Roger Hicks
Veteran
Consider also that 'something in between' is exactly what I have been arguing for. Not only do we always bring our prejudices to a photo essay: if it is to be any good, our prejudices and preconceptions are what lend it depth, flavour and value. A milksop pretense of 'documenting' everything that happens is not only impossible to achieve: the closer you come to it, the more tedious, vacuous and, yes, incomplete the 'document' will be.
Of course rabid propaganda will fail to persuade anyone who is not already convinced of what the photographer is saying, but one of the advantages of access to multiple sources of news is that it's quite easy to dismiss the empty propaganda, and quite easy (and enjoyable) to analyze the different ways in which different reporters document the same events.
Cheers,
R.
Of course rabid propaganda will fail to persuade anyone who is not already convinced of what the photographer is saying, but one of the advantages of access to multiple sources of news is that it's quite easy to dismiss the empty propaganda, and quite easy (and enjoyable) to analyze the different ways in which different reporters document the same events.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sort of. But people's reactions will depend on what they see: on what you show them. Your administrators had a very commendable agenda: diversity. But it's still an agenda. Another (infinitely less desirable) agenda on their part would have been to emphasize their own wisdom and generosity. Another undesirable agenda would have been to document the pitiful estate and heartfelt gratitude of the recipients of the charitable largess. Yet another would have been an agenda which concentrated on how the recipients were lazy and selfish, and could afford luxuries (fashionable clothes, jewellery) while receiving charity. It would have been harder to shoot but I've no doubt that with careful selection (and even a little moral flexibility) it would have been possible.
Anyone who says they have no agenda is either lying, or has not thought hard about what their agenda really is. There are times when you can deliberately try to subvert an agenda, but in that case, you may in one sense be governed as much by the agenda you are trying to subvert as someone else might be when shooting to support that agenda.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Maybe it wasn't so much expected, as taken for granted in the negative: viewers were assumed to be grown-ups with access to multiple news sources and the ability to choose for themselves.
I can't say I'm looking forward to Maggie Thatcher's funeral -- not least because I think it's in extremely bad taste to revel in the demise of (almost) anyone -- but it will be very interesting to see how both the funeral and the street parties (if they happen) will be reported. The BBC seems to have been accused in almost equal measure of being lickspittle fascists and Stalinist lefties, with everything in between; which suggests to me that they've probably got it about as right as anyone could in difficult circumstances. It does however prompt me to ask myself what (if anything) I'd go out of my way to photograph on that day if I were in the UK, and how photography might be used either to boost the Leaderene's undoubted historical standing, or (figuratively) to dance upon her grave.
Will any of our UK members be taking Thatcher-related pictures on Wednesday?
Cheers,
R.
FrankS
Registered User
OP is likely having a good laugh at our expense. Joined a few days ago, just a few posts.
Boy, if only if I were a moderator!
Boy, if only if I were a moderator!
Jamie123
Veteran
What I wanted to contribute was Beard's name as a possible example of a successful conservative photographer ( though I in no way want to imply that his seemingly conservative views correspond with those of the OP or many other conservatives).
Jamie123
Veteran
OP is likely having a good laugh at our expense. Joined a few days ago, just a few posts.
Boy, if only if I were a moderator!
I don't think he was/is a troll. It just seems he misjudged the amount of support his views would receive here and was a bit disappointed.
FrankS
Registered User
The bigger question: Will his pictures tell a story?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
The bigger question: Will his pictures tell a story?
If he does a documentary project maybe?
Cold
Established
To be blunt:
Any insurance adjuster that takes pictures to document a car accident.
Any police photographer that documents a crime scene.
A lot of street photography presents its subject matter with more of a 'here it is' approach than an "isn't this city grand/awful?".
Passport photos.
Product shots for eBay meant to accurately and faithfully describe a product to potential buyers.
A "photo finish" in a race.
A daily photo of a science experiment.
Reference photography meant to unambiguously, accurately, and objectively describe any object.
True, there are other purposes beyond artistic ones at play in those examples, but by the same rationale, one could make the argument that a personal/political message is an equally optional aim. There are any number of reasons beyond "personal expression of opinions/beliefs/views/agendas" which might lead someone to take up a camera and snap a photo. In these days of cell phone photography, a photo may be intended as quite literally nothing more than a documentation tool, as a reminder. In a hurry, many people will take a a picture of a book cover, product label, advertisement, or piece of text, just so that if can be faithfully recalled later, specifically without being subject to the bias of human memory.
