Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: fike on November 06, 2013, 02:49:05 pm
-
http://petapixel.com/2013/11/06/white-guy-photography/
This article resonated with me in a lot of ways. I thought others here might find it interesting too.
I have to say that when I hear of some other twenty-something guy with a van and $20,00 worth of camera gear heading out to do a photo project that I do mumble something to myself about trust-fund kiddies. Some rich white people (usually men) feel like it is their manifest destiny to interpret the world for others. The wealthy can be quite patronizing because their economic advantage seems to validate their actions. I know that the perspective I am advancing is oversimplified and reductive. I know that it is an unfair generalization. But "cultural documentary photography" like we are seeing so much has a tiresome point of view...and that is coming from a white guy who takes these photos and who would be called rich by many.
The critiques that sting the most are the ones that you take personally. I take this one personally, but not in an angry or defensive way. I take it more as a call to rethink my perspective and to seek a new voice. What voice that might be, I don't really know. I'll tell you when I find it.
-
Is often said that everything that can be photographed, has been photographed already. I thought the same goes for rants, especially in an era of blogs and web posts. But no, apparently there is a drought of subjects to rant about, hence this scrapping the bottom of the barrel for new subjects. White-guy photography?! Seriously!? Give me a break!
-
Why would you "rethink your perspective?" My belief is that your perspective (or Michael's, or Ansel's, or mine) has value specifically because it is yours - not anyone else's. Yes, fate may have brought us all into the "rich white guy" category, but so what? Our perspectives don't lose value because we are among the fortunate. They are not the only perspectives, not better than other perspectives, but they are ours!
-
Is often said that everything that can be photographed, has been photographed already. I thought the same goes for rants, especially in an era of blogs and web posts. But no, apparently there is a drought of subjects to rant about, hence this scrapping the bottom of the barrel for new subjects. White-guy photography?! Seriously!? Give me a break!
+1
-
Why would you "rethink your perspective?" My belief is that your perspective (or Michael's, or Ansel's, or mine) has value specifically because it is yours - not anyone else's. Yes, fate may have brought us all into the "rich white guy" category, but so what? Our perspectives don't lose value because we are among the fortunate. They are not the only perspectives, not better than other perspectives, but they are ours!
Totally +1
-
Rich? By whose standards?
The one obvious thing that I took from the article is something the writer proclaims time after time: he's tired.
I do agree, though, that it's a bit unpleasant to do trawls into the deprived areas of humanity - even the other photographic saint, RA, Richard A to some, didn't hestitate to roam the States shooting misfits and unfortunates - and he was a rich white cat, one using a rich white cat's portable white background system.
As unpleasant, to me, is the snapping of our own apparently homeless, even if they allow one to do it and one tips them. Actually, I despise the whole tipping ethic as being an offensive acceptance and demonstration of belief of the tippee's inferior social position. Folks should get paid what the job is worth. If I am to pay an additional 10 to 15 percent above the price of my meal via a tip, I'd feel far better simply accepting that included percentage as the listed price of the meal, and not have the moral burden on my shoulders of leaving it, the tip, under the plate. Worse those establishments that claim service is included but, magically, that somehow doesn't include tips!
We don't need Macjobs; we need real ones.
Rob C
-
I know it's a cultural thing entirely, but here tips are for good or exceptional service - something beyond the basic standard expected in the circumstances. There's no feeling of class in it as a result, it's just a case of rewarding performance.
-
I too noticed the 'tired' word as significant. When you have been doing/aware of photography for a long time there does seem to be an overuse of some styles and themes. But you just learn to ignore what doesn't interest you. Photography is a personal thing and is unlimited in it's scope - so just get out and shoot what moves you (not speaking to anyone in particular here). Just as there are thousands of cliched books and paintings, so too with photography. Everyone brings their own history and experiences into their photography and the viewer has to realise that the picture in front of them is not the only reality, but the reality as seen, or portrayed, by the photographer.
We're all telling a story with our pictures - and it pays to remember that when looking at the work of others.
Jim
-
Cultural expression does seem to come in waves. Weren't there suddenly a lot of US-based novels a few years back written about or from the point of view of the down-at-heel homeless? I seem to remember reading an article about it, the trend may even have had a name. If I read one more novel of angst about a middle-aged college professor who has an affair with a graduate student that ends badly, well, I'll do what I did with the last one, not finish it. I'd like to read a novel in which the two of them have a roaring bloody good time then part company amicably, all the richer for the experience; I bet that happens too. I'd like to read about about a divorce where both parties are so happy and relieved that it's over that their lives improve a thousand-fold afterward.
