Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: jjj on April 04, 2015, 09:54:24 am
-
The Deutsche Börse Prize 2015 nominees announced and this choice seems particularly topical considering recent US legislation in favour of discrimination.
Some pics here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/photography/11507087/Deutsche-Borse-2015-South-African-photographer-Zanele-Muholis-portraits-of-LGBTI-people-persecuted-for-their-sexuality.html)
-
The same propaganda campaign already seen in the the World Press awards, where politics dictate winners.
-
Do you hate everything and despise everybody Slobodan as that's how you come across?
-
Do you hate everything and despise everybody Slobodan as that's how you come across?
I thought I made it clear: I hate when political agendas get involved in arts. It is too much of a coincidence that two major photography awards go to the same cause at about the same time.
-
Do you hate everything and despise everybody Slobodan as that's how you come across?
I agree with him. What's interesting about those photographs, apart from a story about the people?
Jeremy
-
+ many!
-
I thought I made it clear: I hate when political agendas get involved in arts.
Political agendas are ALWAYS involved in the arts.
-
.....What's interesting about those photographs, apart from a story about the people?
Jeremy
Not a damn thing.
-
....this choice seems particularly topical considering recent US legislation in favour of discrimination.
Well if one wanted to be precise, one would point out that the US legislation (Federal) was signed by Clinton, so...not recent. Among the states, Indiana gets the glare of unwanted publicity for obvious reasons, and Arkansas came close but reversed course.
Arkansas also dodged this bullet: https://fstoppers.com/news/arkansas-senate-passes-bill-make-street-photography-illegal-state-65704
If I'm ever in charge of organizing a bachelor party, I'm going to find me a Muslim restaurant and demand that they cater the event, complete with strippers and booze. If they agree, I'm sure we'll all have a good time. If they refuse, I'll sue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4
-
I thought I made it clear: I hate when political agendas get involved in arts.
Sunday on the Banks of the Marne, 1938 (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/2002.614.1) -- "… in May 1936, the Popular Front, a coalition between the … (Radical Socialist Party) and the Communists, swept to power in France. … allowed large numbers of employees and workers … to discover the pleasures of free time, and to enjoy holidays … For the Communist Party's weekly illustrated magazine, Regards, Cartier-Bresson photographed the joys of camping, picnics by the river and lazing in the sun." ("Henri Cartier-Bresson – Here and Now", page 168).
-
The Deutsche Börse Prize 2015 nominees announced and this choice seems particularly topical considering recent US legislation in favour of discrimination.
I am still shocked that a state in the US would pass a law like the one voted in Indiana - another blow for the word "freedom" as if the joke hadn't been bad enough already - but I have to agree that the photographs here have little remarkable but for the sexual preferences of the people depicted.
Now, this being the point, it probably isn't different from any body of work focusing on a particular sociological group, be it musicians, native indians,...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sometimes it is less about politics getting involved in art, and more about art getting involved in politics. Artists can have a political agenda, and there's nothing wrong with that. When it's on the side of the oppressed & persecuted, the dispossessed & poor, and is challenging the status quo, privilege, inequality and injustice, then I really don't have a problem with it at all.
-
When it's on the side of …
In general -- We don't really have a problem with it when it aligns with our own political agenda ?
-
Well if one wanted to be precise, one would point out that the US legislation (Federal) was signed by Clinton ...
That federal RFRA, and many of the state ones that follow it, are somewhat different from what the Indiana and Arkansas legislatures originally proposed, though the changes that both governors are seeking may bring them more or less in line with the federal model. One difference is that federal legislation aims at protecting what I call "consensual religious activities" against government interference, like allowing religiously required use of wine or peyote regardless of any prohibitionist laws. So, activities where the only people affected are the ones claiming a religious obligation, as opposed to claiming a religious obligation to not serve certain customers while providing the same service to others.
If I'm ever in charge of organizing a bachelor party, I'm going to find me a Muslim restaurant and demand that they cater the event, complete with strippers and booze.
None of these laws touch that case, since such a restaurant would not offer such a service to anyone: the debate is about whether a business that routinely offers a service can then decline to offer that same service to certain customers. For example, if a restaurant is open to the public, but the owners claim a religiously based prohibition on associating with people of certain races or people of certain other religions, are they allowed to refuse service to such people?
P. S. I would rather that the original "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" has instead been a "Personal Freedom Restoration Act", because the acts it is intended to protect (ones that only affect wiling participants) are better off being protected without any need for a tie to religion.
-
None of these laws touch that case, since such a restaurant would not offer such a service to anyone....
Understood. Thx for the details.
I should have been more clear. In my example, I'm asking a Middle Eastern restaurant owned and run by Muslims that caters private parties with food...to bring its normal fare to a bachelor party that I'm organizing. I'll supply the venue (my house, for example) and I'll supply the strippers and booze. I'm just asking them to bring standard menu items to a house party that will feature strippers and booze. They did a nice job at my Muslim neighbor's birthday party and I love their food.
Can I now sue if they turn me down because their religious impulses don't allow them to take the job? What if I'm a Jew asking them to cater a bar mitzvah and they say no?
-
In my example, I'm asking a Middle Eastern restaurant owned and run by Muslims that caters private parties with food...to bring its normal fare to a bachelor party that I'm organizing. I'll supply the venue (my house, for example) and I'll supply the strippers and booze. I'm just asking them to bring standard menu items to a house party that will feature strippers and booze.
From what I have read, my guess is that there could be a legal right for a Muslim, or Mormon, or some Baptists to refuse to enter a place where alcohol is currently being consumed and so on. On the other hand, I doubt that there is or should be a right to refuse service simply because a customer drinks alcohol etc. at other times -- and that is closer to the discrimination issue under debate lately. (Check what the old testament does specifically disapprove of; it's not weddings!)
-
From what I have read, my guess is that there could be a legal right for a Muslim, or Mormon, or some Baptists to refuse to enter a place where alcohol is currently being consumed and so on. On the other hand, I doubt that there is or should be a right to refuse service simply because a customer drinks alcohol etc. at other times -- and that is closer to the discrimination issue under debate lately. (Check what the old testament does specifically disapprove of; it's not weddings!)
Ok, I understand now why my (with booze) bachelor party scenario doesn't really work. What about the bar mitzvah example? If a Muslim caterer or anti-semitic Christian caterer refused to provide standard, generally available food service to a (no booze) bar mitzvah, does the Jewish family have a case, similar to the case against the Christian baker who refused to bake a standard, generally available cake for a gay wedding?
Thanks for indulging me....
-
the debate is about whether a business that routinely offers a service can then decline to offer that same service to certain customers.
As Brit I am looking at this case with interest and amongst all the discussion it is hard to find a genuine unbiased overview of what the real issues are. It seems Indiana is a bit nonplussed that they are being picked up on this but several other states who have already enacted this legislation have not been - it seems partly that the activists are indeed picking on Indiana as 'one state too far' but also in a majority of the other states, they also have gay rights as a protected group which excludes them from the potential impacts of this bill but Indiana does not.
my guess is that there could be a legal right for a Muslim, or Mormon, or some Baptists to refuse to enter a place where alcohol is currently being consumed and so on.
We are having similar issues in the UK at the moment where a Muslim supermarket worker has refused to sell alcohol because it is against their religion. Fortunately the religious leaders are adding a bit os fanity to say that is total bull because the Koran only forbids consumption of alcohol. So if any of these hypotehtical cases came to court a lot would depend on what the consensus is regards what the restriction actually is.
In another recent case a baker with strong Christian beliefs refused to make a cake for a gay wedding because they looked on this as promoting homosexuality.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3013072/Christian-baker-begins-court-fight-pro-gay-marriage-cake.html
This is complicated by the fact that the bakers have served the customer before, knowing he is gay so it is not a simple discrimination case in that sense. What they objected to was a wedding cake with a gay couple on it because they believe for religious reasons that marriage is between a man and a woman.
-
I thought I made it clear: I hate when political agendas get involved in arts. It is too much of a coincidence that two major photography awards go to the same cause at about the same time.
Here's a thought - maybe it's because what they are depicting is currently important.
-
I agree with him. What's interesting about those photographs, apart from a story about the people?
They are no more or less interesting photographically than most art photography work. They look typical of that genre of photography to me and are not particularly to my taste either. But one's taste not really very relevant, unless you are part of the judging panel.
Not to mention that the point of the photos is the story behind them
-
I agree with him. What's interesting about those photographs, apart from a story about the people?
Jeremy
What's interesting about Migrant Mother, apart from a story about the portraited woman?
-
What's interesting about Migrant Mother, apart from a story about the portraited woman?
Your ignorance of photography on full display once again.
-
Your ignorance of photography on full display once again.
If you're so learned, can you answer the question?
(I'm not holding my breath on this....)