In terms of writing, it'd be the difference between a persuasive piece and in informative piece. Between, say, a review of a dish eaten at a restaurant, and a recipe for that same dish. In speech, between an impassioned case in favor of private ownership of assault rifles, and step-by-step instructions to take someone through the steps of disassembling and cleaning an AK-47. Though the chef that writes the recipe may personally think the dish tastes awful (or may even be allergic to one of the ingredients, they're still explaining as accurately as possible how to recreate it, without allowing their personal bias to affect their piece. Similarly, the instructor explaining how to disassemble and clean the AK-47 may feel that the very subjects he's teaching shouldn't be permitted to handle the weapons...he's nonetheless accurately teaching which screws to remove, where to add oil, etc.
Even without examples, anyone willing to apply logic can see that a political agenda is not prerequisite to taking a photograph, and to imply that trying to convey a middle-of-the-road, unbiased (as possible) photographic record as close to the scene as captured is impossible or boring. Certainly some will be more successful than others at removing their own bias, and it may indeed make those photos boring to some (especially those viewing them specifically to glean the photographer's intent & bias...but it does not by any means mean that it can't, won't, or shouldn't be done.
RichL
Well-known
Franz You might start by doing a lot of slogging around till you find the type of subject you are looking for in front of an automated machine (bank card etc.). Also think of interspersing your own work with public domain photographs, paintings and the like. The low skilled low wage earner has been replaced by 'modern' technology at least since the first reaping machine.
False Premise? http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/423598/20130113/china-harbin-heilongjiang-robot-restaurant.htm
False Premise? http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/423598/20130113/china-harbin-heilongjiang-robot-restaurant.htm
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Now you lost me. I don't know F.ranz S.onnar and F.ranz T.essar either...
peterm1
Veteran
I think this one would qualify as conservative photography / messaging.
http://www.pbs.org/thewar/image_viewer.php?img=S2770&caption=Leyte:%20MacArthur%20returns&source=National%20Archives
and this one of course which became a rallying call to all Americans in WW2
http://thisandthatandmoreofthesame....8/us-marines-raise-american-flag-atop-mt.html
Honour, sacrifice, country. All of that which is so close to conservative thinking. It may be universally respected including by liberals but it is not so emblematic of liberal values.
(Don't get me wrong, I am making NO value judgments here!)
http://www.pbs.org/thewar/image_viewer.php?img=S2770&caption=Leyte:%20MacArthur%20returns&source=National%20Archives
and this one of course which became a rallying call to all Americans in WW2
http://thisandthatandmoreofthesame....8/us-marines-raise-american-flag-atop-mt.html
Honour, sacrifice, country. All of that which is so close to conservative thinking. It may be universally respected including by liberals but it is not so emblematic of liberal values.
(Don't get me wrong, I am making NO value judgments here!)
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Our pet prankster Frank? Maybe - after all, he managed to get himself kicked out even at LFP after he left here, so he could be running short on vents right now. But then, he was always more up-front and straightforward in his statements than this roundabout trolling.
peterm1
Veteran
Appreciated. I was talking about main stream conservatism. I was merely saying that these images are the things that make conservatives go teary eyed and put their hand on their heart or salute the flag. While liberals are much more likely to be teary eyed about other things - social justice and the like. well, that's what I have observed anyway. And the truth is there is probably some good in both of these things.
Cold
Established
Okay, I think I'm starting to see the issue here, and why we seem to be arguing past one another.
Please share your definition of "document".
I'm taking the term to mean, simply, "make a record". By my definition to make any photograph of anything at all is to document it. Therefore it is evidently clear, again by my definition, that in the very act of taking a picture you are, strictly speaking, documenting the subject. You may not be documenting it well, or interestingly, or objectively, or artistically, but you are, in fact, documenting the subject because you are producing a record of it. Whether you personally feel that the record is relevant or interesting, or worthwhile is irrelevant to the discussion as to whether a record has been, in fact, produced.
Also, you seem to keep asserting that it's impossible or impractical to produce photography without bias, or pointless to do so...then you ask for any example...and when it's provided, you dismiss it as not being relevant to the task of producing photography with a political bias. That's some egregious application of circular logic.
Obviously, the examples we've been providing you have no political motive...that's the whole point. You asked for examples of how one might use photography to document a subject without such a bias. It makes little sense to then criticize those examples for posessing the very qualities which made them good examples to fill the original request.
Clearly, if your purpose is to produce images with bias, producing images without bias will be counterproductive. That's like saying you want to get into street photography but only do so by avoiding all traces of civilization.
He would do this out of a desire to share information about cooking overall, to then allow people to make their own decision about whether they like the dish or not, regardless of his personal tastes.