There may be so many photo projects out there of the type described in the rant that they risk becoming clichés. I know there's a small cottage industry photographing what's happening to Detroit, and yet I have not tired of looking at them yet. Maybe there are so many people doing this kind of work because there's a lot of that decay around, and maybe it's important to know that. Maybe the practitioners aren't always as original as critics would like. Maybe there's a new way to approach it, or maybe making urban decay hipster art is a tricky thing to do, and a lot of people fail at it. But a lot of people fail at a lot of things, or maybe it's just that you can always find a critic that will call any project a failure. Frankly, I don't know enough about it to make a general judgement. It seems to me that you can only judge each project on its own merits. And no matter how good it is, or how much you like it, there will be someone who feels differently.
-
Whoa....
The Petapixel piece is....ridiculous. How about if I write something critical of Latino photographers spending too much time 'self-indulgently' documenting Latino culture? How would that strike you?
“Care about what other people think and you will always be their prisoner.”
― Lao Tzu
-
Of course, this is nothing new, but it can be done well or done poorly. Here is an example that I think represents doing cultural studies of marginalized people with care and sensitivity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Us_Now_Praise_Famous_Men
I agree that photographing homeless folks is of dubious value and ethics, particularly when you tip them for the "privilege." The same thing goes for westerners behaving similarly in aboriginal regions throughout the world.
-
... I agree that photographing homeless folks is of dubious value and ethics...
Should we rather pretend they do not exist? Or shall we assume that those homeless guys we saw in person once or twice in our life are somehow an exception, that homelessness is not a huge, widespread stain on our affluent civilization?
If someone wouldn't photograph them, how else would we know? Maybe we should organize weekend safaris or walking tours instead, through parts of our cities we otherwise would not dare (or bother) to visit?
P.S. For those interested in phenomenal photography and youth homelessness, Netflix is airing the third season of The Killing, a dark, dark crime drama, situated in Seattle. One of the best crime series on TV, in my humble opinion. Did I mention the photography is phenomenal? And that it is dark? Both in terms of the story and scene lighting, with incredibly blocked shadows and dark (again) negative space.
-
Should we rather pretend they do not exist? Or shall we assume that those homeless guys we saw in person once or twice in our life are somehow an exception, that homelessness is not a huge, widespread stain on our affluent civilization?
If someone wouldn't photograph them, how else would we know? Maybe we should organize weekend safaris or walking tours instead, through parts of our cities we otherwise would not dare (or bother) to visit?
Sometimes there is just a thin line between documentary and poverty porn.
I believe the attitude of the involved persons - photographer and subject -
both play a role.
In my opinion the question is not so much ~if to shoot, but ~how.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Should we rather pretend they do not exist? Or shall we assume that those homeless guys we saw in person once or twice in our life are somehow an exception, that homelessness is not a huge, widespread stain on our affluent civilization?
If someone wouldn't photograph them, how else would we know? Maybe we should organize weekend safaris or walking tours instead, through parts of our cities we otherwise would not dare (or bother) to visit?
P.S. For those interested in phenomenal photography and youth homelessness, Netflix is airing the third season of The Killing, a dark, dark crime drama, situated in Seattle. One of the best crime series on TV, in my humble opinion. Did I mention the photography is phenomenal? And that it is dark? Both in terms of the story and scene lighting, with incredibly blocked shadows and dark (again) negative space.
But Slobodan, they have always existed and everybody knows that. Just walk in any city and if you take your eyes off the swaying ass in front of you all is revealed in the doorways and under the ramps to the car parks. (Revelations not of the swingin’ ass, but of the poverty and personal decay.)
And neither can I accept a general sense of pity for those guys. A lot seem to have found themselves there because of themselves; we have some similar expat drifters out here, and they all seem to find the dough for beer after beer, which is possibly why they are in the shit in the first place.
Rob C
-
Should we rather pretend they do not exist? Or shall we assume that those homeless guys we saw in person once or twice in our life are somehow an exception, that homelessness is not a huge, widespread stain on our affluent civilization?
...
