Bright blue glasses rest on Wim Wenders’ face when I greet him at the Howard Greenberg Gallery in New York. He wears suspenders, one strap white and one black, with polka dots, that hold up chic, oversized trousers. Wenders, who’s most often known as the director of cinematic masterpieces–like 1984’s Paris, Texas, 1987’s Wings of Desire, and 1999’s Buena Vista Social Club, among many others–is also an accomplished photographer. His latest art exhibition, “Written Once,” which features images the director made in the 1970s and 1980s, opened at the Howard Greenberg Gallery on January 28 and runs until March 15.

“Written Once” features images from two series previously published in Wenders’ books Once and Written in the West, some of which have never before been made into prints. From Once, elegantly grainy, soulful black and white images tell stories of Wenders’ time in the U.S.–in one image, Martin Scorsese repairs a flat tire in the middle of the desert; in another, the actor and musician John Lurie plants a powerful kiss on a companion. Written in the West sets the landscape of the American West alive in vibrant color, turning its grocery stores and gas stations into painterly landscapes.

Wenders and I sit in a room filled with images by master photographer Walker Evans, one of Wenders’ greatest inspirations. He jokes that he keeps getting distracted, but if he does I don’t notice. For GOOD, we spoke about truth, place, storytelling, history, and self-reflection.

How did the show come together and how did you decide to put these series in conversation with each other?
[Gallerist] Howard [Greenberg] is strangely responsible. He came to my office, he went through all my drawers and got quite excited about some of the pictures. He chose the lesser-known pictures along with some exposed previously. He found some lost treasures and liked them, and just happened to be from these two series. He liked the idea that they’re both books, that some of them were unknown, that I never printed them. I liked his eye and his choices. I was happy these pictures were reanimated and that I finally was able to print them. I’m more interested in the act of taking the picture than printing it. I’ve been taking photographs since I was a little boy but for 40 years of my life, I didn’t print anything. I was happy I had the contact sheets. It was almost always more important for me that I took pictures, not that I did something with them afterwards. That changed with Written in the West, the first exhibition I had. Howard looked at my contact sheets and at my test prints [from that series], and said, “Oh, why didn’t you use that one?” If somebody looks at my stuff from 40 years ago, I’m amazed by what they see in it and I say, “Oh yeah, you’re right, not so bad. Why didn’t I ever print it?”

Lounge Painting II, 1983, Gila Bend u00a9 Wim Wenders/ Wenders Images and Howard Greenberg Gallery


Why were you more interested in the act of taking the picture than printing it?
Taking photographs for me is a very intense way of being and of looking. Photographs and my camera helped and guided me to travel, made me look more closely. My main profession is maybe traveler. In many ways, my camera feels like a recording instrument. It cannot just record a picture, but it also helps me understand a place and the story it tells me. It helps me to be somewhere and understand the light and the colors and see details, the history of a place, the history of the people [who] came through there, everything that we did to that place. For me, taking photographs is a way to be, to exist more in the moment and more intensely. Printing is not exactly in the moment. Printing is like going back and looking at something you experienced. I’ve always been interested in moving forward. Printing is almost like a nostalgic process. I’m not a nostalgic person, so I have to force myself, and I need somebody to tell me, “Wim, this picture, you better print it.”

What is it like to reflect on the work now decades later?
Photography is a medium where you’re very intensely living in the now. I’m a photographer of places, much more than of people, even if there are people sometimes. It’s really interesting to see who I was then, and who I was that saw these things, wanted to keep these moments and press the shutter. Today, if I was in the same place, I might take a very different picture. In a strange way, when I came into the gallery this morning, I encountered somebody I used to be, a young man very fascinated with America who lived and worked here in the 70s and 80s. I pretty clearly remember who that was, but I also realized I moved on. America has changed a lot. I realized that some of the places that interested me so much at the time have been either photographed to death, have disappeared, or were destroyed. The term “Americana” didn’t exist when I made these pictures. It is now such a common word to describe a certain nostalgic feeling about America, but at the time I didn’t feel it was a nostalgic journey. At the time it was truly sort of an exploration into the history of America. These places I show, especially in color, are historic places they talk about when they talk about American history. The West is an important part of American history. It’s a country full of dreams, broken dreams, illusions and lost illusions. So to revisit them 40 years later, again, is another lost illusion [laughs]. Photographs are pretty solid in representing history. I love photography for the fact that it’s so solid.