...Still no answer... how strange....
...Look... no answer....
...please...stop... no more answer, please.... I can't take anymore....
...really, stop answering!!!!
-
What's interesting about Migrant Mother, apart from a story about the portraited woman?
Surely you can't be serious. Today is April 8, not April 1.
-
Surely you can't be serious. Today is April 8, not April 1.
Of course I'm not serious: in "Migrant Mother" the story behind the woman and the socioeconomical situation of the time is as much important as the "photographic qualities" of the shot itself.
But since someone think that the story behind the people and the "political statement" of a shot is of no importance, I asked the question about the "Migrant Mother" shot.
-
Of course I'm not serious: in "Migrant Mother" the story behind the woman and the socioeconomical situation of the time is as much important as the "photographic qualities" of the shot itself.
But since someone think that the story behind the people and the "political statement" of a shot is of no importance, I asked the question about the "Migrant Mother" shot.
But the quality of 'Migrant mother' is that the photo tells its own story. The context of the Depression adds to it and the photo shows the effects of the Depression.
For me, the DB photos they are simply portraits. Even knowing they are of discriminated people adds nothing other than knowing they are discriminated against and the photos show nothing about the impact of that discrimination. Which is why I find them quite uneventful
-
But the quality of 'Migrant mother' is that the photo tells its own story. The context of the Depression adds to it and the photo shows the effects of the Depression.
For me, the DB photos they are simply portraits. Even knowing they are of discriminated people adds nothing other than knowing they are discriminated against and the photos show nothing about the impact of that discrimination. Which is why I find them quite uneventful
Try to remove all you know about the "Migrant Mother" context: what's the story the photo is telling?
I think that, devoid of context, "Migrant Mother" is just a woman's portrait.
-
Without knowing anything about the photograph when I first saw it I realised it was about poverty and the impact it has on people - the kids as well the mother. Knowing it was about a migrant in the Depression era added a context to it and knowing its full story added a poignancy to it, but without the story within the photograph even the knowledge of its background would be meaningless. I believe that when it was first printed at the time of the Depression that not even that caption would have been needed because people would have innately known what it was.
I look at the DB photos and I think '6 decent potraits'.
I look at the aims of DB
aims to reward a contemporary photographer of any nationality, who has made the most significant contribution (exhibition or publication) to the medium of photography in Europe in the previous year.
and I think 'what contribution is being made here'. I have no idea.
I then read what the photos are about and I think 'what does this photo tell me about being a discriminated gay person?'.
And the answer is 'nothing'.
And maybe the point is 'gays are people too' but unfortunately it strikes me more of looking at a gallery of victim photographs you see on the noticeboards in a cop show. Maybe that is the point but it has taken me a long time to get there, and I wonder 'has the DB photograph failed'. Or am I now supposed to look at any portrait and immediately start to imagine what horrors have befallen that person.
-
Without knowing anything about the photograph when I first saw it I realised it was about poverty and the impact it has on people - the kids as well the mother.
How do you know that poverty is involved?
Couldn't they be just refusing any kind of modern comfort?
One can say that "refusing any kind of modern comfort" equates to poverty, but may not be what is felt but someone making that kind of choice.
What led to think about poverty?
Knowing it was about a migrant in the Depression era added a context to it and knowing its full story added a poignancy to it, but without the story within the photograph even the knowledge of its background would be meaningless. I believe that when it was first printed at the time of the Depression that not even that caption would have been needed because people would have innately known what it was.
Of course no caption was needed: depression was an everyday reality.
I look at the DB photos and I think '6 decent potraits'.
I look at the aims of DB and I think 'what contribution is being made here'. I have no idea.
I then read what the photos are about and I think 'what does this photo tell me about being a discriminated gay person?'.
And the answer is 'nothing'.
Doesn't the look of their eyes tell you anything?
-
What led to think about poverty?
It just did. I can't explain it. Maybe it was a 'lucky hit'. Or maybe the photograph is so good it tells its own story and because you saw the caption when you first saw it, you are assuming that it is not posible to know the context without the caption.
Doesn't the look of their eyes tell you anything?
Nope.
I coudl equally ask whether you reading things into the eyes because, knowing the background to the photos, you want the eyes to be telling you something because to do so is profound. A sort of confirmation bias.
-
It just did. I can't explain it. Maybe it was a 'lucky hit'. Or maybe the photograph is so good it tells its own story and because you saw the caption when you first saw it, you are assuming that it is not posible to know the context without the caption.
Could it be that you thought because of your cultural background (which is common to most of us, by the way)?
What I means is that I suspect that many of the thing one see in this and other photos is not in the photo itself but in the viewer.
Nope.
I coudl equally ask whether you reading things into the eyes because, knowing the background to the photos, you want the eyes to be telling you something because to do so is profound. A sort of confirmation bias.
Maybe, or maybe different people have different sensibilities and see interpret the same expression in different ways.
-
Both are fair points, Diego.
If I was from a poor area of Africa I may have looked at Migrant Mother and thought 'she's rich she can afford clothes'. But the photo was intended for an audience from her own society and the photographer to my mind did what she had to do to get the message across to the intended audience.
And that for me is where the DB photos fail to engage me. There is no indication in the photos themselves of who the person is or their backgrounds for a narrative to start. Even knowing they are discriminated people there is no narrative in the photo of what that persecution means to them and no point of empathy. I need to force one on what is a series of good quality portraits.
But (and this has just struck me) maybe the power of those particular photos is in the context of a book of 365 photos and abstracting them as 7 shots is doing them an injustice and the book has more context.
Or it comes back to a comment earlier in the thread that the real message is one of political activism - not the photos themselves but someone exploiting the subjects to make their own political point. And tht fact we are discussing it means it has succeeded after all. ???
-
Here's a thought - maybe it's because what they are depicting is currently important.
Let's see what's been going on in the world that is apparently less important:
- carnage of children and civilians in the Middle East
- unspeakable, barbaric, medieval atrocities in the Middle East, Asia and Africa
- school girls kidnapped en masse and turned into soldier brides
- children turned into soldiers
- students executed en masse for their religion
- believers attacked in their churches
- terrorist attack in the heart of the civilized world
- the cradle of civilization on its knees, denied a bailout by the recipient of the largest bailout in history, which once occupied it and looted it
- 85 richest people in the world have more wealth than the 50% of the world
But hey, what's all that compared to:
- a little trouble in the "backdoor paradise"
-
Let's see what's been going on in the world that is apparently less important:
- carnage of children and civilians in the Middle East
- unspeakable, barbaric, medieval atrocities in the Middle East, Asia and Africa
- school girls kidnapped en masse and turned into soldier brides
- children turned into soldiers
- students executed en masse for their religion
- believers attacked in their churches
- terrorist attack in the heart of the civilized world
- the cradle of civilization on its knees, denied a bailout by the recipient of the largest bailout in history, which once occupied it and looted it
- 85 richest people in the world have more wealth than the 50% of the world
But hey, what's all that compared to:
- a little trouble in the "backdoor paradise"
And the practice of 'curative rape' - 'a hate crime intended to 'convert’ lesbians to heterosexuality' - is not worth reporting?
-
And the practice of 'curative rape' - 'a hate crime intended to 'convert’ lesbians to heterosexuality' - is not worth reporting?
Non sequitur.
-
Non sequitur.
Huh? Curative rape is one of the issues raised in the photo series we are discussing. You seem to be dismissing it ('a little trouble in the "backdoor paradise"').
-
Huh?..
Non sequitur, used in the context, meant that nobody said such a thing is not worth reporting.
However, we are not talking about newsworthy or not (it is), we are not talking about the Pulitzer Prize (for journalism writing), we are talking about "the most significant contribution ... to the medium of photography." And even if we are talking about newsworthy, we would be talking about ranking in terms of world-wide importance. In such a case, even a relatively minor issue in terms of importance (and I am not suggesting that the example you mentioned is trivial) would merit a prize IF it is done in a photographically impressive manner. To give you an example, look at the Eugene Smith's Minamata image. It was a documentary about industrial poisoning in a particular Japanese region, but it survived in the history of art on the strength of photographic expression, not the strength of the cause.
-
it survived in the history of art on the strength of photographic expression, not the strength of the cause.
I wish I could have put it so succinctly.
-
There's no doubting the strength of Gene Smith's photographic expression. But I think Zanele Muholi is having a good crack at it too. Here's a film about her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aiufq04dp0
-
OK folks.
I think that it is clear that the mere act of doing formal portraiture of this population is the novelty. There's no technical innovation. The portraits are low-key, allowing the subjects to present themselves, instead of being directed to pose on a fantasy set a la Kehinde Wiley.
Let's have OTHER nominations.
I think it may be impossible to separate one's knowledge of a photograph's documentary (news) importance from the esthetic importance.