No. But if you are not critical of your own motivation for photographing people and the affect of the photographs on them, you risk being exploitive of the homeless, or the impoverished, or tribal/aboriginal people.
-
What many people don't know is the rate of severe psychic disorders amongst homeless people.
Chronic schizophrenia (around 7% with 10% lifetime prevalence) , clinical depression (over 30 %),
Alcoholism. Of course they have their own responsibility, but many simply were overstrained with their fates.
There is totally no reason to look down on these people.
-
But Slobodan, they have always existed and everybody knows that...
... I agree with much he says, violently disagree with some he says...
And exactly how is it that "everybody knows" that? That is exactly the part I am disputing. Without seeing it in photographs, TV, movies?
If you are not well travelled, you chances of seeing it in person are slim. And remember, in contrast to the two of us, most Americans have never ventured beyond their county (no, not 'country,' but indeed 'county' and even city). Here, in Chicago, in the areas of the city I (and my daughter) walk around, you will definitely not see it. A few panhandlers, perhaps, but even that is a rare sight, quickly removed by the police. In the areas they congregate, I do not dare to go, especially not with with my daughter. So, how would she know about it? Even in our little suburban middle-class haven, 40 miles outside of Chicago, there was only one guy, whose existence, tolerated for years by the city, served to perpetuate the illusion that it is an isolated case. So, my daughter is growing up seeing exactly one (1) real-life case. And to make things worse, he was the type you like to believe is the norm, rather than exception: he appeared to have chosen that life deliberately, probably due to border-case mental issues.
So, once again, how is she going to know the true story of homelessness in America? Which is far, far, from the self-imposed or deserved as you choose to believe.
-
If you are not well travelled, you chances of seeing it in person are slim. And remember, in contrast to the two of us, most Americans have never ventured beyond their county (no, not 'country,' but indeed 'county' and even city).
Really? I know that's the conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's very accurate these days. I have 8 employees. Every one of them has spent significant time in other countries. Four of us even lived in other countries for at least several years, including my 3 years in Tokyo. We work for a school district in a medium sized town in New Mexico, not noted for being on the cutting edge of cosmopolitan culture or wealth...
We also have a whole tent camp of homeless people that are sanctioned by our city government. I've interacted with some of them, and they all had obvious mental issues (The homeless people I mean, the city government people appear to have possible mental issues of their own, but maybe not as obvious).
There's a public park across from my house where for the last several months, one of the homeless men has come nearly every day to yell religious pronouncements at the top of his lungs. He dresses as a woman. No way I'm taking photos of that guy.
-
(Rich) white-guy pacifiers: homeless are crazy and unemployed are lazy.
-
And exactly how is it that "everybody knows" that? That is exactly the part I am disputing. Without seeing it in photographs, TV, movies?
If you are not well travelled, you chances of seeing it in person are slim. And remember, in contrast to the two of us, most Americans have never ventured beyond their county (no, not 'country,' but indeed 'county' and even city). Here, in Chicago, in the areas of the city I (and my daughter) walk around, you will definitely not see it. A few panhandlers, perhaps, but even that is a rare sight, quickly removed by the police. In the areas they congregate, I do not dare to go, especially not with with my daughter. So, how would she know about it? Even in our little suburban middle-class haven, 40 miles outside of Chicago, there was only one guy, whose existence, tolerated for years by the city, served to perpetuate the illusion that it is an isolated case. So, my daughter is growing up seeing exactly one (1) real-life case. And to make things worse, he was the type you like to believe is the norm, rather than exception: he appeared to have chosen that life deliberately, probably due to border-case mental issues.
So, once again, how is she going to know the true story of homelessness in America? Which is far, far, from the self-imposed or deserved as you choose to believe.
Never been to the Windy City, but every city in Britain that I've seen has and always seems to have had its share of bums and drifters. They are in the city centres in droves at night, and it's quite scary coming out of a restaurant and finding them sitting up against the wall, bottle or can in hand, watching you look for your car or a cab. Mallorca is no different, and I'd keep out of Palma at night, too.
I can obviously point to zones where these guys don't exist; there weren't any where I lived, either, but they still existed all over the city centre, five miles away; that's where folks beg and there's human traffic to hit on - there are no pickings in the suburbs, only cops and dodgy pet Alsatians and Labradors... I suppose Chi is just the same, and 40 miles is the distance between Glasgow and Edinburgh, our two big cities! Your local sense of scale is something very else.
