To retrieve the latest items from The New York Times:. Limiting the items retrieved to a section of The Times is easy, too. Items from the Newswire API have mostly the same attributes, with some exceptions.
On the list for future additions is the ability to limit requests to a specific number of hours and to support offsets. Patches, pull requests and feature ideas welcomed. Skip to content. This repository has been archived by the owner.
It is now read-only. Star Part of the assembly involved the controversial acquisition of the air above the neighbouring Art Students League , an elegant French Renaissance-style building from In order to get the best views of the park, the tower now cantilevers out over its neighbour, a metre cliff face of luxury flats hovering ominously above its decorative stone balustrade. The strange pairing will forever stand as a typically Manhattanite monument to the messy compromise of development-rights trading.
A few doors down to the east stands a similarly odd couple. The newly restored white limestone facade of the s Steinway Hall , where Sergei Rachmaninoff, Nina Simone and Marvin Gaye all played, now cowers at the foot of one of the most audacious structures ever conceived. The former piano showroom and recital hall will soon serve as the luxury health club for residents of West 57th Street , a metre tall, metre wide wafer of a building.
With a slenderness ratio of , it is set to be the skinniest skyscraper in the world. Try making that stand up in gale-force winds. Making this gossamer-thin strip of a tower stand up has some strange consequences inside.
In order to leave the north and south facades open for uninterrupted views, the two bracing concrete side walls are up to a metre thick, creating deep arrow-slit windows — perhaps an appropriate aesthetic for these fortified luxury bunkers in the sky. The developers even hung a Ferriss-inspired image of the building over the scaffolding, perhaps the first time a planning diagram has been used as a marketing tool.
But rather than stepping the building back in big chunks, the architects have reduced the mass in slender increments, giving it the feathered look of a quill pen. It is one of the few hyper-luxury apartment buildings that actually has the ethereal aura you would expect — a fitting costume for the eyrie of an untouchable elite. To stand in the show apartment across the road is to be transported to another realm. It is a place where the walls of his-and-hers dressing rooms are covered with leather and velvet, where sinks are carved from solid blocks of Italian onyx, where walnut drawers are lined with ostrich skin.
A thick-set year-old with a soft Long Island accent, Stern makes for a disarming luxury real-estate tycoon. Leading me around the palatial apartment, he points out how the shower doorframe is made of solid bronze, how the kitchen cupboards are single pieces of curved glass, how the spiral staircase has solid stone treads. At least the weight of all the marble should be enough to keep the tower from tipping over.
So what does Stern make of the criticisms that these silos of billionaires are casting ever-longer shadows across Central Park, and that the negotiations happen well away from public scrutiny? If all of the air rights were built out in slender towers, rather than blocky buildings, the shadow impact would be much less. The rules merely allow potential floor area to be shifted, not created. A good deal of extra height can also be added to these super-talls simply by leaving gaping voids in the body of the towers.
While the zoning system places a cap on floor area, there is no limit on the actual height of each floor, nor are technical floors counted in the FAR calculations. The city planning department has remained steadfast against calls for further transparency, although pressure for change is growing in some quarters. M any in the industry say any such measures are too late to the game — that the super-tall boom has already reached its peak, and the available air rights have been used up.
But detailed analysis by both Mas and KPF shows that is simply not true. There are millions of square metres of unused development rights remaining across New York , and around sites that could still accommodate a super-tall tower.
Mas is tracking more than proposals for super-tall towers taller than metres in the pipeline, from a Russian-backed project at Fifth Avenue — likely to block views of the Empire State building from Madison Square Park — to 80 South Street , a vertiginous needle for Lower Manhattan, whose , sq ftof air rights account for almost half its height.
Photography could then be used to show the "reality" but i understand that the distinction is becoming harder and harder to make Living a life well comprehened and rightly conjectured is a fading art. Most people exist by impluse. No, they don't give mind to what is done to create the images they see in pictures, and even correcting their "information" doesn't necessarily bring understanding or change to their perceptions--instead they act like they have been cheated.
In my opinion, advertising is largely consumer driven--so I argue that skinny sells because skinny is idealized and photographers who get flack over their editing should shoot back with a pretty strong dose of "why don't you think critically about your world rather than cast blame on others for your own naivety. So I'm quite opinionated on this one. I do also see the other side where young girls are led to unhealthy obsessions about themselves as they grasp for meaning.
It's a complicated issue. Wow, that women in the picture looks like a Crack Whore. I would have been out of business if I tried to sell a client a picture like that years ago. Progress lol. I really find this style of fashion but also normal, because some journalists hands up to the problem. Fashion in general is out of touch with reality.
I do not believe that the average person who looks at an editorial or commercial fashion image filters their thought with the idea that it is fantasy. Photographic images are culturally viewed as reality based. There is nothing in the images shown here from time that is indicative of fantasy. Anyone who spends anytime around the fashion industry know how inherently unhealthy it is physically, mentally, spiritually.
It is simply about driving dollars through the door without conscious or acceptance of any long term effects it has. You know, when I buy a men's magazine, I expect to see well groomed, well presented, chisel featured, well built individuals. I'm not going to pay cash to see fat men with dirty white T-shirts with beer stains. Why is there even an argument about "skinny". If "fat" sold, they'd present fat. People don't want to see fat, not skinny people, not average weight ppl, not fat people.
How about being a totally biased bleeding heart liberal rag that never tells the full story? We can put a quarter inch of pancake on her face, brush on some darker shades to highlight her jawbones, decorate her eyes like she's an Egyptian pharaoh, squeeze her into a corset, add a push-up bra, fit her into 8-inch stilettos -- but oh my god, NO!
