Conservative Photography

Cold said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Arguing past one another" -- or, in a more common form in the UK "at cross purposes" -- is indeed an excellent analysis of our (apparent) disagreement.

It arises from the distinction between the verb 'to document' and the noun 'a document'. The verb, as I understand it (and indeed as my OED understands it), means "to prove or support something with documentary evidence." Thus, a photograph may be "a document" but to take a single photograph is not necessarily "to document" something. In other words, producing a single document is seldom (if ever) the same as documenting a subject. In a very simple case, such as the finish of a horse race, it may be; but the premise of this thread, surely, is photographing things where there is room for matters of opinion, and therefore political biases. This may seem a fine distinction but it is supported by the OED, unlike some of the attempts at distinction that have been made here.

I'd still dispute the chef/recipe example, because I cannot readily imagine that anyone who did not like a dish (or at least see its merits, even if they found it unpalatable) could write convincingly (let alone persuasively) about it. If I were to try to present a recipe I genuinely did not like (and I've written several cook-books) then I could not do what you describe: "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." At best I can say, "Despite several attempts at this, with [for example] more and less garlic, and greatly varying quantities of white wine, I have yet to produce an example of this dish that I would ever bother to cook again. Nor have I ever, in a restaurant, encountered an example I would order again."

Your last paragraph is very close indeed to what I'm saying. Not necessarily "the entire existence of the universe" but at least ALL the facts on which an utterly impartial observer with infinite time and patience might use to form a conclusion. As the utterly impartial observer with infinite time and patience does not exist, and as it is impossible to document all these facts, I fail to see why anyone would try to write, or to take photographs, for him or her. Nor do I see how they can; again, except in risibly simplistic examples.

Incidentally, where does one train to be a beer taster? It sounds like fun. Such (considerable) experience as I have acquired since the 1960s has been gained entirely on an informal basis. Even then, I'd dispute how much "impartial, accurate information" you can dispense about witbier/Weißbier, of which I am very fond. I say this precisely because I'm fond of it and you're not. Which of us is impartial and accurate?

Cheers,

R.
 
"Arguing past one another" -- or, in a more common form in the UK "at cross purposes" -- is indeed an excellent analysis of our (apparent) disagreement.

...

It arises from the distinction between the verb 'to document' and the noun 'a document'. The verb, as I understand it (and indeed as my OED understands it), means "to prove or support something with documentary evidence."
Click to expand...

I wasn't familiar with the UK (or really even the US) term, but thanks for that. Always nice to hear about how things are done in another part of the world.

Using your definition of the term, which is indeed one (though one of several) defintions of the verb I found after a brief search, then I'd absolutely agree that, by the definition of the term, if you're "proving or supporting something" then there must be an antecedent present to "prove or support". Using the definition upon which my position was based, (that being "to furnish with documents" or "to furnish documentary evidence of", with the definition of "document (noun)" being, "a writing conveying information") there is clearly room within that definition to provide for purely informational (as opposed to persuasive) purposes for producing material, whether it be photographic or text.

I'd still dispute the chef/recipe example, because I cannot readily imagine that anyone who did not like a dish (or at least see its merits, even if they found it unpalatable) could write convincingly (let alone persuasively) about it.
Click to expand...

I think this bit, really, boils things down to the essence of the difference at play here. Even ruling out the possibility of deception, or other more complex motives (financial gain, for example), you're approaching this from a fundamentally different starting point, and with a different end-goal in mind than I am. You're using words like "convincingly" and "persuasively" where I'm talking about simply informing. It's not that either argument is wrong, but using different definitions and justifications, it's impossible (and really, pointless) to try and reconcile the two.

At best I can say, "Despite several attempts at this, with [for example] more and less garlic, and greatly varying quantities of white wine, I have yet to produce an example of this dish that I would ever bother to cook again. Nor have I ever, in a restaurant, encountered an example I would order again."
Click to expand...

This highlights, again, the difference in definition. Take as a counterpoint, someone who absolutely relished the dish. They may write something like, "This recipe is highly adaptible to your specific tastes, and the other ingredients hold up well to widely different balances of garlic and white wine. Changing the amounts of these two ingredients can greatly impact the overall taste of the dish, but all variations have been bright, flavorful dishes that I'd be proud to serve at my restaurant."