;-)
Rob C
-
(Rich) white-guy pacifiers: homeless are crazy and unemployed are lazy.
Well, you could be right. Screaming transvestite guy could be completely sane, and industrious. Perhaps he's conducting research of some kind.
-
If you are not well travelled, you chances of seeing it in person are slim. And remember, in contrast to the two of us, most Americans have never ventured beyond their county (no, not 'country,' but indeed 'county' and even city).
Oh come on, Slobodan! First of all, the U.S. is full of people who spent time in the military and traveled all over the world. They, and I, have seen terrible poverty in places like wartime Korea -- always brought on by politics of one kind or another. But I can walk downtown in Colorado Springs and see several hoboes in every block. There's a soup kitchen in the middle of town for cat's sake.
No, I don't think people are homeless because they want to be. Some simply have lost their jobs and their homes. But most of the "homeless" I see on the streets around here are people who, before the sixties, would have resided in institutions where they could be adequately fed, housed, and medicated. One poor lady in particular sits hunched over on the base of one light post or another all day long and stares at the sidewalk. Why is this poor woman out on the street instead of in a facility that can care for her? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind of windy "progressives" who, in the sixties, decided we were violating the civil rights of these poor sods by insisting they be cared for -- yes, forcibly. Of course those morons will never admit their heartlessness. They're convinced they were doing good.
-
Is often said that everything that can be photographed, has been photographed already. I thought the same goes for rants, especially in an era of blogs and web posts. But no, apparently there is a drought of subjects to rant about, hence this scrapping the bottom of the barrel for new subjects. White-guy photography?! Seriously!? Give me a break!
Well spoken post.
Yes, most has been done before...but we keep on blasting away...it is in our blood.
-
Should we rather pretend they do not exist? Or shall we assume that those homeless guys we saw in person once or twice in our life are somehow an exception, that homelessness is not a huge, widespread stain on our affluent civilization?
If someone wouldn't photograph them, how else would we know? Maybe we should organize weekend safaris or walking tours instead, through parts of our cities we otherwise would not dare (or bother) to visit?
P.S. For those interested in phenomenal photography and youth homelessness, Netflix is airing the third season of The Killing, a dark, dark crime drama, situated in Seattle. One of the best crime series on TV, in my humble opinion. Did I mention the photography is phenomenal? And that it is dark? Both in terms of the story and scene lighting, with incredibly blocked shadows and dark (again) negative space.
Yes, it is good to photograph whatever is on the street if you are a social documentary photographer. Looks like many of you quit before you start. too many 'don't do this and don't do that' running around in your head. I don't shoot that many homeless, I shoot all sort of things. But when I do take a good iconic shot of a tramp or homeless person, many times it will end up in a museum or institution.
http://www.artslant.com/ew/works/show/691522
http://www.artslant.com/ew/works/show/691524
http://www.artslant.com/ew/works/show/691526
http://www.artslant.com/ew/works/show/693463
http://www.artslant.com/ew/works/show/693474
http://www.artslant.com/ew/works/show/693481
...these people are all dead...but their images will live on. I can pay them no higher honor.
-
Why is this poor woman out on the street instead of in a facility that can care for her? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind of windy "progressives" who, in the sixties, decided we were violating the civil rights of these poor sods by insisting they be cared for -- yes, forcibly. Of course those morons will never admit their heartlessness. They're convinced they were doing good.
Yes -- "To make matters worse, civil liberties lawyers frequently defended the rights of mentally ill prisoners to refuse medication and remain psychotic."
Yes -- "By the time Ronald Reagan assumed the governorship in 1967, California had already deinstitutionalized more than half of its state hospital patients."
And yes -- "With President Reagan and the Republicans taking over, the Mental Health Systems Act was discarded before the ink had dried (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/) and the CMHC funds were simply block granted to the states."
-
Oh come on, Slobodan! First of all, the U.S. is full of people who spent time in the military and traveled all over the world...
That does not make you a majority. You will notice that I used the term 'most' Americans. Both you and misirlou are educated enough to understand that your anecdotal evidence counts as those "exceptions that prove the rule," at best.
But lets see how numerous are your "well-traveled" Americans. In 2011, according to a...