I am not sure what the prize should represent. It strikes me that contributions to the medium of photography could be technical, could be within a specialized domain such as scientific photography or commercial photography, could be in representations of neglected subjects, could be in unique style.
-
Both are fair points, Diego.
If I was from a poor area of Africa I may have looked at Migrant Mother and thought 'she's rich she can afford clothes'. But the photo was intended for an audience from her own society and the photographer to my mind did what she had to do to getù the message across to the intended audience.
That's exactly what I meant when I wrote about the "cultural background" of the viewer.
And that for me is where the DB photos fail to engage me. There is no indication in the photos themselves of who the person is or their backgrounds for a narrative to start. Even knowing they are discriminated people there is no narrative in the photo of what that persecution means to them and no point of empathy. I need to force one on what is a series of good quality portraits.
I see what you mean.
But try to imagine for a moment to be a gay who underwent his fair amount of discrimination.
Do you think it's possible that those photos will engage you?
Maybe, if being discriminated was part of your cultural background, you would see some subtle hints in the photos you're now missing
(I'm not saying this in the "you should shut up since you're not being discriminated" sense).
But (and this has just struck me) maybe the power of those particular photos is in the context of a book of 365 photos and abstracting them as 7 shots is doing them an injustice and the book has more context.
May be very true.
Thankfully the arts are capable of influencing political thinking.
Regardless of whether someone likes it or not.
-
But try to imagine for a moment…
I am reminded of --
Nevertheless it is a story that IF YOU WISH and IF YOU CAN SEE THE STORY you can universalize and then offer to people as a mirror of themselves. Your photographs are still mirrors of yourself. … They are "expressive" meaning a direct mirror of yourself rather than "creative" meaning so converted as to affect others (http://books.google.com/books?id=Xm0jAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA18#v=snippet&q=%22creative%20meaning%20so%20converted%20as%20to%20affect%20others%22&f=false) as mirrors of themselves.
-
I suppose that the award could be given to a photographer's large project, and one really would need to view the entire book of photos and text to evaluate this sort of project. The typical set of editorial photos is two to a dozen or so, not ~350.
-
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts:
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
In other words, if you want to stop discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then stop discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, i.e., stop doing what the two juries did.
-
Slobodan, you seem to be hijacking the discussion to re-open the locked Religious Freedom Act (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99178.msg811091#msg811091) dispute.
-
Slobodan, you seem to be hijacking the discussion to re-open the locked Religious Freedom Act (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99178.msg811091#msg811091) dispute.
Hmmm... this is a tricky one. No, I do not want to reopen it. Nor anything I said so far had anything to do with Indiana or religious freedom. However, the issues in this thread are intertwined with the broader issue of discrimination, if for no other reason, than for the opening sentence in the OP:
...considering recent US legislation in favour of discrimination
Then, later posts in this thread are inevitably touching upon sexual orientation issues. And lastly, I stated how my quote above is linked to the thread: two juries selected winners not on the merits of their photography, but by discriminating based on sexual orientation.
-
To clarify re. the Deutsche Börse Prize. The winner not been announced yet. Zanele Muholi is one of four nominees.
http://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/deutsche-b-rse-prize-2015
(What is this other photo prize you are talking about?)
-
Well, I am lobbying for a discussion about the merits of a short photo series versus a comprehensive set versus a single image, and about the valuation of journalistic content versus formal esthetic content.
Sometimes there is a bit of "thumb your nose at the Americans" in European culture. That's fine. There's probably a certain amount of "how many photos of the American West do we need" as well as a bit of ridicule for to-them-odd parts of our American social habits. After all, we can look at some of their works and think "meh".
-
... (What is this other photo prize you are talking about?)
World Press Photo Contest (http://www.worldpressphoto.org/awards/2015/contemporary-issues/mads-nissen)
-
…two juries selected winners…
Oh, that kind of jury. Mea culpa.
-
...Sometimes there is a bit of "thumb your nose at the Americans" in European culture...
In the case of the World Press Photo Contest, they decided to stick it to Russia, for a change ;)
-
World Press Photo Contest (http://www.worldpressphoto.org/awards/2015/contemporary-issues/mads-nissen)
Ok. I see. Two photographers whose work highlights homophobia (in South Africa and in Russia) have recently received gongs in international photo competitions. So what? What's the problem? Both seem to be working in the spirit of Eugene Smith.
-
... So what? What's the problem? Both seem to be working in the spirit of Eugene Smith.
Well, I stated what I see is the problem in the beginning of the thread. No point in going in circles.
-
Well, I stated what I see is the problem in the beginning of the thread. No point in going in circles.
Right, you said 'I hate when political agendas get involved in arts'.
But then you championed Eugene Smith, which is obviously contradictory.
So it comes across that you have a problem with this particular political agenda (the campaign against homophobia).
-
...But then you championed Eugene Smith, which is obviously contradictory...
Not at all. I didn't "champion" Eugene Smith for his political views or how his photographs were used. I said his photographs had photographic merits that survived their initial political slant, if there was any.
The confusion probably comes from you and Keith Laban talking about politics and arts in general (with which I might actually agree), while I was talking in a much more narrow context: blatantly (mis)using jurying process to push a particular political agenda.
If you do not see a problem with that, then you would't see a problem in Soviet arts where artistic directions were coming from the central committee, not artists.
-
The end point is that while some photos stand just for their "aestetical qualities", others stand for their "photographic qualities" that very often include the viewer's cultural background, the historical context and the political statement behind the photo.
Capa's D-DAY photos get their "photographic qualities" mainly by the context.
The same is true for HCB's slap photo loses most of its power if devoid of the context.
For the political statement, suffice to look at René Burri's Che Guevara portrait: aestetically just a nice portrait, an amazing photo from a photographic point of view if the historical context and political statement is taken in consideration.
-
The interest in these contests for me is to look at the work of the finalists, not just the winner. I highlighted a landscape (large project) winner of WPPO 2015, Kacper Kowalski, in the Coffee Corner a while back. I didn't mention some of the other projects, series, or single photos that intrigued me. Because I am a biology geek, I found "Mindsuckers" Anand Varma, and "Vegetables with an Attitude" Christian Ziegler, to be excellent illustrations of their stories.
-
Let's see what's been going on in the world that is apparently less important:
- carnage of children and civilians in the Middle East
- unspeakable, barbaric, medieval atrocities in the Middle East, Asia and Africa
- school girls kidnapped en masse and turned into soldier brides
- children turned into soldiers
- students executed en masse for their religion
- believers attacked in their churches
- terrorist attack in the heart of the civilized world
- the cradle of civilization on its knees, denied a bailout by the recipient of the largest bailout in history, which once occupied it and looted it
- 85 richest people in the world have more wealth than the 50% of the world
That the non-argument people use when they actually have no argument. Choosing these or any other photos does not mean that other stories or photos are being ignored or diminished as a result.
Plus what makes your remark particularly asinine is that this award is for 'contemporary photography', not 'photojournalism'. Not that you are bothered by facts....However, we are not talking about newsworthy or not (it is), we are not talking about the Pulitzer Prize (for journalism writing), we are talking about "the most significant contribution ... to the medium of photography."
And here you are lying by omission. The full sentence which has a very different meaning to your misquote....
"The Deutsche Börse Photography Prize aims to reward a contemporary photographer of any nationality, who has made the most significant contribution (exhibition or publication) to the medium of photography in Europe in the previous year."
But hey, what's all that compared to:
- a little trouble in the "backdoor paradise"
Is that meant to some sort of snide gay slur, as recent posts tend of yours seem to indicate you are a homophobe?
You seem to be particularly objecting to/sneering DB shortlist as well as at the choice of the World Press Photo 'Contemporary Issues' winner for showing aspects of gay life in Russia where the government are pursuing an anti-gay agenda, simply because they are stories about gay people. This Russian attitude is also sadly reminiscent of 1930s Germany marginalisation of various peoples deemed unacceptable and your posts makes me wonder if you agree with the anti-gay sentiment currently being promoted by various governments.
-
The end point is that while some photos stand just for their "aestetical qualities", others stand for their "photographic qualities" that very often include the viewer's cultural background, the historical context and the political statement behind the photo.
Capa's D-DAY photos get their "photographic qualities" mainly by the context.
The same is true for HCB's slap photo loses most of its power if devoid of the context.
For the political statement, suffice to look at René Burri's Che Guevara portrait: aestetically just a nice portrait, an amazing photo from a photographic point of view if the historical context and political statement is taken in consideration.
People seem to be missing your point that a photo's value/importance etc is due to a combination of context as well as photographic content. Migrant mother or the Che image without the back story, like many iconic images would be far less if at all revered without the back story. Context made them iconic, not the content.
