
Monday 9 am - 8 pm
Tuesday - Friday 9 am - 5:30 pm
Saturday 9 am - 4 pm
Closed Sunday
what's wrong with putting images on a wall?
boston's so boring.
yes, i'm leaving.
but you can't make me shut up, just because of that.
however, the discussions seen and participated in here, have helped seal the deal.
you guys are stuck in some mythical past where nothing was ever pasted on a wall, and if something was, then that's the most critical important thing because the roads are all paved, the bridges are in perfect condition, the public transit is well funded and reliable, the cops aren't all pumped up with roid rage, and the mayor speaks fluent english...
good luck with all that!
I'm surprised too
It being a "post 9/11 world", I doubt he'd have been able to take many of those pictures now without being harassed or even arrested for doing so.
Wouldn't some official grandstanding on this make us all safer? Send a message to terrorists about flying helicopters around skyscrapers? I'm sure Pete and Shady would feel safer. Systematic policy based on best practices is for wusses, and doesn't advance personal careers.
I bet you the helicopter he
I bet you the helicopter he was in was properly permitted... Do you think I should be able to just fly a helicopter around the financial district with no license, permits, or an ok from the FAA?
2004 Central Artery photo
In the notes for one of the photos, he was not worried about the police, but the demolition workers on the Central Artery needed him to get out of their way so they could finish their jobs.
Some other photos would not be possible today because buildings have been put up in front of the subjects (the photo of Haymarket from the Government Center Garage) or behind them (the edge-on photo of the Hancock from Memorial Drive, against nothing but blue sky)
Harassed a little,
Harassed a little, occasionally, probably. I'm gonna blather a lot here...
I had only minor post-9/11 problems shooting around Boston, when I did a lot of it.
* Shooting very wet ABP outdoor cafe area from city sidewalk early one morning in front of Holyoke Center. Security guard comes out and says no photographing building, for security reasons, Harvard's rules. I phoned Harvard afterward to ask whether whether they're really trying to prohibit public photography in Harvard Square (uh, tourists...). IIRC, they said the security guard was mistaken, and they also offered me a photo permit, which isn't needed for what I was doing but might make my life otherwise easier.
* Shooting the Zakim Bridge from the river's edge sidewalk in East Cambridge in the middle of the night, and a MSP Trooper exited his vehicle, came over, and struck up a conversation about photography. He also took a photo with a camera with flash, and I suspect I was in it. I kinda suspected he wanted to get a good look at me and assess whether or not I was a terrorist.
* In a T station with a couple big cameras around my neck, impromptu snapping a friend who was posing, model-like, up against a grate, out of the way, while we waited for her train. An MBTA woman came up and somewhat apologetically said there's no photographing in the station. We weren't doing anything planned or important, and I also didn't want to make trouble for my friend, so I just stopped rather than try to discuss.
Other than that, I noticed lots of silent observation without being approached. (Most notably, black SUVs zoomed over to inspect over the edge of a deserted pier(?) where I had serendipitously snapped during a battleship visit just moments before, but they didn't approach me at all.) Usually, it was just police or private security taking a look, and presumably deciding I was harmless.
There *are* some things that someone doing architectural photography needs to know (e.g., tripods or lighting equipment can be objected to as obstructing the way, be careful that you're standing on public property or are otherwise not prohibited), and then there are rules about commercial use *after* the photos have been taken. But mostly it's about not "looking like a terrorist," and then choosing your battles if you *are* approached. (My sympathies to those who fit some people's very inclusive and ill-founded definitions of "looking like a terrorist.")
And don't be disrespectful or unpleasant! It's usually some guy just thinking he's doing his job, even if he has no legal standing. And, in rare cases, disrespecting the wrong person can ruin your life before you are able to debate the finer points of Constitutional interpretation.
so in other words, "be a good sheeple"
And don't be disrespectful or unpleasant! It's usually some guy just thinking he's doing his job, even if he has no legal standing. And, in rare cases, disrespecting the wrong person can ruin your life before you are able to debate the finer points of Constitutional interpretation.
So in other words, be a good sheeple and let rentacops/cops trample over your civil liberties, because *their* illegal actions would "ruin your life"?
Jesus christ...
You really make my head
You really make my head hurt, the police can never seem to do it right. Enforce enforce enforce... don't enforce don't enforce don't enforce. They do not all walk around with 1,000 page handbooks memorized in their heads.
Its common sense, seriously, people tend to leave you alone if it appears you are trying to follow the rules. I used to be in event management and we had people on staff who were real jerks. I learned from my favorite boss really fast the best way to get what you want with cops is to approach them, accept their authority and engage. He always made sure if we had bottled water on a hot day they got some, and on a cold day they got coffee. Keep the jerks away from the cops, and chat them up if they are willing. Cops are humans, it works well when you treat them as such instead of just assuming they are some sort of robotic agent of the state.
Whose rules?
"Follow the rules" ?
really, your postings lately make you sound like a little old guy who never goes out of hte house, because honestly,i gotta tell ya, there are a lot of rules out there, depending upon whom you ask..
would those be the rules of private security guards who harass photographers for taking photos of buildings from public sidewalks (it's legal, if the building can be seen from the sidewalk)?
How about the MBTA's crack antiterrorist-trained force, who still harass photographers for taking pictures on the T (it's legal)
"accept their authority" in your world seems to mean kssing the asses of people who, if you look at them the wrong way, can BREAK rules in order to prove the point that they are more powerful than you
back where I come from, we call that bullying. Cops who are bullies, should not be cops. That one's not debatable with me, so don't waste the keystrokes.
Not debatable?
So that's your rule, is it?