... spokesperson for the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the US State Department. Over one-third of the population to be exact, or nearly 110 million out of 313 million Americans. That’s more than double the number of US passports in circulation in 2000 (48 million) and around 15 times 1989’s 7 million. At that last number (under 3 percent of Americans)...
So, from under 3% up to 33% in the last twenty years. Impressive growth, but hardly to invalidate my 'most' Americans (ie, 67%).
However, these are issued passports, with the great majority of the growth coming after 9/11, due to the request that Americans must have either a passport or a passport card to come back from Canada, Mexico and Caribbean.
Having a passport still does not mean you actually travel. According to this analysis (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-d-chalmers/the-great-american-passpo_b_1920287.html), in 2009, only about 3.5% of Americans actually traveled overseas.
When I told my American friend (from Chicago) that I visited 33 countries, he said "Holly cow! And I've been to three only: Canada, Mexico and... Cleveland." :) Joke or not, it indicates the extent of internal travel as well. I bet I visited more US national parks than most Americans.
How eye-opening are some of those overseas travels? When I was in Moscow, working for American companies, we had numerous Americans visit our offices, some leaving USA for the first time. We send a chauffeur to pick them up at the airport, drive them in a western car to their five-star western hotels in the city, take them to our western-renovated offices, then to a dinner in $300-per head best restaurants in Moscow, and ship them back to America after that. Their comment after all that: "I do not understand why are those Russians complaining?"
-
(Rich) white-guy pacifiers: Some homeless are crazy and some unemployed are lazy.
Factual (as edited), and yes...I suppose pacifying to some. Maybe if one doesn't have any 'white guilt' or 'wealth guilt' and takes some personal steps to help those less fortunate, one doesn't require pacifying.
-
That is terribly racist article.
You know, asians as a whole probably take more photos than caucasian photographers. Yet, do you see the author ranting about asians roaming the world (which they do, as do caucasians) taking the same photos over and over (which they do, as do caucasians).
Anyway, once other primitive cultures evolve enough to afford a wealthy middle class capable of wasting their money roaming the world taking the same boring photos while pointing fingers at primitive peoples, you can bet they will be the same boring photos as well.
-
Yes -- "To make matters worse, civil liberties lawyers frequently defended the rights of mentally ill prisoners to refuse medication and remain psychotic."
Yes -- "By the time Ronald Reagan assumed the governorship in 1967, California had already deinstitutionalized more than half of its state hospital patients."
And yes -- "With President Reagan and the Republicans taking over, the Mental Health Systems Act was discarded before the ink had dried (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/) and the CMHC funds were simply block granted to the states."
Isaac, thanks for the link.
It seems like a "perfect storm" of liberals pursuing their agenda and republicans jumping at the opportunity to make a quick buck. State institutions disbanded and patients turned to profit-centers. The same story as with prisons, which have become a huge profit-center as well. In both cases, higher profit can be achieved by having more, not less insane/criminals and spending less, not more on their treatment/rehabilitation. In many cases, authorities are required to fill empty beds in prisons or pay for them anyway. No wonder US has the highest incarceration rates in the civilized world.
-
Isaac, thanks for the link.
It seems like a "perfect storm" of liberals pursuing their agenda and republicans jumping at the opportunity to make a quick buck. State institutions disbanded and patients turned to profit-centers. The same story as with prisons, which have become a huge profit-center as well. In both cases, higher profit can be achieved by having more, not less insane/criminals and spending less, not more on their treatment/rehabilitation. In many cases, authorities are required to fill empty beds in prisons or pay for them anyway. No wonder US has the highest incarceration rates in the civilized world.
Heavens! You had me worried for a moment: I thought you'd written incineration.
Rob C
-
My goodness we have run far afield. I just started out with a nice little article ranting about photographers-of-privilege going out to do "projects" that lacked a depth of purpose and now we are talking about how Republicans and Democrats react to institutionalization of homeless folks. Sheesh!
-
... I just started out with a [not-so] nice little article ... that lacked a depth of purpose...
There, I fixed it for you!
-
There, I fixed slobodized it for you!
There, I fixed it for you!
:D
-
There, I fixed it for you!
What your postings lack in substance is concealed by your ubiquitous and clever comments.
-
What your postings lack in substance is concealed by your ubiquitous and clever comments.
