Friday Dudley: March 2, 2007

March certainly came in like a lion and I just got this up in time.Click for Larger Image

Advertisements

15 responses to “Friday Dudley: March 2, 2007

  1. I was told recently that the spire on the tower cost 250 grand. Which is 3 Habitat For Humanity houses.

    Not that the spire is not great. I am just saying.

  2. This blog is a newish discovery for me … and I have been looking back at the previous months’ entries, and what I have to ask is this: What is with “Dudley Building Friday”? And are there any future plans to stop shooting different angles of a big, new, square building blocking Wausau’s riverfront?

  3. blocking.. or drawing attention to?

  4. No plans to stop that I know of. I just have a thing about that building, I guess.

  5. Okay. Sorry for the confrontational tone. I must admit that I am not the biggest fan of the new building, but I do understand that many are excited about it. Perhaps I lack a properly sober understanding of how important this building is to our downtown economy, I dunno. I agree that the building draws attention to the riverfront in a “look at me, I’m a big building on the river front” kind of way. I guess that I had been eyeing up that lot for years, wondering if the city would do something aesthetically pleasing and also river-inclusive to it, something ala Hudson, for example, where the river front is a stretch of green space that seems to invite the entire city down to enjoy it. I agree we have our river-front spaces that are really great and functional, such as the kayak course. But I’d love to see something a little more open and easily viewed from the road – something that says, “get out of your car, and come to the river front”. I suppose the Dudley building just sort of covers it up, from my perspective.

    Anyway, sorry for the snark – I forget that the character of Wausau is so often defined by whatever economic development is happening at the moment, so it probably shouldn’t be a surprise that the Wausau Blog acts as a quasi-pantheon to that idea. And I can even support that. I personally just don’t want to see a big picture of it every single friday, especially when there are so many other aspects of the character of this city to explore. My $.02

  6. Thanks 🙂 And no need for apologies. To be honest, I started the Friday Dudley on a lark, just as something to do and since then I have tried to challenge myself to try and get a good picture every week to continue the series.

    I tried to challenge myself to document the many other aspects of Wausau in the CW360, but unfortunately, some other projects have taken my eye away from just wandering around taking pictures. I will get back to that soon.

    If you (or anyone else) has ideas for another weekly series I would be glad to consider it, I find the sequential photos very interesting and I do like applying some creativity to seeing the same scene in a different way each week.

  7. Jodi:

    Over the past 11 year that I have been in Wausau I have thought that corner would mkae a lovely greenspace with a bandshell overlooking on the river.

    Believe me you are not the only one to think the Dudley Building is ugly. What is this Wausau Blog guys facisnation with it? I’d like to see photos of the churches and the historical homes in town.

    You would think someone with that sort of money to invest would at least do something unique and cutting edge. That style of artchitecture from the early 1990’s reminds me of anywhere USA. Strip Mall City. Wrapped in taupe. The thing on top looks like a hypo needle. All the Ghidorzi stuff looks the same too. They need to get a new interior person. One can only take so much burgundy and navy.

    Ed, Ed and Eddie

  8. The series of different viewpoints of one building is interesting. And also, I appreciate anyone who tries to bring back “grody to the max”, no matter how ill-fated the attempt may be. Ha ha ha. And if you want helpful suggestions, and not just crabby criticism, well, I’m really more of a catty-complainy kind of girl, but I will put my thinking cap on.

  9. You mean “grody to the max” went out?? My goodness, where have I been?

  10. I tend to look at the Friday shots as having little to do with the idea of the building, celebration or not. I think it is a really fascinating documenting of an ever changing image. Regardless of the context, I think that if Bill was to display the collection of his shots of this singular place, it would be fascinating over time.

    It makes me think of the Harvey Keitel movies, Blues in the Face, and Smoke. Both about a chronological image collection.

    I think that the project of shooting the buidling, and showing the shots in this public forum, is one of the more interesting projects taken on.

    I suggest that Bill go to the CVA, and ask for a display…or maybe the lobby of the Dudley when it is completed. A wall of museum quality prints of these images.

    I find that the context of the pictures is irrelevant.

    Ed Gale is a Ninja.

  11. The First Universalist church downtown is in the middle of a large addition. How about a few shots of the progress? It will be quite something when finished.

  12. I agree that the idea of a chronological series of images is interesting, in its own way. But to me context is everything.

    One of the reasons Smoke and Blue in the Face are interesting is because of their context – a Brooklyn cigar shop full of weird characters and centering around the idea of smoking, New York and the New York quirkiness of the customers. Those movies are all about context. Context context context – if you say it three times fast, it starts to lose all meaning.

    So the series of Dudley pics are interesting, but there is context there, and that context is “Wausau’s economic development”, even if that is not the intent.

    If you want a series of pics of something without context, or where the context is irrelevant, it seems like it would work better if it were another building in town that is not so new, not so tied to an idea (the idea of new downtown development on the riverfront), not so charged.

    Its like … okay, say you were taking a series of photos of a guy with severe deformities from different angles. This photo examines the wispiness of his hair against the sunset … that photo is an angle shot of the folds of his nose. All really interesting, and full of grain and texture and shadow and light, but you can’t escape the fact that they are a series of photos of a guy with severe deformities.

    Not that I’m calling the Dudley a guy with severe deformities, but the Dudley represents something – not necessarily a good or bad something – but something to most people who think about it, and seeing a new picture of it from a different angle every Friday when they log onto this blog is going to mean something to them too. That’s some pretty heavy context.

    I’ma newbie to this blog. The first few times I logged on, all I saw was Dudley. Dudley Dudley Dudley. Which made me think that I had found the “Downtown Development Weblog”. I don’t know what that says about me and my judgement or lack thereof, but I’ll bet I’m not alone.

    Or maybe I’m lookin at this the wrong way – the whole idea of taking something semi-polemic and examining its every nook and cranny in detail from different angles and perpectives, and breaking it down to the cellular level does seem pretty vibrant.

    What I do know is I’ve flogged this horse.

    And anyway Bill, the pictures are nice to look at, and maybe that’s all that matters.

  13. I have no context at all for the building, other than the building.

    Your placing context on the building. Your placing context on the pictures.

  14. And, that is why the movies are interesting, not the pictures.

    The pictures are interesting because the pictures are intersting.

  15. As a writer and and a photographer I have gone through an interesting change in the way I see things. At first, I threw things out there and when people seemed to “agree” with what I saw as my original purpose, I felt they were smart and I felt validated.

    Then as more people saw and read my work I began to realize that lots of folks didn’t see the work anything like I “intended.” And I also easily saw that those who did not see things the same way as me were not in any way mentally deficient.

    So while, yes, I have a purpose in taking these pictures now (it started as a lark, but continues for a reason) it no longer really matters. Once the work is out there, your reaction to it is much more important than what I “meant.” I have come to see that the reaction is what is important, not to the degree you understand the “purpose” of the work.

    So, whether people see the building as a triumph or a disaster, a symbol of economic development or an ego run wild, obscuring or revealing the riverfront is not a reflection of the pictures, but rather the viewer.

    And I am interested in that mirror, and I very much like the discussion that has developed each week and over the weeks of posting the pictures.

    As a photographer, I have no value judgement about the building, I am just looking for an interesting picture each week. And after it is complete, I doubt it will be a prominent subject of my photography. I have other things I now want to document.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s