Many photos of famous people would barely merit a second glance without the patina of fame the subject has.
-
... Migrant mother or the Che image without the back story, like many iconic images would be far less if at all revered without the back story. Context made them iconic, not the content...
Says you and diegopig. Art history begs to differ.
Will see how "iconic" those passport photos will become.
-
People seem to be missing your point that a photo's value/importance etc is due to a combination of context as well as photographic content. Migrant mother or the Che image without the back story, like many iconic images would be far less if at all revered without the back story. Context made them iconic, not the content.
Many photos of famous people would barely merit a second glance without the patina of fame the subject has.
To be fair, very few miss this point.
Is that meant to some sort of snide gay slur, as recent posts tend of yours seem to indicate you are a homophobe?
Well, in cases like this I tend to apply the duck heuristic.
You know, that "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck..." thing.
-
Says you and diegopig. Art history begs to differ.
Will see how "iconic" those passport photos will become.
Forgive me , master , for I have sinned.
May your immense knowledge and understanding enlighten this humble disciple.
May your human qualities indicate the right path to illumination.
May your intellectual honesty reveal the truth to us all.
Let us all pray for these and other noble achievements.
And, above all, let us all pray that none of the qualities you're so full of ever hit a fan.
-
I think that the Migrant Mother and the Che images would be less iconic without the backstories to them (givne that to be 'icons' they have to represent something and without knowing who they are what do they 'represent'?). But photographically they still stand up - the migrant mother because the photo itself tells a story; and the Che images because something indefinable about the person comes across through the camera.
A challenge with the DB images is how do you 'show' photographically the pain, humiliation and suffering someone has experienced from discrimination. I see two ways: firstly, if the person has been ostracised because they may have, at the extreme, no work and been living in poverty because of it and you can show that as the 'environment' the person lives in (this is in some ways analgous Migrant Mother where someone has travelled thousands of miles in hope of a better life). Secondly if they have used the discrimination as a motivation to improve themselves, show the trappings of success. Both of those tell you something about the person.
But for me, the DB prize does neither - the back story is the photograph and without the back story the photo is merely (as Slobodan says) a 'portrait photo'.
-
I think that the Migrant Mother and the Che images would be less iconic without the backstories to them (givne that to be 'icons' they have to represent something and without knowing who they are what do they 'represent'?). But photographically they still stand up - the migrant mother because the photo itself tells a story; and the Che images because something indefinable about the person comes across through the camera.
Of course both photo would stand up even without a context, but in that case both would just be "nice photo" at best.
-
A challenge with the DB images is how do you 'show' photographically the pain, humiliation and suffering someone has experienced from discrimination.
I don't think that's the challenge the artist has set herself. You're asking for propaganda (e.g. The Migrant Mother). The artist is refusing that.
-
I don't think that's the challenge the artist has set herself. You're asking for propaganda (e.g. The Migrant Mother). The artist is refusing that.
To quote Majoli herself: "'To be seen means a lot to us,’ Muholi says. 'To show the portraits is a political statement. It means being respected.’"
So if that is not propaganda, what is?
But another quote from that site is: " portraits are accompanied by disturbing stories of sexual violence experienced by many of the subjects."
In other words, the photos need the text and explanation for the portraits to have any impact.
I have absolutely no issue with her project nor her motives, I just question how this project meets DB stated aim to "reward a contemporary photographer of any nationality, who has made the most significant contribution (exhibition or publication) to the medium of photography in Europe in the previous year".
[my emphasis]
She may have made a significant contribution to LGBT rights using portrait photography as a medium but that (IMO) is not the same as making a contribution to the medium of photography. Again, IMO it does not even really represent how photography as an art form can change attitudes - there are many photos that do that far better.
-
She may have made a significant contribution to LGBT rights using portrait photography as a medium but that (IMO) is not the same as making a contribution to the medium of photography. Again, IMO it does not even really represent how photography as an art form can change attitudes - there are many photos that do that far better.
I think a lot depends on what someone means with "medium of photography": if it means something like "the comunication through photography" the contribution is there.
If it means something like "enrichment of photographic expression", I agree there is no contribution.
-
... if it means something like "the comunication through photography" the contribution is there...
If it means that a passport snapshot means "comunication through photography," the contribution is indeed there.
-
If it means that a passport snapshot means "comunication through photography," the contribution is indeed there.
Forgive me , master , for I have sinned.
May your immense knowledge and understanding enlighten this humble disciple.
May your human qualities indicate the right path to illumination.
May your intellectual honesty reveal the truth to us all.
Let us all pray for these and other noble achievements.
And, above all, let us all pray that none of the qualities you're so full of ever hit a fan.
-
The truth is that there are single photographs that stand alone (perhaps abstract), single photographs that are incomplete without context, photographs that have more impact as a series than as single photographs, photographs that are integrated into a text story, photographs that represent historical moments ("iconic") but are not themselves technically or esthetically unique, photographs that ignite or strengthen a social movement (Emmett Till's corpse photograph, published in Jet or Essence forget which; dogs and firehoses being deployed against the Selma marchers, published widely) or propel a government to do something (Carleton Watkin's giant (wet plate) photos of Western wilderness and their effect on the public and on Teddy Roosevelt, resulting in the establishment of the National Parks system).
There are as many opinions on what makes a photograph "important" as there are viewers. I look at the contests as merely highlighting some photographs/photographers of interest to that particular set of judges, and don't expect the judges to mirror my own tastes. I look at contest winning photographs to see new work that may or may not interest me.
-
The truth is that ..
I agree completely.
I look at contest winning photographs to see new work that may or may not interest me.
All that politics motivation doesn't bother you?
(just joking ;))
-
...All that politics motivation doesn't bother you?...
When there is nothing, absolutely nothing BUT a political motivation, yes, it does bother me.
Actually, scratch that... no, it does not bother me that a photographer, as an artist and a human being is saying something that has a political motivation, he/she has every right to do so. What bothers me is a jury usurping its role for political purposes. Two juries in a short time span, that is.
-
Do you...
... you are...
It is quite obvious by now that you and diegopig are consistently trying to derail a discussion about issues into a discussion about MY "issues," whenever your arguments are weak. I won't be dragged into that mud.
-
When there is nothing, absolutely nothing BUT a political motivation, yes, it does bother me.
Forgive me , master , for I have sinned.
May your immense knowledge and understanding enlighten this humble disciple.
May your human qualities indicate the right path to illumination.
May your intellectual honesty reveal the truth to us all.
Let us all pray for these and other noble achievements.
And, above all, let us all pray that none of the qualities you're so full of ever hit a fan.
-
To quote Majoli herself: "'To be seen means a lot to us,’ Muholi says. 'To show the portraits is a political statement. It means being respected.’"
So if that is not propaganda, what is?
I don't doubt her photographs are political. All photographs are political (even the idyllic landscapes that this site venerates). But her photographs are not manipulative in the same way that Eugene Smith's or Dorothea Lange's are manipulative. They are not telling a story which demands a specific emotional response from the viewer. They are deadpan, open. To that extent, they are not propaganda.
-
But her photographs are not manipulative in the same way that Eugene Smith's or Dorothea Lange's are manipulative.
Could you elaborate on this?
-
elliot_n,
All photographs are political (even the idyllic landscapes that this site venerates).
Please can you explain how landscape photographs are political?
-
Could you elaborate on this?
The artful construction of a picture, with painterly references, to elicit a specific emotional response.
-
elliot_n,
Please can you explain how landscape photographs are political?
Just one example. The popular practice of erasing all traces of human activity from landscape photographs (e.g. the cloning out power cables, pylons, contrails etc). This creates a fantasy landscape; a landscape before the fall of man. By erasing culture and technology, the photographer is being political. Landscape photography is a conservative genre, fearful of change and difference.
-
The artful construction of a picture, with painterly references, to elicit a specific emotional response.
Doesn't this apply to almost any good photo?
-
Just one example. The popular practice of erasing all traces of human activity from landscape photographs (e.g. the cloning out power cables, pylons, contrails etc). This creates a fantasy landscape; a landscape before the fall of man. By erasing culture and technology, the photographer is being political. Landscape photography is a conservative genre, fearful of change and difference.
Or maybe pylons and power cables are butt ugly and they don't want them there. By your reckoning, a protrait where someone removes a zit is 'political'.
If they wanted a landscape before man they would clone in a thousand trees to replicate the forests that predated human interference.
Landscape photography is a conservative genre, fearful of change and difference.
Total and utter BS (IMO, of course).
This creates a fantasy landscape
Any post processing, is trying to create fantasy at some level and all photography is therefore political. In fact even taking a photo with a lens that creates a nice dreamy background that the human eye never sees (barring cataracts) is therefore 'political'.
The artful construction of a picture, with painterly references, to elicit a specific emotional response.
