who’s #1 for real?
i’m serious lol
is there a photo credit? I dont think thats correct honestly
well there are serious errors in the writeup so I’m not confident this isnt an editorial issue
i have no horse in the race but:
1.) everything else i’ve seen in the book is correct
2.) this photo is of much more mysterious provenance than the others—a cursory search reveals nothing
so you may be right but it would be odd for the editors to make such a big mistake. stranger things have happened, tho.
99% sure I’ve seen that photo before, but its not of Arlt though it’s someone else
here is the book: Scrittori: Grandi autori visti da grandi fotografi by Goffredo Fofi | Goodreads
italian publisher is contrasto.
I think I found the Veronique Pestoni who contributed to the book, but shes too young to have taken the photo. If I had instagram I’d ask her directly where the photo was sourced from. The few instances google lens can find date after the publication of this book.
granted its an odd pose, angle, and tricky lighting, but I dont think these are the same person. That second photo doesnt look like a polish-german-italian guy to me. I’m not being weird about this by the way
2 Likes
yeah that birthmark doesnt seem to be there does it
2 Likes
it took awhile but the book thread finally found our own qanon
3 Likes
real talk i’m kinda with you
1 Like
being told I shouldnt have “excused myself from dinner” “for this”
9 Likes
mission failed, podcasts won her over
brideshead revisited looked promising but the vocal mixing was low and its hella loud in that truck cabin + Jeremy Irons is great but perhaps the accent made it more difficult to understand
somehow most if not all short story audiobooks by mariana enriquez were unavailable on libby. i got some patricia highsmith short stories lined up, lets see if that works 
2 Likes
that was the one choice from my list that i only listened to solo lmao. i loved the narration but can totally see the accent making it thick to understand.
maybe brideheads revisited is a fellas only kinda thing….
1 Like
sent a email to the publisher sharing my doubts about the photo. Not hopeful for a response bc it’s ofc in english and idk whos available or interested to dig into this over a decade-old coffee table book. But I’m almost certain they messed up. Arlt has a bulbier western poland style nose (I know this bc I do too), his eyes are more recessed, the nasolabial folds are more pronounced in the book photo than Arlt’s, and said folds would be stretched shallower on a face pressed into that position, plus the birthmark isn’t there. Arlt has a squarer chin and boxier head. Lower lips shaped differently and in the book photo the mouth is generally more prominent than Arlts. Just want to make clear, I’m not doing 19th century phrenology my conclusions are based on experience with various video game character creators
Also curious if a genuine photo of Arlt appears elsewhere in the book, but for the wrong author. Maybe a mistaken switcheroo
5 Likes
lol!
i can confirm no other photos in the book are arlt. as far as i can tell, there are no other photos that are incorrect, though there are some authors i’m unfamiliar with and can’t confirm. interested to see if the publisher responds. it seems thames and hudson also published an english edition of this book, so it may be worth a separate inquiry.
2 Likes
The person in each photo does not look so dissimilar to me. Lighting, and especially lens length and distance of the subject, can drastically alter how a person’s face appears in a photograph, and the kinds of changes between the photos (and others of Arlt I see online) are within those bounds. The lines around the mouth are so similar, and I do see the birthmark in the photo from the book.
1 Like
I agree the likeness isn’t drastically dissimilar. However, I would think the birthmark would be unambiguously apparent in the corresponding side-reflection, and it doesn’t look like it’s there. But maybe it’s faint and lost in the high contrast exposure when viewed head on. And while I concede as you say there’s not a huge difference in facial features, I’d think some aspect would clearly correspond. There’s also the provenance of the photo, which isn’t cited correctly, as well the fact that this image being attributed to Arlt seems to originate with this book, and fwiw I think we’ve all seen dozens of the images contained within elsewhere, so I don’t think this book what have a previously undiscovered photo of Arlt. Furthermore, if you look at Arlt editions, they sometimes include a bio and photos, and it’s always the same 8-10 or so. You’d think if this was a genuine image of Arlt that it would have been made use of at some point in the last 80 years of repubs and scholarly texts because it’s a striking photo. So I’m pretty dubious. But the publisher should have done better annotating it!
1 Like
