This is one of the most pompous posts I have read in a long time.
Who decides what constitutes moral and political honesty"?
I respect your criticism of my post. This is the type of criticism I mean as being what we need amongst photographers. No one is above criticism, and maybe we all need more accountability in creating work that has moral and political honesty. You ask "who decides" what that is - I'd rather actively think about what such honesty is, so that we stop playing the rules of political correctness (everyone entitled to their own truths, definitions, and actions) and search for pragmatic action that brings results and true change.
Many of the posts seem to absolve this photographer on the grounds of the political correctness I mention. That the man is entitled to this self-professed hobby out of free choice, the man has proper motivations which is all that matters, mysterious Thai culture makes prostitution gray, prostitutes choose their line of work and we are self righteous to judge...
It is as though any action is fine as long as one engages in the system of free capital by its rules - that this is the objectivity that should render ultimate judgment: photographer engages in an objective system of free capital thus breaks no rules, provides practical relief by giving twenty bucks to a prostitute so one shouldn't worry, he doesn't make money off of the work which means he isn't exploiting (a point that he seems to feel the need to tell them, which is another red flag altogether).
I think his work is thematic of the way philanthropy is seen culturally: predominantly an act done by those in privilege, who have come out on top so they can help those who have come out on bottom, allowing one to die with a free conscience, a great number of admirers, and a lot of money. Sometimes the philanthropists are featured in the New York Times, even if the term philanthropy means 'love of humanity,' and the vast majority of time one spent in life was not done in love for humanity but for strengthening a system that creates the disparity that gives them a chance to be saints; in this case, allocating wealth for oneself or for already wealthy clients.
I have no problem with anyone taking photographs of prosititutes. I think Araki's work is shamelessly honest. I would also not raise any stink about this work if it weren't presented with the angle that here is a man who is doing something good for society. Frankly, it doesn't help society and just serves to reinforce the type of powerlessness that people on the margins have and the wealth of choices and freedoms the privileged have to engage in a "hobby." Someone said these women should be given a chance to take portraits - now that would be something! That would be political!