Arguably, any journalistic images have never been real. They are nothing but convenient visual tools to push publishers opinions. Journalists ONLY use the images that will support their opinion. Now NYT is trying to confirm "our photo journalistic images are real, because those images are not digitally altered.
But I do not see a problem with the girl or women in this picture. I don't know her BMI and a image isn't a good way to determine this. I think erveryone will agree with me, she isn't extrem famished on the picture. But I have a problem with the Discussion per se. In the USA There are lots of girls who are naturally skinny and tall with pipe-cleaner arms and legs and flat tummies.
You can't hate them for it, they'll gain weight in their 20s and 30s and that will be that. What's the big issue? It's not a conspiracy, it's biology And from my reading it sounds like the NYT only allows normal retouching in their style section—zits and boogers—but not much more.
So again what's the big deal? And in answer to IvanM, the reason that the fashion industry has settled on a certain look is because it sells clothes. They're selling a dream of looking better. If they could move more shmattas by putting them on kangaroos, they would.
Capitalism may be evil, but it's not ideological. In a society where half the people are clinically obese, finding someone or even millions who claim this girl is too thin would be a snap. People resent what they are not. Unfortunately it is the girls who are size 4 or smaller who seem to eat responsibly and hit the gym for regular exercise - girls who look fantastic.
I've trained at the University of Arizona REC for the past two years and numerous tall, sub size 4 girls are in there training alongside the frat boys every day. Go to any open model call in NY or LA - or heck a swim meet- and it is clear all lean bodies are not computer generated.
Other than having a better face than many, the build of the model on the Times cover as much as can be seen is quite common among college girls. Not predominate by any means but not the least bit unusual. I believe folks like to assume retouching is responsible for every great looking model to alleviate their own visual inadequacy. Exercise and diet is too hard. I find it interesting how the fashion industry has chosen a certain 'look' for their norm.
I never see curvy or short models If so why would I want to buy a dress that will look terrible on a normal, shorter frame? Surely a fashion designer should be able to design for all shapes and sizes? I find it very strange that the fashion industry thinks that I will look at a dress on an impossibly thin and underage model and somehow transpose that look onto a older normal looking body and think mmm that will look good on my middle age wife??
It's the way that reality is retouched and distorted in the news and editorial parts of the Times that I find more predictable and disturbing. We met a young woman at a party yesterday who was conspicuously well-dressed. She's from Dallas and plans to revolutionize the fashion industry, in part by moving from the fantasty of women's sizes what nonsense to actual measurements.
So I asked my wife an accomplished professional and a trained intellectual if she agreed. I could sense instantly that her heart and mind were in conflict between two completely irreconcilable ideas.
I think the NYT could handle this with a prominent disclaimer: "Many, perhaps all, of the photographic images in this fashion magazine have been retouched, sometimes lightly, sometimes with a heavier hand, sometimes in ways that would not be permissible in the New York Times newspaper. A fashion magazine presents an ideal, not reality. For what I see the model is as she is and eats well. It is an insult to slim women that they have to justify their proportions over and over again to the main public And SLIM women do not have to justify anything You have obviously not been around high school students much.
As they grow their body fat goes nuts. There's more, there's less, suddenly they have fat on their back, then it's their abdomen, then they have no fat at all, and it's all about physical maturation.
This girl is probably 16 and that's just how she looks right now. If you saw her six months ago or six months from now her body fat percentage would be completely different. Right on and then there is also a difference in how fast or slow on reaches the chubby 'Rubens'phase.
Blame, if any, is not upon mags and dailys, but in the people buying them. Every buy is practically a "vote of confidence" to the content they host in their pages. No matter if it is plain text or photo or both. As a matter in fact we buy the reality we chose therefore we like to perceive. As a professional photographer who solely shoots women, I find fashion images to portrait not a Fantasy, but a fake reality.
The cover reads "Hot Summer" but then you see a desaturated, anorexic, pale, wet haired model with 2 pounds of eye makeup and a black swimsuit who looks like she just drowned and came back to life Summer and hot are supposed to be vibrant and happy The opposite of this cover.
Why does fashion photography have to be about Making women look like androids? If the editor wants to put some fat into this girl, why not hire a normal looking model instead? Retouching is part of my everyday life as well. I love creating the fantasy of the perfect woman, but always adding to their own femininity and beauty.
This cover, photoshopped or not, is, in my humble opinion, sad and lifeless. Thin models sell. Average sized models do not appeal to the typical fashion target audience. I find the cover like most fashion ads boring, but unlike most fashion ads- I don't find this cover to be ridiculous. I couldn't care less if she had photoshopped 50lb of lard onto the girl- far too many important things in life to worry about as opposed to some mag slathering poundage onto some model via software.
This P. Some people are naturally thin and if it's so unhealthy, how come fat people die of heart attacks left and right and skinny rats live twice as long as regular ones? As a photo retoucher for many years, working with N. The corrections we made had to be approved by the higher ups before publication.
This was and will still be continued no matter what the outcome of this article. I definitely approve of any or all retouching to enhance any photo, and it makes me sick that a subject such as this can cause such a commotion. The issue isn't about the merits of retouching. The question is whether it's appropriate when done under the banner of a news organization.
That T style "magazine" is really just an excuse to sell advert space. It's not like it's Vogue or some serious fashion rag. I have been working for various issues of Vogue and similar high end magazines for years. There is one rule for all: The less Ads they are able to collect for given issue, the thinner the editorial content and the magazine itself will be.
Sometime when they do not collect enough Ads, they withdrawn some fashion editorials already produced. Ads are vital to the existence of publications and Vogue is not exception.
0コメント