Youcon;t get it do you. Majoli is herself trying to elicit an emotional response: one of empathy/sympathy with the victims of discrimination.
-
Or maybe pylons and power cables are butt ugly and they don't want them there.
Isn't considering pylons and power cables "ugly" a political statement?
By your reckoning, a protrait where someone removes a zit is 'political'.
On this I would be on elliot_n side: changing someone's appearance to make it fit some beauty canon is a political statement.
-
Doesn't this apply to almost any good photo?
No. Ed Ruscha etc.
-
No. Ed Ruscha etc.
Why do you think Ed ruscha's photo are not constructed to elicit a specific emotional response?
-
Why do you think Ed ruscha's photo are not constructed to elicit a specific emotional response?
Oh, they are. But they are not artful and they are not painterly.
-
Oh, they are. But they are not artful and they are not painterly.
On the painterly I agree, but I'm not sure they are not artful.
Why do you think they aren't?
-
On the painterly I agree, but I'm not sure they are not artful.
Why do you think they aren't?
Because they are executed according to a conceptual logic (e.g. every building on the sunset strip), which allows no space for the photographer to make 'artful' decisions. (Of course, the whole project is highly artful.)
-
Because they are executed according to a conceptual logic (e.g. every building on the sunset strip), which allows no space for the photographer to make 'artful' decisions. (Of course, the whole project is highly artful.)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
-
The artful construction of a picture, with painterly references, to elicit a specific emotional response.
Soooo...when a picture contains "artful construction, with painterly references, eliciting a specific emotional response," in other words, what many of us consider the very definition of Art, that's not it, it is actually a "manipulative political propaganda." And when it is devoid of any artistic references, but gains its meaning only when the accompanying political text is read, it isn't then a "manipulative propaganda" and gets a prize in an art competition?
Oookaaay then.
-
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Ed Ruscha, and other conceptual artists who used photography (e.g Stephen Shore, between his stint at Warhol's Factory and 'American Surfaces'), were interested in divesting photography of its artfulness (composition, decisive moment etc) and embracing its mechanical nature. They executed projects according to a formal logic that specifically denied them the artistry that had previously been championed by the likes of Stieglitz, Weston and Minor White.
-
Soooo...when a picture contains "artful construction, with painterly references, eliciting a specific emotional response," in other words, what many of us consider the very definition of Art, that's not it, it is actually a "manipulative political propaganda." And when it is devoid of any artistic references, but gains its meaning only when the accompanying political text is read, it isn't then a "manipulative propaganda" and gets a prize in an art competition?
Oookaaay then.
Yup. That's contemporary art for you. Blame Duchamp or Warhol.
-
Ed Ruscha, and other conceptual artists who used photography (e.g Stephen Shore, between his stint at Warhol's Factory and 'American Surfaces'), were interested in divesting photography of its artfulness (composition, decisive moment etc) and embracing its mechanical nature. They executed projects according to a formal logic that specifically denied them the artistry that had previously been championed by the likes of Stieglitz, Weston and Minor White.
Now I get it: you meant that they didn't followed the most common artistic canons of their times.
OK, that's true, but that doesn't make their photos less artful, where "artful" means "showing creative skill or taste".
-
Yup. That's contemporary art for you. Blame Duchamp or Warhol.
Ok, fair enough, I get that part (contemporary vs. classical art). What I do not get is that one is propaganda and the other is not.
-
Ok, fair enough, I get that part (contemporary vs. classical art). What I do not get is that one is propaganda and the other is not.
Well, it's probably all propaganda. I'm just pointing to the 'deadpan' tradition in photography (i.e. the tradition of the 'passport photo' or the artless photo), a tradition which goes all the way back to Atget, through Walker Evans, August Sander, The Bechers, Ed Ruscha, Lewis Baltz, Thomas Ruff etc etc.
-
Isn't considering pylons and power cables "ugly" a political statement?
On this I would be on elliot_n side: changing someone's appearance to make it fit some beauty canon is a political statement.
Oh, boy.
Let's take two views:
someone does not like woman with facial hair so deletes it in photoshop - they are making a political statement
someone likes women with facial hair so empasises that facial hair - they are also making a political statement
That means all photographs are political statements - which means all aesthetics can be construed as a political statement and once you create a philosophy to encapsulate virtually everything the definition itself becomes meaningless.
And please don't respond with this bull about 'photographing them as they really are' because that is impossible and the very production process is impacted by our own beliefs.
As for Ed Ruscha - his very decisions about what colours to use, what lighting to use, how to develop the picture are all artistic decisions. Does this mean he therefore invalidates himself?
-
That means all photographs are political statements - which means all aesthetics can be construed as a political statement and once you create a philosophy to encapsulate virtually everything the definition itself becomes meaningless.
I'm not sure about the latter part, but on the former that's true: all photographs are political statements since they are product of humans being and therefore cannot be devoid of the photographer's values, ideas and opinions.
And you're absolutely right about the bull about "photographing them as they really": it's impossible not only because of the mechanical process but also because the person pressing the shutter (or even just taking a camera for a walk while on autoshot).
But that's hardly a novelty: the "classical arts" also made political statements, we just don't recognized them as such because those statements are not about today world.
As for Ed Ruscha - his very decisions about what colours to use, what lighting to use, how to develop the picture are all artistic decisions. Does this mean he therefore invalidates himself?
Of course not.
-
elliot_n,
Just one example. The popular practice of erasing all traces of human activity from landscape photographs...
Thank you for clarifying.
If evidence of human activity is included in a landscape photograph, what then?
If the landscape that subsequently is captured in a photograph exhibits no trace of human activity, what then?
-
elliot_n,
Thank you for clarifying.
If evidence of human activity is included in a landscape photograph, what then?
It's political. Example: Robert Adams.
If the landscape that subsequently is captured in a photograph exhibits no trace of human activity, what then?
It's political. Example: Thomas Struth's Paradise series.
-
It's political. Example: Robert Adams.
It's political. Example: Thomas Struth's Paradise series.
As I said, if your definition includes everything it becomes meaningless.
But then this is the trend in post-Marxist thinking when people try and develop a self-defeating point of view in an attempt to look insightful. ;)
-
elliot_n,
Thanks again.
-
As I said, if your definition includes everything it becomes meaningless.
Not at all. By understanding that all photographic practice is loaded with ideological assumptions, we can develop a richer understanding of photography.
Removing zits really is political.
-
As I said, if your definition includes everything it becomes meaningless.
But then this is the trend in post-Marxist thinking when people try and develop a self-defeating point of view in an attempt to look insightful. ;)
I'm not sure this is correct.
For example, elliot_n's definition doesn't include what I ate this morning and the reason is I didn't told anyone what I had for breakfast.
And "telling others" vs "NOT telling others" is what discriminate between political and non-political statement, IMHO.
Since photographs are usually meant to be shown, they are political statements in the sense that the photographer want to comunicate to other people what He fells/thinks about something and, therefore, be part of a society.
Those statements may not be so profound as "rights for everyone" or "don't discriminate", yet even "I don't like industrial structures in my shots" is political in nature.
Even NOT shooting certain kinds of subject is a a political statement.
-
Some of our forum members seem to be far better politicians than photographers ;)
-
Some of our forum members seem to be far better politicians than photographers ;)
Forgive me , master , for I have sinned.
May your immense knowledge and understanding enlighten this humble disciple.
May your human qualities indicate the right path to illumination.
May your intellectual honesty reveal the truth to us all.
Let us all pray for these and other noble achievements.
And, above all, let us all pray that none of the qualities you're so full of ever hit a fan.
-
I'm not sure this is correct.
For example, elliot_n's definition doesn't include what I ate this morning and the reason is I didn't told anyone what I had for breakfast.
And "telling others" vs "NOT telling others" is what discriminate between political and non-political statement, IMHO.
Since photographs are usually meant to be shown, they are political statements in the sense that the photographer want to comunicate to other people what He fells/thinks about something and, therefore, be part of a society.
Those statements may not be so profound as "rights for everyone" or "don't discriminate", yet even "I don't like industrial structures in my shots" is political in nature.
Even NOT shooting certain kinds of subject is a a political statement.
If everything is a political statement, all you end up doing is inventing a new term for the word 'art' or 'photograph'. Why bother calling it a political statement and instead call it what everyone else understands, namely: 'taking a photograph' or 'doing something else'?
-
If everything is a political statement, all you end up doing is inventing a new term for the word 'art' or 'photograph'.
Not really: the fact that a photographs is a political statement doesn't means it is only a political statement, so "art" of "photograph" are still needed to describe the non-political facets of a photography.
-
Not really: the fact that a photographs is a political statement doesn't means it is only a political statement, so "art" of "photograph" are still needed to describe the non-political facets of a photography.
