photographer sam haskins: exhibit at milk gallery

the unaffordable original issue of cowboy kate book by sam haskins that was almost impossible to find is now available in a reissue “directors cut” edition
if you happened to be one of the few lucky ones to make it there at the right time, you would have had the chance to meet sam and take home a signed issue.



the highlight of my day, that day, was indeed the chance of of meeting sam haskins at his show. the exhibit at milk studio was very good but unfortunately not as great as his work indeed is.

that is of course my personal opinion. the small diptychs created did not do the images justice. sam’s pictures are so amazing and simple they deserve to stand alone and in large, large, large, wall paper size formats. of course space is the key issue in nyc and i’m sure that had something to do with it. the exhibits prints were rather small making you feel like you were going through a printed book (what is the point when you can buy the book?).

that night i met sam and his son and his grandson. extremely kind and graceful. sam unfortunately had suffered a stroke recently and was not in top condition yet he was pleased to see so many young fans at the opening and happy to talk and sign my book. by dd

wet dreams


i am dying to get out of new york and go for a swim in a lake or sea somewhere. this is exactly how i imagine it will feel! this beautiful image of anna selezneva taken for china vogue is my inspiration. by kl

take K.I.M with you… everywhere!

above: K.I.M in the suitcase, below: K.I.M with someones foot!
florence lucas also known as K.I.M. started her career as illustrator in 2004 by designing record covers of ‘flores monstrosi’, ‘kim kong’ and the compilation ‘miyage’, released on the tigersushi label. her work can be good, a bit derivative of milo manara, but in no way as sophisticated. here are two of our favorites. we hope to see more of these and less of those! by dd

boxers or briefs?

yes – so yet again, there is a discussion heating up over here as to what should a man wear? loose or tight, boxers or briefs? feel free to share your opinion. one thing we do agree on, keep it solid, gents! no funny prints! by kv

1-tighty whiteys:
kv: charming
dd: actually why not. classic, safe bet but won’t rock the bedroom.
kl: not a fan
pp: you better be fit, tanned and brazilian… otherwise…

2- the sling shot:
kv: no way!
dd: needs to be spanked! hard! and sent back home to jersey.
kl: hot
pp: are you kidding??? ;-(

3- loose boxers
kv: exactly, just for sleeping
dd: aaaaall over the place… like walking into your grandpas bedroom at 10 am
kl: cute for making breakfast in
pp: my all time favs!

4- night club rags:
kv: if beckham wears it… don’t wear it!
dd: staten island special… oop-chik, oop-chik
kl: no words
pp: is the banana included in the price or is that an aftermarket purchase?

5- fitted boxers:
kv: yes that is about right
dd: i guess… but won’t work with tight pants. a bitch under APCs.
kl: perfecto
pp: i’m so over that! remind me of when i was 14… trying to be cool

6-seamless boxers:
kv: unless you have something to hide
dd: seamless matte HM 100% cotton will do the trick.
kl: perfecto moondo
pp: girdle style!

7: fogettaboutits:
kv: right on, free style
dd: hmm… the jim morrison special!
kl: commando can be a nice secret for the day
pp: the winter version of my fav!

conclusion:
kv: speedo’s are for eurotrash, the rest can survive somewhere, somehow. my vote: 1 and 5
dd: it’s a tough one. no perfect 10’s here. pending on weather, fabric, and the previous nights event somewhere between 1, 6, and 7 will have to do.
kl: men’s underwear looks better on a woman.
pp: well it’s already stated by me, loose boxers are the answer!

naked fur


talking about fur! people took this young christy rather literally in the 90’s. a bit of fur is definitely in order… in the right places that is. I’m personally glad its back. by dd

John Currin: 44″x36″ the cripple 1997

anime meets helmut newton – the cripple sexy psycho. i was never a big fan of john currin, i liked some of his pieces on a purely aesthetic level, but i never got what the work was about and i suppose it didn’t effect me enough to ever bothered to find out. as a decorative piece they can be nice, i mean they will surely match someones couch, some where. but as a whole they seemed stupid and frivolous. the one element that captured my attention for a few days at the start was the fact that he was painting rather traditional subjects/portraits in oil on canvas in a time like this? meaning now! it seemed so lame and out of touch, but then again I liked his retaliation towards the scene. the fad, the press, the marc jacobs obsession, etc made him the bad boy or the hot boy and one couldn’t get away from him. after a series of portraits of his wife, Rachel Feinstein, he moved on to graphic sex scenes of people I could not recognize. made me yawn to be honest! flash to years later, the other night I had dinner with sabrina buell from matthew marks gallery in new york and over the course of our dinner she said something that i liked. she said “currins work was quite so about our time, the excess and the gaudiness… the women in his work didn’t just have breasts they had gaigantic breasts, it was about excess…” ok thats not bad, how could i have missed it. sure enough there are plenty of that in his work but i still dont see the thread through the work. i’m still not convinced of his work but it was a point to consider. by dd