Good thing you're not a cop, I guess.
You complain so much about
You complain so much about all the other problems in the city but do not do anything to address the problems. Instead your standing up and screaming bloody murder for a guy who broke the law... If you dont like the law change it. Go get a state petition set up, and we can vote on it.
what's most disturbing
is the basic essence of your position:
you don't like the guy, so whether he was treated properly under the law, and whether the police acted appropriately, doesn't matter to you
that's kinda disgusting and sad.
The police did not act appropriately if, as has been multiply alleged, they tasked far too many people who should have been elsewhere trying to make the city safe, not to stop crime, but to make a political point with the mayor in a wage negotiation having nothing to do with the alleged crime or crimes.
Dude at the end of the day
Dude at the end of the day he broke an obvious law and was arrested for it, get over it. You know why I dont like the guy? Because he has made a career of defacing property and is now making money off of that cache. You know why he was arrested? Because he had a warrant out for... defacing property. You see I dislike him due to the law he breaks, so I dont understand your point about me not liking him and that controlling how I feel about the arrest. If he were just some artist who was not out doing something illegal I wouldnt care what he was doing.
well, wrong again
he's only accused of breaking a law at this point.
The cops aren't judges and juries, and neither are you. Get over the superiority complex. Injustice, even against someone you don't like, is still injustice. Cheer hard enough for pig-like cops to break the laws they are supposed to enforce, and eventually, they will come for you. Paradoxically, I'll cheer when that eventually happens cuz i'd like you to feel first hand what you are wishing on others.
You're going to say you don't commit crimes so it doesn't matter... but didn't you just admit in a contemporaneous thread that you once drove for quite a long time with a suspended license? Look out, mister, and check the statute of limitations on that one!
Remember: under your model, you (i do mean you specifically) don't have to actually be guilty of a given crime, you only have to be accused of a crime... and you also have to be disliked by someone who cheers the cops on. I'll do that.
Under your rules, the cops can then treat you however they choose, even punitively, before you've been allowed due process. Good luck when that day comes :) and have a nice day. You're a drag. I'm out.
again
"The cops aren't judges and juries, and neither are you."
A judge signed the warrant Fairey was arrested on, not the cops or Fairey-haters. So Fairey's "due process" started when he was bailed the first time and he signed and promised to show up to court on Monday, and then he didn't show up.
So nowhere here did the cops treat this guy punitively unless he is still in a holding cell at the precinthouse.....is he? Of course not, he got bailed and is free pending the trial that he deserves.
Conspiracies and show-off cops
the cops conspired to make a scene of the arrest, rather than
a) just making an arrest, at the hotel, before vehicles were involved
b) giving a call to his attorney to set a time for him to go to the station
This is the behavior of show-off, do-nothing pigs, not that of professional law enforcement officers.
first off...
-police departments dont give calls to attorneys to tell them that they missed a frickin arraignment hearing that they signed as a part of their bail to go to.
If the cops wanted to make a scene of the arrest, they could have done it when he was with Menino, or they could have done it when the guy was inside and making a speech.
Of course you have no clue how the cops planned this thing, and thats why most of your argument is speculative and assinine.
I mean, seriously? Call the lawyer so the guy might show up to court? This isn't preschool here, its a judicial system.
Eight cops
and a car chase, from the point that the taxi was standing still?
dramatic!
You're going to say you
There was a problem, I found out about it, I stopped driving until it was fixed, I fixed it. The whole process took less then a day but I did not drive until I made sure it was all settled. If the police can come up with a legal reason to come after me and want to pursue it they are more then welcome to. They are two completely different types of "crime" , at this point you are really steaching to prove your point.
So you admit to the crime
basically, you were lucky, and by virtue of being a complete unknown rather than semi-famous, you didn't get the special treatment
So you've just admitted to committing the crime of driving with a suspended license. It's nice that you stopped and all at some arbitrary point well after your driving privileges were suspended, but understand that this is no different than driving into a 45mph zone from a 65mph zone and missing the speed sign (perhaps you were passing a large van at the time) and could not see it... you still committed a serious crime, driving with a revoked license.
that's bad, right?
Not Sheeple
You can assert your rights without being disrespectful or unpleasant.
Besides, steadfastly refusing to submit to every little imposition, on principle, no matter how insignificant in pragmatic terms, is a game for young men and Texans. I did my share of that, but now that I am no longer in my 20s, I choose my battles. I am sure that earnest 20 year-olds will do enough of the standing-up on photography rights that society has that base covered. :)
Eh.
A) cops and 80% of everyone else always use the flash. They don't understand 1/R^2 and wouldn't care if they did. the camera was on automatic and it said they needed the flash. it flashed.
B) I forgot that only police officers can detect terrorists by their appearance. We're lucky to have such smart fellas in public safety roles.
Regarding B
Nobody can reliably detect terrorists by appearance.
But cops are trained observers, they received additional post-9/11 training or instructions as to things to look out for, and it's part of the job of many of them.
Probably especially the job of a State Trooper in Cambridge in the middle of the night near the end of the Longfellow Bridge about 6 months after 9/11.
Or maybe he was just interested in photography. We had a pleasant chat about film vs. digital, etc., and wished each other a good night afterward.
terrorists
Many times police react to specific or general threats against public places or figures. When law enforcement networks get threats (at different levels, randon, specific, etc) they might go to these places simply to show a presence.
Someday in the near future a train or train station in the US will probably come under some sort of terrorist attack. There have been many threats to do this already.
I mean, is an airline really worried about some white guy bringing on a bagel with cream cheese through security? No, but Im willing to give up small liberties in times like this. Even if they are quieter and safer on the surface.