You missed my point. Why (in this context) use the term 'political' at all if it covers everything.
-
You missed my point. Why (in this context) use the term 'political' at all if it covers everything.
Because it doesn't covers everything.
The choice of a certain composition for a shot is a political statement, the composition itself is not and therefore two different terms are needed.
The same is true for the color palette, the frame format, the crop and so on.
-
Again, you miss my point.
If the very act of taking any photograph is political, why not just call it 'taking a photograph' and leave the word 'political' to the impact it is intended to have (note that this is a factor of what the artist intends, which isdifferent to what the viewer chooses to read into it).
-
Again, you miss my point.
If the very act of taking any photograph is political, why not just call it 'taking a photograph' and leave the word 'political' to the impact it is intended to have (note that this is a factor of what the artist intends, which isdifferent to what the viewer chooses to read into it).
That's what is usually done: taking a photograph is just called "taking a photograph".
But that doesn't change the fact that taking a photograph is political in nature.
-
After reaching a critical mass of absurdity, threads tend to self-destruct...hopefully.
-
After reaching a critical mass of absurdity, threads tend to self-destruct...hopefully.
Forgive me , master , for I have sinned.
May your immense knowledge and understanding enlighten this humble disciple.
May your human qualities indicate the right path to illumination.
May your intellectual honesty reveal the truth to us all.
Let us all pray for these and other noble achievements.
And, above all, let us all pray that none of the qualities you're so full of ever hit a fan.
-
That's what is usually done: taking a photograph is just called "taking a photograph".
But that doesn't change the fact that taking a photograph is political in nature.
Is that any different to saying 'a zebra is striped'? It is a statement that provides no helpful information to further any discussion - it brings to mind my nephew when he was young decided to answer any question with 'banana'.
I am not being obtuse, just trying to understand why it needs to be said at all and where the comment would take the person saying it.
-
Is that any different to saying 'a zebra is striped'? It is a statement that provides no helpful information to further any discussion - it brings to mind my nephew when he was young decided to answer any question with 'banana'.
I am not being obtuse, just trying to understand why it needs to be said at all and where the comment would take the person saying it.
One of the first thing a novice photographer is asked is: "what are you trying to tell with this photograph?", because understanding the motivation behind a shot is an important step to improve one's photography.
Realizing that any shot is a political statement is exactly that: realizing that "what you're trying to tell" is something both on the world and on yourself and that you're telling that to other people.
From that realization one can start asking many questions: "how can I tell it better?", "how does it get perceived?", "How much truth is in what I'm telling?" and so on.
-
... It is a statement that provides no helpful information to further any discussion... why it needs to be said at all and where the comment would take the person saying it.
Mike, it is meant to be the ultimate put-down, the mother of all rebuttals. One complains about a misuse of arts for political purposes, they say "What's the big deal? All art is political." One complains about propaganda, they say that everything is propaganda. The catch is, once you say everything is political and propaganda, nothing really is, the statement becomes absurd and useless, shutting down any debate. Which, of course, is their ultimate goal, to be left to spread propaganda freely.
-
Realizing that any shot is a political statement is exactly that: realizing that "what you're trying to tell" is something both on the world and on yourself and that you're telling that to other people.
From that realization one can start asking many questions: "how can I tell it better?", "how does it get perceived?", "How much truth is in what I'm telling?" and so on.
This is starting to sound like some third year undergrad trying to sound deep and profound.
Why do you have to 'realise' it is 'political' in order to understand what you are trying to tell other people? I will rephrase your comment:
realizing that "what you're trying to tell" is something both on the world and on yourself and that you're telling that to other people and work out how can I tell it better?", "how does it get perceived?", "How much truth is in what I'm telling?" and so on.
No political Damascene conversion required at all
I don't know if you have read any of Tom Sharpe's humorous novels but a common central theme is a weak timid man being led into comic situation by his infatuation for a strong minded woman. Way back in the 90s he was being interviewed by an art critic and the jist of the discussion was:
Critic: what are you trying to say about society and the relationships between men and women
Sharp: nothing
Critic: surely you must be. All your books have the same basic plot
Sharp: I am not saying anything about society
Critic: you must be saying something
Sharp: Why? I am writing books around a theme I find funny and it seems other people do as well
Critic: but you must be saying something about these relationships because it is a recurring theme
Sharp: No. If you want to read that is OK but that is not why I write these books. I write them because I find the theme funny
Tom sharp said 'I'm not
-
This is starting to sound like some third year undergrad trying to sound deep and profound.
Of maybe this is just an hint that different people see the world in different ways, ways that gives different values to different thing.
Why do you have to 'realise' it is 'political' in order to understand what you are trying to tell other people?
You don't have to: simply some people find it useful both to realise it and to reach such realization.
If you think neither are useful, probably that's true for you.
-
Of necessity, a photograph represents a choice made by the photographer. The photographer may or may not be making the photo to persuade the viewer to hold a certain viewpoint. The viewer may or may not impute a political motive to the photograph and photographer. The context in which the photograph is presented can influence the viewer to consider the photo to be political (or not).
-
The photographer may or may not be making the photo to persuade the viewer to hold a certain viewpoint.
That's true, but that doesn't means the photo is not made to tell a certain viewpoint.
-
That's true, but that doesn't means the photo is not made to tell a certain viewpoint.
The way I see it is:
- I take a photo of a landscape
I don't think pylons are thically pleasing so I remove them
I now have an attractive image of a landscape
The way you see it is:
- you are removing ugly features
there fore you are creating a fantasy landscape
therefore you are making a political statement
The issue I have with that reasoning is that you are ascribing to me a motive that I never had.
Now you may take that image and use it to prove a point to someone else but that is not the reason I took the photo.
Some may also say that I am 'being political' wihout realising it. Personally I find that idea patronising in the extreme and is one common to many with a politically philosophical approach to life.
-
Forgive me , master , for I have sinned.
May your immense knowledge and understanding enlighten this humble disciple.
May your human qualities indicate the right path to illumination.
May your intellectual honesty reveal the truth to us all.
Let us all pray for these and other noble achievements.
And, above all, let us all pray that none of the qualities you're so full of ever hit a fan.
Don't you get as bored repeatedly posting this pointless drivel as the rest us become reading it? It wasn't worth one outing, still less the half dozen it's had.
Jeremy
-
... Some may also say that I am 'being political' wihout realising it. Personally I find that idea patronising in the extreme and is one common to many with a politically philosophical approach to life.
Mike,
You captured the essence of PC liberalism quite nicely. First they re-define what "being political" or this or that term means (to them), then they assign it to you, whether you meant it or not (they always know better), then they attack you for it, and ultimately they'd try to destroy you, "starve you to death," etc., if they can.
-
But another quote from that site is: " portraits are accompanied by disturbing stories of sexual violence experienced by many of the subjects."
In other words, the photos need the text and explanation for the portraits to have any impact.
Or, to put it another way, the photos are snapshots which provide a little illustration to the text.
Jeremy
-
Don't you get as bored repeatedly posting this pointless drivel as the rest us become reading it? It wasn't worth one outing, still less the half dozen it's had.
Jeremy
You think that's not worth reading? Don't read it: the repeating structure is there exactly to let people what it is at first glance.
-
The way I see it is:
- I take a photo of a landscape
I don't think pylons are thically pleasing so I remove them
I now have an attractive image of a landscape
The way you see it is:
- you are removing ugly features
there fore you are creating a fantasy landscape
therefore you are making a political statement
The issue I have with that reasoning is that you are ascribing to me a motive that I never had.
Now you may take that image and use it to prove a point to someone else but that is not the reason I took the photo.
Some may also say that I am 'being political' wihout realising it. Personally I find that idea patronising in the extreme and is one common to many with a politically philosophical approach to life.
The problem is "The way you see it is" part, because that's not the way I see it.
The way I see it is this: you dont' think pylons are aesthetically pleasing so you remove them.
From this you tell me something about your personal tastes on what is pleasing and what is not in a landscape, tastes based on your opinions.
So I don't think you're creating a fantasy landscape: I think you're putting something of your ideas and opinions and values on the landscape shot you're taking.
I took this shot (https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/11229207005/) three years ago.
What do you think is my opinion on the beauty of utility pole and on "technology" in general?
-
Also it's long-winded, we can get to the point much sooner with -- There you go again.
Same to you.
short enough?
-
To those who have taken offence at Zanele Muholi being nominated for the Deutsche Börse Prize - who would you have nominated instead?
-
Short but too aggressive. Shorter and with an appropriately uninterested tone -- Whatever.
WC maybe?
-
To those who have taken offence at Zanele Muholi being nominated for the Deutsche Börse Prize - who would you have nominated instead?
That's a fertile question.
-
Only if sent from your phone.
I'll stick to the poem, then.
-
I'll stick with There you go again.
-
I'll stick with There you go again.
Fair enough
-
The issue I have with that reasoning is that you are ascribing to me a motive that I never had.
Well, images are under-determined hence -- "No photograph should need a caption, but every photograph must have one."
Some may also say that I am 'being political' wihout realising it. Personally I find that idea patronising in the extreme and is one common to many with a politically philosophical approach to life.
Perhaps it would be less patronizing to phrase that as "being political" without paying attention to it.
These do seem to be philosophy of art questions and I see that in a few weeks I'll reach the chapter on "Art and Society: A Neomarxist Perspective (https://books.google.com/books?id=8nssGF_PP9MC&lpg=PR1&dq=thinking%20art&pg=PA167#v=snippet&q=%22A%20Neomarxist%20perspective%22&f=false)" :-)
-
So I don't think you're creating a fantasy landscape: I think you're putting something of your ideas and opinions and values on the landscape shot you're taking.
Now that is an interpretation I agree with :D
-
Now that is an interpretation I agree with :D
I'm glad we agree at least on something ;D
-
Isaac,
"No photograph should need a caption, but every photograph must have one."
Does the above originate from you? If not, I would be grateful if you will provide me with the relevant details.
-
"One of Life magazine's great picture editors, Wilson Hicks (https://books.google.com/books?id=Ggk_lMRquuIC&lpg=SA2-PA3&ots=kSqg0Wcyb1&dq=%22No%20photograph%20should%20need%20a%20caption%2C%20but%20every%20photograph%20must%20have%20one.%22&pg=SA2-PA4#v=onepage&q=%22No%20photograph%20should%20need%20a%20caption,%20but%20every%20photograph%20must%20have%20one.%22&f=false)…"
(Harry Evans comes to mind, but I guess I'm just wrong and it wasn't him.)
-
Thank you Isaac.
-
The show opens to the public tomorrow (The Photographers' Gallery, London). Here's Sean O'Hagan's review in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/apr/15/deutsche-borse-photography-prize-2015-photographers-gallery-review
-
To those who have taken offence at Zanele Muholi being nominated for the Deutsche Börse Prize - who would you have nominated instead?
Well, I'll admit that I have not seen all the entries in order to answer that question properly, but if the best they have is what is referred in the Guardian article, I would have declared the contest deserted
-
Well, I'll admit that I have not seen all the entries in order to answer that question properly, but if the best they have is what is referred in the Guardian article, I would have declared the contest deserted
What kind of photo do you think should win?
-
I popped in to The Photographers' Gallery at lunchtime. It's a great show - four very different artists, all deserving of the prize. I think Zanele Muholi will win it. She's showing 60 portraits, each printed 2ft x 3ft, displayed in a grid. Her subjects face the camera with a calm, unflinching gaze. These are no more 'passport photos' than the work of August Sander or Richard Avedon. The book (for which she has been nominated) is also on display. It contains hundreds of portraits and many personal testimonies (mainly on the subject of 'curative rape'). Yes, you need to read some of the stories to understand the full import of the work, but I don't think this invalidates the project.
-
Well, finally a comment from someone who has seen the exhibition. Thank you.
-
OVERLOOKED AT WORLD PRESS PHOTO, DANIEL BEREHULAK WINS 2015 PULITZER PRIZE IN FEATURE PHOTOGRAPHY (http://www.americanphotomag.com/overlooked-world-press-photo-daniel-berehulak-wins-2015-pulitzer-prize-feature-photography?cmpid=enews042415&spPodID=020&spMailingID=7692355&spUserID=Mjc5MzQ4OTQ3MTES1&spJobID=662376243&spReportId=NjYyMzc2MjQzS0)
-
Well deserved.
I may indulge in a bit of home-town boosterism and point out that the breaking-news Pulitzer went to photographers (multiple) of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for coverage of Ferguson.
-
Now that is a set worthy of any competiton headline
-
A good review:
http://www.disphotic.com/review-the-deutsche-borse-prize-2015-at-the-photographers-gallery/
-
Or, to put it another way, the photos are snapshots which provide a little illustration to the text.
-
Except that everyone brings their own context with them when they look at a photograph, so something has to be done to anchor the context --
"No photograph should need a caption, but every photograph must have one."
("One of Life magazine's great picture editors, Wilson Hicks (https://books.google.com/books?id=Ggk_lMRquuIC&lpg=SA2-PA3&ots=kSqg0Wcyb1&dq=%22No%20photograph%20should%20need%20a%20caption%2C%20but%20every%20photograph%20must%20have%20one.%22&pg=SA2-PA4#v=onepage&q=%22No%20photograph%20should%20need%20a%20caption,%20but%20every%20photograph%20must%20have%20one.%22&f=false)…")
-
There's more to photography than sight gags.
Both the Ebola story and the South African homophobia story need words as well as pictures.
-
There's more to photography than sight gags.
Both the Ebola story and the South African homophobia story need words as well as pictures.
The South African story needed words, certainly; but did it need pictures?
Jeremy
-
...Both the Ebola story and the South African homophobia story need words as well as pictures.
Right... for instance, if I saw this I would have had absolutely no clue what's going on (if I lived under a rock, that is):
-
The South African story needed words, certainly; but did it need pictures?
Perhaps, but not those. If someone captured the attacks, or the aftermath, injuries, then yes, it would help the story. Showing model-like youths hardly helps. The equivalent in the Ebola story would be if they showed that 8-year boy in his picture-day school photo.
-
Right, if it bleeds it leads.
For me it's not so clear what is going on in that picture (is the boy dead?)
I'd also question the ethics of some of the pictures (e.g. this one, and also the delirious 16 year old girl, photographed three hours before she dies.)
But it's a powerful story, no doubt.
-
One can also argue that members of stigmatized groups deserve to be seen as they would like to present themselves, as well as being seen as "problems". Both are valid, and the balance is useful. Speaking of which, Book Forum had a recent review/essay on Gordon Parks and one of his extended photoessays in Life magazine.
-
It is quite obvious by now that you and diegopig are consistently trying to derail a discussion about issues into a discussion about MY "issues," whenever your arguments are weak. I won't be dragged into that mud.
No the mud being discussed is what you like to sling at others. It is germane to as you seem to have an anti-gay agenda and seeing as the photos being discussed are a reaction to such bigoted and ignorant behaviour......
Basically if someone won't simply come out and say they are not a bigot [when asked directly] against say blacks, jews or in this case gays, then that is as much an admission of guilt as them saying 'Yes yes I am a bigot'.
-
I don't know if you have read any of Tom Sharpe's humorous novels but a common central theme is a weak timid man being led into comic situation by his infatuation for a strong minded woman. Way back in the 90s he was being interviewed by an art critic and the jist of the discussion was:
Critic: what are you trying to say about society and the relationships between men and women
Sharp: nothing
Critic: surely you must be. All your books have the same basic plot
Sharp: I am not saying anything about society
Critic: you must be saying something
Sharp: Why? I am writing books around a theme I find funny and it seems other people do as well
Critic: but you must be saying something about these relationships because it is a recurring theme
Sharp: No. If you want to read that is OK but that is not why I write these books. I write them because I find the theme funny
That reminds me of some pompous prose captioning a Mapplethorpe photograph in a recent retrospective. The caption was alluding to some great meaning and depth as to why the subjects were positioned as they were in the photo. It never occurred to them it may simply have been because it looked good, which it did as the positioning made for a nice composition.
Critics seem to want to find a deeper meaning to artists work as they hope that makes them look smart and they overlook a major, if not the major reason people create art - to create something that others like or find pleasing. Even those who like to create so called 'difficult work' appreciate the minority who do like their work, despite it not being populist.
-
The way I see it is:
- I take a photo of a landscape
I don't think pylons are thically pleasing so I remove them
I now have an attractive image of a landscape
The way you see it is:
- you are removing ugly features
there fore you are creating a fantasy landscape
therefore you are making a political statement
The issue I have with that reasoning is that you are ascribing to me a motive that I never had.
Now you may take that image and use it to prove a point to someone else but that is not the reason I took the photo.
Some may also say that I am 'being political' wihout realising it. Personally I find that idea patronising in the extreme and is one common to many with a politically philosophical approach to life.
When people talk about other's motivation for doing things, what they normally reveal is their only own reasons for doing 'xyz', which may have nothing to do with the reasons of the people they are commenting on. For example.....
Mike,
You captured the essence of PC liberalism quite nicely. First they re-define what "being political" or this or that term means (to them), then they assign it to you, whether you meant it or not (they always know better), then they attack you for it, and ultimately they'd try to destroy you, "starve you to death," etc., if they can.
No Mike did not. He simply explained a common problem when humans of any background, whether it be political, cultural religious judge others by projecting themselves and their motivations onto others.