When Martin Scorsese had a flat tire II, 1977 u00a9 Wim Wenders/ Wenders Images and Howard Greenberg Gallery

How do those ideas and your images live together?
These are all prints that are completely unmanipulated. What you see is what you get. What you see is what I saw. It’s sort of an old fashioned idea of photography. Now the photo is no longer a witness of something that really happened, but a creation of something done with the help of a camera. There’s Photoshop and all sorts of techniques. Looking at Walker Evans’s photographs, that’s what he saw. My photos are from that tradition, like [photographer] Joel Meyerowitz, on the wall there. I love that man, so I’m in a strange way surrounded here by old friends. Walker Evans was my great hero when I was a young man growing up, maybe 15-16 years old and trying to do something with my camera. I realized you can do something so much more beautiful with it, not just photograph what’s around you, your friends, family, and journeys–you could make photographs that were a statement. I’m completely overwhelmed that we’re sitting here in a room with 15 Walker Evans photographs. For me, those are an expression of truthfulness, because it’s more an attitude than a result. The result “truth” is always questionable, but the attitude producing something truthful is not questionable.

What does making a photograph teach you about how you want to make a film and vice versa?
My photography and my filmmaking have one thing in common: an extreme interest in place, in finding out its story, what part of history is reflected in it, what stories reverberate, and what I can read in it. My filmmaking is all place-driven. If I reach that state where I know that story–Berlin in Wings of Desire, the West in Paris, Texas–could not possibly have happened anywhere else, then I feel I’ve done justice to place and story, and I’ve told a story rooted in truth because the place and the story are linked in a necessary way. I need that.

For me, the truth of a story is very much linked to its place, and the characters need to be linked to a place. I like films that specifically take place somewhere else, where there is a history, a particular language, a tradition, habits–films that are linked to a certain region or countryside or to that city. I hate, and I often walk out of, movies when I realize they don’t take place anywhere. A lot of movies take place nowhere and then you find out this is possibly Pittsburgh, but you know Pittsburgh and this is not Pittsburgh. A lot of movies are made not in the place where they’re supposed to take place, but they’re just where it pays off to shoot them because there’s a tax rebate or something. I see “tax rebate” written big over many movies, and I can’t stand realizing a place is phony. I don’t want to watch a lookalike. I want to see the real thing. Why should I see a movie that takes place nowhere? Why should I believe the story of all these characters, that character sees something I know he can never, ever in his life, see there? I can’t take it. I’m old fashioned. I need to believe that this is happening.

John Lurie, 1986, Montreal u00a9 Wim Wenders/ Wenders Images and Howard Greenberg Gallery

When you look at your work now, do you ever feel critical of yourself?
You cannot criticize the picture. You can criticize the attitude. I don’t like all of these pictures there. Some are done sort of hastily, especially some of the black and white work. I didn’t always think of myself as a photographer. I became one in the pictures I shot in America and the American West in preparation for Paris, Texas. I make a lot of journeys, only to take pictures, but not to make a movie, and then I make a lot of movies and I don’t take a picture at the same time. It’s two different attitudes. I can criticize an attitude, but I don’t want to criticize the result. Some of my pictures are a little bit half-hearted I think now, but others are right on, and I’m happy I made them. I realized how much the attitude and being in the now creates the photo. I think the attitude of the photographer is visible in the shot, and that you can sometimes criticize. Sometimes it’s a little bit superficial, sometimes it’s just en passant. Some photographs are careless, others are profound.

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Ian Taylor PhotographerTwo young children play in the grass.

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Culture Stories

Internet

Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.