Deutsche Börse Prize 2015 nominees announced

[elliot_n]

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.

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Some of our forum members seem to be far better politicians than photographers

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[spidermike]

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'?

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[spidermike]

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.

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[spidermike]

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).

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

After reaching a critical mass of absurdity, threads tend to self-destruct...hopefully.

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[spidermike]

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.

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[spidermike]

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

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[NancyP]

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).

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[spidermike]

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.