World Press Photo winners announced

Status
Not open for further replies.
World Press Photo, and documentary photography in general IS politics. But I do agree it doesn't make sense to continue this as Ira hasn't been able to offer one argument to backup his statements. Just insults. (And I have no clue what he is trying to say about my avatar...)
 
Topdog1 said:
The people who are dancing around this topic know very well what the issues are. As for your avatar...http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ms/thumb/b/be/Stalin.jpg/250px-Stalin.jpg

/Ira
Click to expand...

Showing photographs of acts committed by the Israeli government is not anti-Semitism; that's you being hyper-sensitive.

Furthermore, comparing Jonas' avatar with Stalin is immature at best.

I typically don't like to join in on arguments over the internet, but I agree with the others, either make some factually based arguments or kindly exit the thread. The insults aren't needed.
 
I believe the arguments were started by others. I merely made the observation. Seems to have touched a sensitive nerve.

/Ira
 
The following is an excerpt from an essay by Arundhati Roy. You can substitute "anti-Israeli" for "anti-American." Roy's point is pertinent to the current discussion. I will not comment further on this issue.

"Recently, those who have criticised the actions of the U.S. Government (myself included) have been called 'anti-American'. Anti-Americanism is in the process of being consecrated into an ideology.

The term 'anti-American' is usually used by the American establishment to discredit and, not falsely - but shall we say inaccurately - define its critics. Once someone is branded anti-American, the chances are that he or she will be judged before they're heard and the argument will be lost in the welter of bruised national pride.

What does the term 'anti-American' mean? Does it mean you're anti-jazz? Or that you're opposed to free speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant Sequoias? Does it mean you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?

This sly conflation of America's culture, music, literature, the breathtaking physical beauty of the land, the ordinary pleasures of ordinary people with criticism of the U.S. Government's foreign policy (about which, thanks to America's "free press," sadly most Americans know very little) is a deliberate and extremely effective strategy. It's like a retreating army taking cover in a heavily populated city, hoping that the prospect of hitting civilian targets will deter enemy fire...

To call someone 'anti-American', indeed, to be anti-American, (or for that matter anti-Indian, or anti-Timbuktuan) is not just racist, it's a failure of the imagination. An inability to see the world in terms other than those that the establishment has set out for you: If you're not a Bushie you're a Taliban. If you don't love us, you hate us. If you're not Good you're Evil. If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."
 
Topdog1 said:
I believe the arguments were started by others. I merely made the observation. Seems to have touched a sensitive nerve.

/Ira
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. The arguments started with your first comment in the thread...

...of anti-semitic trash.

/Ira
Click to expand...

When people asked for you to elaborate, you resorted to calling them fools and dupes.

This thread hasn't hit a sensitive nerve with me. I have no dog in this fight. I just don't like bad arguments.
 
Let me repeat myself from above. (My last post to this thread):

Disagreeing with American government policies does not make you anti-american. Disagreeing with Israeli government policies does not make you anti-Israeli. Being anti-israeli makes you anti-semitic. You know who you are.

/Ira
 
You don't bring facts to back up your point of view, imply that people who criticise Israel are anti-Semitic and based on a avatar having a moustache you make comparisons with Stalin :eek:

So I imply you are a troll.

DMG has a point, back to photography
 
Thanks for posting the link.
WPP is one of the reasons I became so involved in photography actually.
One of the main reasons.

It truly created a strong relfection towards my own art and artforms generally, expression generally....the strength and emotional power an image is capable of.

The compositions, dynamics, emotion..very strong.

Quite frankly when I first picked up the, what was it, 2004 version, I was overwhelmed.

Criticizing Salgado...?! Wow....go ahead and say that again! boy, i'll knock you for a loop! <lol>

People may say what they wish about art and journalism, but they are both. They have to be to be successful I feel....

Ever heard the term, "everything is art therefore nothing is art."

"art" is far more than the average individual understands. All images must express/convey ideas or emotions to be effective.