Life is too short for 'message' too; nobody cares a stuff about message; there's nothing left in life worth saying. Like photography, the best has long been done.
Be happy with gloss; it's all there ever is and I value Slobodan's throw-aways highly. Used to be a guy here called Dark Penguin: he had the most memorable one-liners ever. Committed the unavoidably inevitable best-parthian-shot and took his leave. You can't better the economic beauty in that.
Rob C
-
Like photography, the best has long been done.
Crap./me walks away throwing his gear in the dumpster ...
-
Crap./me walks away throwing his gear in the dumpster ...
Wise man! Now you don't need a statement!
You see how helpful we are in this special place? Nothing's too much - so
Rob C
-
Wise man! Now you don't need a statement! You see how helpful we are in this special place? Nothng's too much - so...
Rob C
No, no ... I'll stop photography but still keep working on my statement ... :P
-
... [I don't care] a stuff about message; there's nothing left in [my] life worth saying. Like [my] photography, [my] best has long been done.
FTFY ;-)
-
[My] FTFY [is bigger than your] ;-)
And now for something completely different ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2P86C-1x3o
-
(http://blogs.houstonpress.com/artattack/simpsons1022n.jpg)
-
FTFY ;-)
Was it really necessary, Isaac? Getting so directly personal and offending?
-
FTFY ;-)
"... [I don't care] a stuff about message; there's nothing left in [my] life worth saying. Like [my] photography, [my] best has long been done."
Nifty editing Isaac, and if only it were just particularly true.
Sadly, I was not thinking much about myself, but of the wider picture (to keep it in easy context for you).
Personally, yes, repetition is ever with one - it's because none of us has unlimited imagination despite the false promise that one does. And on the broader issue of the rest of the snapping world, show me anyone, pro or am, who's currently doing something valuable and original; that is, is not simply working a derivative of the past efforts of others. Remember the giants on whose shoulders etc. etc.
Those giants came and left - many, many years ago, Isaac. They coloured all of us. That's one of the reasons I'm so vociferous in trying to dissuade neophytes from taking up sponsors and gurus; the damage will come along soon enough, all by itself.
Rob C
-
Was it really necessary, Isaac? Getting so directly personal and offending?
Is it really necessary to post anything to this discussion forum?
Wasn't Rob C's comment already directly personal?
(Are we done with the rhetorical questions now?)
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/asyoulikeit/page_96.html), ...
Sadly, I was not thinking much about myself, but ...
And yet your thoughts, just like anyone else's, are coloured by where you are in life.
-
...
That's one of the reasons I'm so vociferous in trying to dissuade neophytes from taking up sponsors and gurus; the damage will come along soon enough, all by itself.
...
Rob Brian Campbell !
You have said it so well earlier ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVygqjyS4CA
:D
-
Is it really necessary to post anything to this discussion forum?
Wasn't Rob C's comment already directly personal?
(Are we done with the rhetorical questions now?)
These were not rhetorical questions I asked. Nor it was about being personal. It was about being personal AND OFFENSIVE. So here is the same question I already asked above, this time in a direct, personal and definitely non-rhetorical form so that you can understand better what I was driving at:
"Why do you have to be such an asshole and directly offend a perfect gentleman?"
-
"a direct, personal and definitely non-rhetorical form (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question)"
-
Well.... We can't all be Sebastio Salgado but thank heavens Mr. Salgado wasn't too ashamed to point his cameras at people of lesser means and far more brutal conditions that his own.
We are certainly tired of photographs from "safari" and then along comes Nick Brandt....
And thank God that Winogrand and Friedlander did not abandon their work after viewing "The Americans"....
-
Well.... We can't all be Sebastio Salgado but thank heavens Mr. Salgado wasn't too ashamed to point his cameras at people of lesser means and far more brutal conditions that his own.
We are certainly tired of photographs from "safari" and then along comes Nick Brandt....
And thank God that Winogrand and Friedlander did not abandon their work after viewing "The Americans"....
With respect, what about the Europeans who stayed behind in Europe?
If paparazzi have any value, then it has to be embodied in il signor Paparazzo himself, played in iconic manner by Walter Santesso in La Dolce Vita.
Of course, it's all personal, but apart from in the case of 'star' snapping, where's the point in doing it? Is it the pleasure of annoying people you don't know? Is it just cheaper than other human hunting?
Truly a mystery.
;-)
Rob C