A continuation of observation on some photos

[MP Guy]

Well, the original post is drawing some heated debate. With the pictures gone its hard for some to decide if the deleted photos were a political statement or journalism. If Neil disagrees with this post I will remove it since they are his photos. However, I would like to run a poll on this so the proper action can be taken or not in the future.

Below are the photos in question. Please respomd to the poll honestly and unbias. If youfeel another question should be dded le t me know.

 

[jlw]

JLW,

Man I am in the dog house now. I had to censor your post 🙂 Noting personal. I apprecate your view. I just dont want to tick people off. Hope you understand.

Man 2 for 2 tonight 🙁

 

[DougK]

There's enough context with the other photos in the series to prevent them from merely being a political statement. Leave 'em be.

 

[back alley]

i think it's ironic that not one photo had a comment about it from the membership.

i think you may have just yelled fire in the theatre.

joe

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Leave them be.

 

[MP Guy]

Ah, but one photo did have a comment. The swaztika one.

None the less, I will ask neil to repost these photos but still want feedback on this poll.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I thought JLW's post was fine, too, really.

 

[Erl]

ALL photographs, IMHO, are a distortion by definition. Understanding the nature of that distortion is the skill of the phographer who can use it to portray a message, abeit a 'lie.'

So truth has little room here, or any image forum. I strive, not always successfully, to show a viewpoint by exagerating the truth, as I perceive it, using the various 'lies' that the camera provides. Failure to use these 'tools' tends to deliver boring, uninteresting pictures. eg. flaking paint, bark on trees, etc. In these type of pictures, nothing is really contributed by the photographer, so I am left wondering why they bothered. Let me hasten to say, I too have done that, but I don't know why!

The image series under 'threat' in this thread, to me, fits this category, almost. They are a record (which may be the justification for shooting them) of an event, but it is all "sheep!" A mindless crowd following each other, sadly in need of a good sheep dog. Now a pic of the dog working the crowd would have some potential. I can see no reason for the 'cut' images being removed any more than those that are left. I am not offended by them and I don't see who could be, since the political figures referred to expect it anyway.

Too much fuss about politics. Removing them for 'political' reasons seems wrong to me. I would not display them myself, but for different reasons, which would also depend on the forum.

 

[neils]

Jorge,I would much prefer if all the deleted images were posted for revue, or the web site where they can be viewed. I believe there were a total of eleven images.

 

[Honu-Hugger]

JLW,

Man I am in the dog house now. I had to censor your post 🙂 Noting personal. I apprecate your view. I just dont want to tick people off. Hope you understand.

Man 2 for 2 tonight 🙁

Shame; my opinion was pretty much the same as JLW's (I had the oppportunity to read it before it was deleted). With no hard feelings I am not wasting any more of my time on this thread.

 

[dkapp]

I think you should link to the entire series to make this poll revenant. They were a part of a large series and did fit the theme of the protest. Sticking them out on their own may give newcomers to this debate an unfair disadvantage of not having all the info.

If you goal was to tip this poll into your favor, I think you've made the right choice to leave info out, but I seriously doubt that is your intention.

Dave

 

[FrankS]

Jorge, I respect the fact that you're going through this process of discussion of the photos. Good point by dkapp, though. Can you give the link to the entire photo essay rather than just show the ofensive photos?

 

[jlw]

JLW,

Man I am in the dog house now. I had to censor your post 🙂 Noting personal. I apprecate your view. I just dont want to tick people off. Hope you understand.

Man 2 for 2 tonight 🙁

Wow, now you're going to have people curious about what kind of incindiery stuff I wrote! How about if I just tone it down a little, like this?

Although I consider myself an unabashedly flag-waving, pro-military, anti-insurgency American, and I strongly disagree with the views being expressed by the people in the pictures, there's nothing about the pictures themselves that I find offensive. They're just pictures of people holding signs. If somebody wants to put them in his or her personal gallery, I don't see anything wrong with it. Leave 'em be, that's my vote.

 

[Doug]

The first one is the worst, I think, in the "simply hateful without context" way, while the fourth is the least. The second doesn't have much to recommend it, but the third despite the offensive swastica at least shows some of what is going on. I'd like to pull the first and second, but it's certainly a judgment call on the third and fourth.

 

[MP Guy]

Neil,

Please repost them in the gallery or this thread.

 

[kiev4a]

When you have that many photos, basically the same, it's not an "essay," it's a political statement. In the photos these is no outstanding composition. It's just individual photos of people holding signs and smiling because somebody is taking their picture. If a photographer can't tell that story in two or three well composed photos, he's not practicing his craft very effectively. --- "here's Aunt Martha and the Grand Canyon, here's Uncle Jim at the Grand Canyon, here's cousin Jimmy at the Grand Canyon......."

 

[jlw]

Maybe the solution is simply to add a header to every gallery page saying words to the effect that "Pictures presented in this gallery were selected by the individual photographer, and do not necessarily represent the views of RFF, its operators, or its membership as a whole."

 

[RayPA]

I agree. Leave them be. I see these as documenting a rally. Rallies are all about signs, and making statements.

BTW, it's ironic for me that I'm defending these images, because I don't care for photographs of rallies. Generally, I find them to be really boring—just a bunch of shots of people who want to be photographed carrying signs.

~

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Oh, clearly photographic record of an event! A free public event. Are "many" pictures taken at a beach, then tourism brochures, or an exhibitionist statement? Are pictures of people stalker items?

Don't they teach nonpolar, nonlinear thinking and rhetoric anymore?

So, "when you have that many photos" of anything, let's just censor away?? Has the Purple Dinosaur generation taken over???

 

[the lobster]

Well, it seems to me this is a tight rope to walk.

Ultimately and after some deliberation, I believe there is a bias to these photos.

I believe these photos show that a free society where citizens can march in the streets with this "mesage", voicing their opinions wthout fear of imprisonment or retaliation or censorship is a damn good place to live.

So I do not think that the slant here is anti-Bush, but, intentioally or not, it is ultimately pro-America.