Journalism/art...I hate labels. It is what it is. And it works, on all levels, *very* well IMHO.

ciao
D

PS: Interesting sentiments about lack of hope. Perhaps I understand better the Salgado comments. Reflecting on it a bit, it is a strong point(s) you (all) make here. That is very true. thx.
 
Last edited:
Topdog1 said:
Let me repeat myself from above. (My last post to this thread):

Disagreeing with American government policies does not make you anti-american. Disagreeing with Israeli government policies does not make you anti-Israeli. Being anti-israeli makes you anti-semitic. You know who you are.

/Ira
Click to expand...

So does anti-American make one anti-Christian? I've learned over the years that my pointing finger projected traits into people that weren't even there. I had the problem, not them. Perception is everything and it's purely subjective, rarely objective.
 
Nachkebia said:
I don`t think there is hope outside of pictures anyway, so showing alot of hope would meen closing eyes, do you want that? I know alot of people do :D
Click to expand...

Are you really referring to hope? Or to some people's need for pleasant self-deception? In my short life and travels I've generally found that the most hopefully people are often those who are most involved with the difficult and painful parts of life. Those without hope are often the same people who watch and judge from the sidelines. That's not meant to be a criticism, just an observation that perhaps being involved is what allows you to hope because you have a clear view of the situation; being separated from the situation often seems to highlight the problems to a far greater degree than the possible solutions.

I am young though and live in a part of the world which has been largely free from conflict, disaster, or turmoil so perhaps it's easier for me to hold this opinion.
 
Thanks for the link. I had an opportunity to get one of WPP book last year during a book fair. It was nice. Indeed, it is totally up to the reader to see how's things happening in other side of the world. Of couse, this is the objective of the photojournalist. You judege the matter by simply viewing the photo. Isn't that great compared to being influenced by editor in their wording.:rolleyes:
 
I've had a Mini cooper S convertible for some time, the question is not if its anti-somebody it is how did he get 3 girls on a backseat not big enough for one?
 
DMG said:
this has gone totally off topic...can we get back to photography?
Click to expand...


Everyone take a breath. Get this back on topic or I close it.

This is the point where you agree to disagree and move on. This is a photography forum, remember?
 
This thread ......... (literally, it seems) for quite some time now.


Edit
Uncalled for!!!

If you can contribute to the topic of the WPP winners please do.

If you want to discuss the merits of this in an adult manner, please do.

If you want to make sweeping offensive remarks or continue to egg on the argument, think better of it.

Rover

EDIT: Rover, your edit (esp. the last bit) saddened me: I took sides but I most certainly didn't make a sweeping offensive remark - on the contrary, it was directed specifically at a position here. Anyway, you are the moderator, not me, and that's, as they say, that.
 
Last edited:
bmicklea said:
Are you really referring to hope? Or to some people's need for pleasant self-deception? In my short life and travels I've generally found that the most hopefully people are often those who are most involved with the difficult and painful parts of life. Those without hope are often the same people who watch and judge from the sidelines. That's not meant to be a criticism, just an observation that perhaps being involved is what allows you to hope because you have a clear view of the situation; being separated from the situation often seems to highlight the problems to a far greater degree than the possible solutions.

I am young though and live in a part of the world which has been largely free from conflict, disaster, or turmoil so perhaps it's easier for me to hold this opinion.
Click to expand...


Well said.
D
 
jonasv - thanks for that original link - I wouldnt have seen these otherwise...

Damn, there are some great shots in there - some really powerful images. Just being there isn't enough to guarantee portraying the rawness of the situation...neither is it just about timing...many of these images demonstrate very real artistic skill. Bleak - yes - and it would have been nice to get a balance of some of the world's more uplifting stories - they haven't all involved death and war...but impressive nonetheless.
 
Poor old dualism

Poor old dualism

EDIT

As Rover has said, please keep this on topic. By all means discuss the photographs but remember that this is a photographic forum not a political one.

Kim






leif e
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom