Well, I start my intership with Peter Halley tommorrow (I'm both excited, and NERVOUS as heck)! I was reading his bio and noticed that some time ago he once hired photographer Collier Schorr as an assistant. I thought that was really cool! I first saw Collier Schorr's work on a documentary on PBS (Art:21...I HIGHLY recommend the DVD, it's excellent), and really admired her dedication to her photography. Her photographs largely deal with gender and identity, with many androgynous subjects. But she mostly focuses on the masculine side. One of her strongest bodies of work is her portrayals of young German men in (Nazi-like) soldier outfits, who certainly possess the apparent quality of being one, but inside aren't and feel some level of discomfort. Another series, is the portrayal of male and female subjects in poses/setups based on famous classic paintings. In general, her images have a VERY personal quality to them. Well I've been to her exhibit at the 303 gallery, and did some follow-up on her work. Her talent has now significantly moved into the realm of commercial work. I was looking at her portfolio online and was kind of UPSET at what I was seeing. She now does assignments for many major fashion magazines...shooting your typical professional male runway models, movie celebrities (Orlando Bloom, Rachel Weisz), an ad for ESPN sports. Reading bio's of Schorr, they describe this transition of work as a sort of success. Her look is still "there" in the photographs, but does her original aesthetic sense still apply? (if you know what I mean)? They seem so "FALSE" in comparison. That's not to say I DON'T LIKE photography with commercial purpose (I highly enjoy Erwin Olaf's images)...but in this case it's kind of like Diane Arbus shooting a hairspray ad or something. Extra financial back-up I suppose...I guess there are times when you have to reach a compromise between your own artistic endeavors and regular work.