I'm not the most handy in the kitchen, but I am a trained beer taster. In this frame of reference, if I were doing a book or some other documentary of various beer styles, I'd certainly do my best to accurately and impartially describe every style of beer, regardless of my personal tastes. If I were getting still life shots of each style, in its appropriate glassware, I wouldn't just get to a Belgian witbier and because I personally don't really care for the style, intentionally photograph it any differently, or allow my opinion to negatively impact my writing about it. This is because I'd want the viewer/reader to have as much impartial, accurate information as possible in order to make their own decision and form their own opinions.
If I was writing a piece for a beer magazine about the recent popularity of using rye as a brewing adjunct, and how it's making the world of craft beer more interesting, of course I'm going to inject bias, because that piece has a completely different purpose; I'm trying to convince the reader to, at very least, go out and give rye beers a shot, if not just convince them outright that rye beers are good.
In this case, the whole point of the photo record is to document the end of the race, which, I would think many would agree is the most important part of any race. A photo of the beginning of a race would be intended to document that part of it, which, while it may not be as significant as the end, is no less able to be documented, as ojectively as possible, by a photographer.
In any event, that seems like a slippery slope argument. If you say that a photo-finish is a partial record, then a series of photos of the whole race is equally partial because you didn't document every runner's prep workout...or their months of training...or their introduction into running...or their parents, grandparents, etc. who all contributed to their genetics...and if that's the point that's being argued, I think it's a bit ridiculous to legitimately argue that there is some sort of political motive behind every photo because it does not capture the entire existence of the universe from the beginning of time within it's frame.
hteasley
Pupil
Picasso was appreciated by the wealthy, but did not celebrate wealth in his art. Guernica does not lionize the powerful.
No one would credibly argue that art does not require support, that artists don't need money. But there's a difference between a painting of Donald Trump and a painting bought by Donald Trump.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
All photography is documentation. All art is self-portraiture, but rhere is a real difference between documenting something everyone expects to see and documenting your own unique personal vision of it.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Why is this topic so diffiicult?
Why is this topic so diffiicult?
Here's why.
The image that I've uploaded is of the Tennesee Valley Authority's (TVA) single operating nuclear reactor at Watts Bar in Spring City, TN. The image is an Associated Press image.
Is the image pro-conservative, pro-liberal, pro-nuclear power, pro-environmental, or merely documentary?
With context it can be any of those. Without context it's an aerial snapshot.
What's fascinating about the TVA is that it was started as a New Deal Democrat project under FDR. It was widely panned by conservative Republicans as a prime example of government overreaching its boundaries, and yet it was built. The current Democratic administration now wants to sell the TVA into private hands, and the conservative Republican contingent in Congress is saying no because it has significant benefit to their constituents.
So... what is the real conservative position here? What is the real liberal position? Does either end of the spectrum really have a long term view? Which perspective, then do you choose to illustrate in an image as the conservative or liberal view? How can a plan panned by conservatives become their darling seventy years later? The project either is government over-reach or it isn't. How can it now be a "conservative" cause to keep it operating under government?
Its no wonder that there are so many wildly disparate opinions about what "conservatives" and "liberals" are. The terms and their positions have become largely interchangeable, are no longer based on consistent beliefs, and really have little descriptive value. Where is the consistency?
If you want to read about this, it's in today's news.
Why is this topic so diffiicult?
Here's why.
The image that I've uploaded is of the Tennesee Valley Authority's (TVA) single operating nuclear reactor at Watts Bar in Spring City, TN. The image is an Associated Press image.
Is the image pro-conservative, pro-liberal, pro-nuclear power, pro-environmental, or merely documentary?
With context it can be any of those. Without context it's an aerial snapshot.
What's fascinating about the TVA is that it was started as a New Deal Democrat project under FDR. It was widely panned by conservative Republicans as a prime example of government overreaching its boundaries, and yet it was built. The current Democratic administration now wants to sell the TVA into private hands, and the conservative Republican contingent in Congress is saying no because it has significant benefit to their constituents.
So... what is the real conservative position here? What is the real liberal position? Does either end of the spectrum really have a long term view? Which perspective, then do you choose to illustrate in an image as the conservative or liberal view? How can a plan panned by conservatives become their darling seventy years later? The project either is government over-reach or it isn't. How can it now be a "conservative" cause to keep it operating under government?
Its no wonder that there are so many wildly disparate opinions about what "conservatives" and "liberals" are. The terms and their positions have become largely interchangeable, are no longer based on consistent beliefs, and really have little descriptive value. Where is the consistency?
If you want to read about this, it's in today's news.
Attachments
hteasley
Pupil
It doesn't say they're interchangeable, it says the scale has evolved over the past 70 years, and both parties have moved.
Sparrow
Veteran
... I'm pretty sure it's impossible to do anything without ones own preconceptions influencing the outcome ... the centre ground very much depends on where one is viewing it from, and to pretend there is some sacrosanct ideal of impartiality is a delusion I fear