
Raindrops on a gray January afternoon. Lens: vintage preset Takumar 135/3.5 @f/3.5, made circa 1957. Lots of info about early Pentax lenses (with photos) here, if you're interested...





So here's another whistlestop on the Great Alameda Photo Freakout of '09, this time the landscaped nano-parklet at NE 41st & Wistaria. Ok, "whistlestop" is an exaggeration, since I didn't actually stop As with the others, I just sort of rolled by and snapped a handful of photos as best I could. Sure, I could've taken better photos, but I would have had to take the other hand off the steering wheel and probably run over some pedestrians or something, which I'm generally opposed to, unless maybe it was Pat Robertson, and I was driving a rental car. And even then it would be a bad idea; I've heard that car rental companies really ding you for body damage caused by caustic demon guts.
So I've only got two photos this time, and basically no material to go along with them. I kind of figured there's be no material at all, actually. But it turns out that during last December's mini-snowpocalypse, a brave passerby shot some video of cars and buses struggling to get up the hill. The angle's a little different than mine and it's hard to place where the viewer who filmed this was standing. Still, I figured I'd pass it along, because watching Portlanders try to drive in snow is always good for a laugh.
Of course the classic of the genre is still "Snow Driving Fail", from the big snowstorm in January '07. It's kinda like air hockey, but on a hill, with SUVs. Hee-larious. Unless you're an insurance company, I guess.
More photos from the (Not Very) Great Alameda Photo Freakout of '09. Said event being the morning I tracked down the Vernon Ross Veterans Memorial and the nano-parklet at Alameda & 38th, and assorted other spots nobody but me cares about. Well, me and a few loyal Gentle Readers, plus the occasional Google hit that's often the result of someone searching on an unrelated topic -- and typically they don't stay long. I kind of enjoy tracking down really obscure places and things around town, but the downside is that pretty much by definition I don't get a flood of visitors searching for the things I cover. Which is fine, I mean, if it really bothered me I'd stop and do something else.
Still, this is one of those times when I stop and wring my hands and wonder aloud just how far down this particular rabbit hole I intend to go. The "park" at Wistaria & 49th shows up alongside the aforementioned two places in an obscure city document I keep linking to. But it's not really much of a park, is it? It's a steep, narrow, unbuildable strip of land, the result of the city street grid bonking up against the side of the Alameda Ridge. There isn't even a decaying statue of a forgotten politician to hold our interest here. So I'm starting to wonder if I've wandered off the far side of esoteric into... whatever's over there, I'm not sure what that would be. One of these days, I'll be taking third rate photos of some nondescript weedy highway median somewhere, and a white van full of anorak-clad British trainspotters will drive by, and they'll laugh at me and call me a nerd. And it's not like I'll be in a position to argue with them.
There is one point of interest here, which you can see in the top photo. The Alameda area is home to a fair number of public stairs, and one of these staircases forms the short side of the park here. I was doing a public stairs project a while back, until I ran out of examples that I knew the location of. Not knowing Alameda very well, I never covered anything in this part of town. I really ought to have stopped and taken a few shots of just the stairs while I was here, but I'd forgotten all about the old stairs project. I suppose I could go back and take care of that at some point. Which sounds kind of silly, but I'm not going to absolutely rule it out.
The stairs appear on a couple of walking maps, and they point out a number of the other staircases in the area. So I could probably ramp the stairs project back up again if I was so inclined. I can't absolutely rule that out either.
So to address the rabbit hole question: The answer is this far, and a little further. There are two more stops left on the Great Photo Freakout after this one, and they don't even have stairs to make them, uh, interesting.
In my defense, I do have a few posts about actual interesting places and things lying around in my drafts folder. But the boring places are low hanging fruit. The fact that there's nothing much here makes the research part really easy. So I guess it's got that going for it, at least.
Apparently there are ten copies of this piece out there, and the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian owns one of them. That one appeared at the NMAI's Heye Center branch in New York City in 2006, and the New York Times review of the show singled it out as something they didn't care for:
The only jarring note is a bronze sculpture, a vertical pileup of elements from traditional native stories, made in 2005 by Rick Bartow of the Wiyot tribe in Northern California and titled “From the Mad River to the Little Salmon River, or the Responsibility of Raising a Child.” It stands at the entrance to the new pavilion, but it’s not up to what’s inside.
I'm not really trying to bash the thing here, but "jarring" is a rather apt description. You're walking along, minding your own business, and suddenly here's this mass of faces and skulls and contorted birds and animals and whatnot. I understand it's supposed to be the artist's very personal twist on various Northwest tribal themes. I get that, I really do. But I only know that because I saw it, went "WTF!?", and searched the interwebs to figure out what on earth it was supposed to be. I think it would be fair to assume that most people who see it will just stop at the "WTF!?" part.
If you saw it and then looked at the title, you might reasonably assume it's supposed to be a comment on, well, raising children. And from the look of it, the message would seem to be that having children is really freakin' nightmarish. You might also assume, fairly, that it's located where it is as a stern warning to randy mall-going teens. But I'm reasonably certain that's not what it's supposed to be about. I think. Although I've been wrong before.
The reason it's here on our transit mall becomes apparent when you notice the salmon. Look closer, it's wrapped around the coffee mug on the dog-creature's back. A while back, I drew attention to our fair city's Law of Salmon, whereby the Powers That Be will buy just about anything so long as it comes with a salmon attached. I think the idea here is that salmon show how amazingly special we are because they're a uniquely Northwestern fish, um, except for those on the East Coast and in much of Europe and East Asia. We're also supposed to learn all sorts of important life lessons from salmon, apparently, and put them into practice in our own lives. But I've never been clear on what these lessons are supposed to be. I guess it's something along the lines of "You're forever tied to your stream of origin, and it's better to be pureed by a dam than look for a different stream", or "Your sole goal in life should be to spawn once with an anonymous stranger and then drop dead." So this life lesson thing isn't really working for me, I have to say. In short, the Law of Salmon isn't a very good law. But certain things (like the subject of this post) make a lot more sense once you know the law exists.
Photos of the New York, New York casino in Las Vegas. It's a nice, clean, safe, sanitized, family-friendly cartoon version of New York City. In other words, it's just like the real 21st Century New York, according to certain longtime (and thus cynical) New Yorkers.

