Comments on: Photo series: woman at the shooting gallery, 1937-2008

By: 2k

2k — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The look of extra concentration etched into her face in 2006 is exquisite.
Damn film crews!

By: optuser

optuser — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

IM N UR CARNY SNIPN UR PRIZEZ

So my question is this: do the missing photos (39-46) not exist, or were they shamefully withheld? Wonder what they used for targets…

No, NO! The BEST picture is 1973 (http://www.lensculture.com/kessels.html?thisPic=14)

CHECK OUT THE PROTO HIPSTERS on the right. Photoshop the little kid out and you’ve got yourself an album cover right there folks!

By: linernotesdanny

linernotesdanny — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Somebody make this into a GIF!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I like the one from 1951, where the guy is holding up his own photo in the picture [at first I thought it was one of the earlier photos, which would have been cooler].

By: Gloria

Gloria — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“Of course it’s terrible that we should talk about her like this, but it’s quite conspicuous.”

It’s a good thing you pointed out something conspicuous. Otherwise we’d never have noticed!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Not to sound crass or anything

Too Late!

By: knoxblox

knoxblox — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Well, remind me to stay off her lawn.

By: sillygolem

sillygolem — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Is that William Murderface behind her in the ’78 photo?

By: rebdav

rebdav — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Between ’39 and ’45 I bet she was playing shooting gallery with Nazi storm troopers. Horay high score she wins another perforated helmet.

By: Felton / Moderator

Felton / Moderator — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I particularly like this one.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This is pretty neat.

By: Chentzilla

Chentzilla — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Don’t want to be her photographer. “Okay, it’s that time of the year today, we’ll go to the shooting gallery, I aim at you, you take the picture”.

By: Peripatet

Peripatet — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Not to sound crass or anything, but wow! That is one spectacularly unattractive woman. Seems like she was always that way, too.

By: Marcel

Marcel — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This is actualy an automated part of the shooting gallery at the fairground.
You hit the target, it snaps a picture.

So what this tells you is that she’s a pretty good shot.

By: EvT

EvT — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Most of the pictures are taken at the fair in Tilburg, when it hosts the biggest fair of the Benelux.
It’s quite the event every year, lasting 10 days, with its busiest and most fun day “pink monday”.

By: imag

imag — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Do people have to be so thoughtless? Many times when these things come up, the subjects notice a major blogs’ attention and go read the comments. Why do you need to say something like that?

She looks like an ordinary woman. Are you so stuck in superficial appearances that you let that govern your comment about this extraordinary lifelong photo project?

I realize it’s the internet. It doesn’t mean you, the individuals who post on it, ought to be insensitive jerks.

By: penguinchris

penguinchris — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The early photos are quite classy, with nice clothing and good quality of photography. 1967′s is delightfully psychedelic due to a long exposure. From there it kind of goes downhill… people don’t care about the way they dress anymore, and the photo process gets cheaper and cheaper and gets stuck on a standard 80′s/90′s polaroid with direct flash.

It’s so interesting because it mirrors the quality of amateur photography along the same time period. Look back at your family’s photo albums and you’ll see the same shift in quality. Did people just not care once the 80′s hit, and the direct-flash look became the standard? Or did people just never care, and the look of photos was dictated by the technology available, and the earlier technology simply led to better photos? Interesting stuff to think about (I was born in 86 so it’s not like I have first-hand experience).

Anyway, I agree that she’s quite unattractive. But ah, the beauty of youth – she doesn’t look bad in the first photo. Quickly goes down hill from there. Of course it’s terrible that we should talk about her like this, but it’s quite conspicuous.