Just as your post simply reveals you have anti PC/Liberalism biases and pretty much nothing else.
Due to people second guessing me all my life and with very few exceptions getting it completely wrong, I quickly learnt never to assume that my reasoning for doing something may be the reason others do something.
-
I popped in to The Photographers' Gallery at lunchtime. It's a great show - four very different artists, all deserving of the prize. I think Zanele Muholi will win it. She's showing 60 portraits, each printed 2ft x 3ft, displayed in a grid. Her subjects face the camera with a calm, unflinching gaze. These are no more 'passport photos' than the work of August Sander or Richard Avedon. The book (for which she has been nominated) is also on display. It contains hundreds of portraits and many personal testimonies (mainly on the subject of 'curative rape'). Yes, you need to read some of the stories to understand the full import of the work, but I don't think this invalidates the project.
Nice to see an informed as opposed to a knee jerk response, whether positive or negative.
Something I said on in another thread was that before you pass judgment on any art, it is important to see it in the flesh and in the context as the artist intended it. Also...
"....because reproductions rarely do any art justice. I recall seeing a war photo in a the Manchester Art Gallery a few years back, one that I'd seen it several times in magazines before that, but didn't do that much for me. But seeing the actual print with it's rich tonality gave the photo a depth than was missing before and it was now a powerful and quite moving image. So go see some Gursky in the flesh, so at least then you can dislike it accurately. ;)"
-
Basically if someone won't simply come out and say they are not a bigot [when asked directly] against say blacks, jews or in this case gays, then that is as much an admission of guilt as them saying 'Yes yes I am a bigot'.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
-
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
The definition you link didn't support what you're saying.
-
…then that is as much an admission of guilt…
"a presumption built into it"
-
"a presumption built into it"
A presumption [of guilt] built into what?
If you mean "into the homphobe/racist/antisemitic word", I agree.
If you mean "into the question" I don't.
-
Sorry, I've exhausted my interest in what you do or do not understand.
Whatever.
-
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
Not relevant to my very straightforward question. It was not a loaded question at all, if you are not against gays you simply say so and no 'guilt' is involved which is what I would do.
If however you are antigay you either honestly admit it it or avoid the question as Slobodan has done.
Plus there was a reason for asking the question, Slobodan's attitude seems quite hostile to gay people so asking if he is a homophobe is completely in context. He's already been a remarkably nasty misogynist on LuLa, so hatred of others unlike him won't exactly be a surprise.
-
Basically if someone won't simply come out and say they are not a bigot [when asked directly] against say blacks, jews or in this case gays, then that is as much an admission of guilt as them saying 'Yes yes I am a bigot'.
Completely ridiculous assertion. Presumes that bigots would have qualms about lying in the situation you described, and would dodge the question rather than lie.
"Are you a bigot?"
"No."
Proves what, exactly?
"Are you a bigot?"
(silence)
Proves what, exactly?
-
Basically if someone won't simply come out and say they are not a bigot…
…they simply have no reason to answer your personal attacks.
It was not a loaded question at all…
In the courtroom of your mind -where you are accuser, judge and jury - "the accused" is apparently guilty by default.
-
Not relevant to my very straightforward question. It was not a loaded question at all, if you are not against gays you simply say so and no 'guilt' is involved which is what I would do.
Completely ridiculous assertion. Presumes that bigots would have qualms about lying in the situation you described, and would dodge the question rather than lie.
"Are you a bigot?"
"No."
Proves what, exactly?
"Are you a bigot?"
(silence)
Proves what, exactly?
For some "Are you X?" it's a loaded question because:
1) X in socially unaccettable
2) the question is public
3) the asked person's circle of acquaintances is made of people who are X.
So if He answer "NO" he's guilty in the eyes of his circle of acquaintances.
If He answer "YES" he's guilty in the eyes of the public.
That's why "Are you an Homophobe" is a provocation for someone.
-
The suffix 'phobe' is banded around far too easily and readily used as a way of ending debate.
Someone may disagree with (to use the current example) homosexual practices on religious but that doesnt mean they are homophobe. Just like there are some people whose business practices i do not like but I quite enjoy their company in a social situation. And in that context the question 'are you a homophobe' is far too loaded because it can mean different things to the questioner and the questioned. At worst, it is used by the questioner to draw the conclusion 'you are a xxxxphobe therefore an obnoxious person therefore your commentsare invalid and I dont have to explain my own biases'. As such a refusal to answer is sometimes the best option lest the main discussion gets divrted.
-
The suffix 'phobe' is banded around far too easily and readily used as a way of ending debate.
Someone may disagree with (to use the current example) homosexual practices on religious but that doesnt mean they are homophobe.
I agree with this.
And yet, for some strange kind of fashion, those who disagree with homosexual practices are very very often too keen to oppose LGBT rights (like non-discrimination laws, same-sex marriage, same-sex parenting) and equally keen to support harmful practices like conversion therapy.
So branding like "homophone" someone who disagree with homosexual practices makes statistical sense: doing so one may be wrong but is usually right.
And in that context the question 'are you a homophobe' is far too loaded because it can mean different things to the questioner and the questioned.
Just unload the question by asking what the questioner means with "homophobe".
At worst, it is used by the questioner to draw the conclusion 'you are a xxxxphobe therefore an obnoxious person therefore your commentsare invalid and I dont have to explain my own biases'. As such a refusal to answer is sometimes the best option lest the main discussion gets divrted.
The expression "eloquent silence" comes to mind.
-
...So branding like "homophone" someone....
Yes, I am probably a homophone...when walking and talking on my phone at the same time.
Given that every man, woman and child either already has or soon will have a phone as an extension of their hands, and they are using it while walking, driving, eating, making love...using it in cars, beds, cinemas, schools, during national anthem...it is fair to say that we are all progressing from homo sapiens to homophones.
-
There are people who think they're smart.
Yet, they can't answer a simple question.
They usually are the same people who think they're funny but don't realize they're just laughing stocks.
-
There are people who think they're smart.
Yet, they can't answer a simple question...
Ok, here is a simple question for you:
"Are you that stupid?"
Yes or no?
-
Enough already!
Whatever
-
Dear me. So we should not dare to question people who appear to acting in a bigoted way and have a history of abusive posting and denigrating others.
The suffix 'phobe' is banded around far too easily and readily used as a way of ending debate.
It's simply a relevant question to simply see where someone is coming from, people getting antsy about asking such a thing is rather pathetic.
Someone may disagree with (to use the current example) homosexual practices on religious but that doesnt mean they are homophobe.
So if I dislike people because they are black because my church said it was OK to do so, I'm not a racist then? ::)
Just like there are some people whose business practices i do not like but I quite enjoy their company in a social situation. And in that context the question 'are you a homophobe' is far too loaded because it can mean different things to the questioner and the questioned.
No it has a very simple meaning, "Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
At worst, it is used by the questioner to draw the conclusion 'you are a xxxxphobe therefore an obnoxious person therefore your commentsare invalid and I dont have to explain my own biases'.
Well a bigot by definition is pretty obnoxious/stupid. Biases are also quite different from bigotry and neither does admitting to bigotry necessarily make someone's comments invalid. Giving them context, certainly.
As such a refusal to answer is sometimes the best option lest the main discussion gets divrted.
Really, so how do you think that is working then?
-
BTW this is a loaded question for those like Isaac who doesn't seem to understand the very thing he brought up.
When did you stop beating your wife?
This isn't
Did you beat your wife?
My question was akin to the latter phrasing. If my question was indeed loaded, it would had to have been something like "How long have you had homophobic tendencies?"
-
....people getting antsy about asking such a thing is rather pathetic.
Let me tell you, I find it very heartwarming because it means these people are ashamed of themselves.
-
Not necessarily as bigots have no shame.
-
Not necessarily as bigots have no shame.
If it was the case you would have a clear answer every time.
-
My question was akin to the latter phrasing.
Your personal attack was akin to this nonsense -- If someone won't say they are not a wife beater, then that is as much an admission of guilt as them saying 'Yes yes I am a wife beater'.
-
So many words to justify the lack of a simple answer. How strange...
-
Your personal attack was akin to this nonsense -- If someone won't say they are not a wife beater, then that is as much an admission of guilt as them saying 'Yes yes I am a wife beater'.
Firstly it was not a personal attack, it was simply trying to understand whether that was the reason for many of Slobodan's remarks objecting to press coverage of gay bashing and homophobia. Whether he admits it or not isn't really going to change my opinion of him as it happens.
Secondly, you are forgetting context. If someone's wife repeatedly exhibits injuries consistent with physical assault and you ask them are they a wife beater and they dodge the question rather than simply say no or maybe explain that she's a competitive cage fighter, which if you are innocent [or indeed guilty and want to put question to rest] saying no is simply what you would do.