Deutsche Börse Prize 2015 nominees announced

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[spidermike]

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'.

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[elliot_n]

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.

[spidermike]

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.

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[NancyP]

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.

[Diego Pigozzo]

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  )

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[Diego Pigozzo]

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.

[elliot_n]

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.

[Diego Pigozzo]

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?

[AreBee]

elliot_n,

All photographs are political (even the idyllic landscapes that this site venerates).

Please can you explain how landscape photographs are political?

[elliot_n]

Could you elaborate on this?

The artful construction of a picture, with painterly references, to elicit a specific emotional response.

[elliot_n]

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.

[Diego Pigozzo]

The artful construction of a picture, with painterly references, to elicit a specific emotional response.

Doesn't this apply to almost any good photo?