Obviously, these opposing viewpoints can both be true, because they're a subjective account of a personal reaction to the taste. The middle ground (or perhaps not even on that spectrum) would be a more objective account: "Adding more garlic will help bring out the lactic, buttery flavors in the cream sauce, while reducing the garlic will permit more of the flavors from the basil and rosemary to come through. Similarly, you can reduce the white wine used, which will have the effect of sweetening the overall flavor, while increasing the quantity will impart a bright, citric note to the sauce, as well as a somewhat cleaner aftertaste."

I'd say that the third option does a better job of documenting (again, using the definition I've had in mind) the actual flavors or the recipe, as opposed to the first two, which really aren't documenting the flavors at all, but rather the personal reaction of the writer to those flavors. Obviously, the medium of photography muddies these waters to an extent, but I think this was a good illustration of how semantics will affect things.

Incidentally, where does one train to be a beer taster? It sounds like fun.
Click to expand...

While there are schools/classes that one can attend, I've received the vast majority of my training through employment at a brewery, and being a member of their quality control taste panel.

Such (considerable) experience as I have acquired since the 1960s has been gained entirely on an informal basis.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of this training is an exercise in memorization combined with experiential familiarity. The memorization is for things like appropriate glassware, style history, and guidelines of acceptability in the various aspects if the tasting experience. Experiential familiarity is knowing diacetyl when you taste it, and knowing what it is...which then leads back to your memorization which helps you determine whether that taste is a fault.

The real key is being able to translate the decidedly nonverbal information gleaned from a proper tasting and convert it into the appropriate terminology to objectively and understandably describe the experience.

Even then, I'd dispute how much "impartial, accurate information" you can dispense about witbier/Weißbier, of which I am very fond. I say this precisely because I'm fond of it and you're not. Which of us is impartial and accurate?
Click to expand...

For the record, while I'd tend to choose other styles over a witbier, there are some really good ones out there, and I have nothing against the style as a whole. That said, accuracy comes through training (is that intense aftertaste "harsh" or is it "bitter"? Is that color brown, copper, or amber?) and impartiality comes through effort and having the descriptive tools gained through the training at your disposal.

I'm not saying that either of us would be a better or worse reviewer, but I definitely know that, with a witbier, I should expect a pale straw to golden beer, with considerable haze being perfectly acceptable, and a generous, dense head with good retention.

Taste-wise, one should expect slight to moderate sweetness, tastes of bready/buscuity maltiness with a light wheat flavor. Zesty citrus flavors will likely also be present, along with some spiciness, usually coriander. Hop profile should be very modest and reserved, only strong enough to keep the beer balanced and crisp. While a slight flavoring from the hops may be acceptable, too much impact from the hop profile will overwhelm the other flavors, which should not happen.

There are other aspects of the tasting experience that could be considered (mouthfeel, carbonation, aftertaste, aroma, etc.) but the above would be an example of a time when one might document something and strive to be as objective as possible to good effect, and if done correctly, the results from two people should not really betray whether they enjoyed or despised the beer as a whole.

Many of my friends are puzzled by that, because typically, if I'm reviewing a beer, I'll do the objective analysis followed by a wholle subjective overview. Thus, when we're out, if we try different beers, I will taste and maybe praise a barleywine by saying that it's a good barleywine. Then , later on when I mention that I didn't care for it, they're confused...at which point, I explain that it was a good barleywine, and it's not the beer's, or the brewer's fault that my taste buds simply weren't receptive to their efforts.
 
Cold said:
I wasn't familiar with the UK (or really even the US) term, but thanks for that. Always nice to hear about how things are done in another part of the world.

Using your definition of the term, which is indeed one (though one of several) defintions of the verb I found after a brief search, then I'd absolutely agree that, by the definition of the term, if you're "proving or supporting something" then there must be an antecedent present to "prove or support". Using the definition upon which my position was based, (that being "to furnish with documents" or "to furnish documentary evidence of", with the definition of "document (noun)" being, "a writing conveying information") there is clearly room within that definition to provide for purely informational (as opposed to persuasive) purposes for producing material, whether it be photographic or text.

I think this bit, really, boils things down to the essence of the difference at play here. Even ruling out the possibility of deception, or other more complex motives (financial gain, for example), you're approaching this from a fundamentally different starting point, and with a different end-goal in mind than I am. You're using words like "convincingly" and "persuasively" where I'm talking about simply informing. It's not that either argument is wrong, but using different definitions and justifications, it's impossible (and really, pointless) to try and reconcile the two.

This highlights, again, the difference in definition. Take as a counterpoint, someone who absolutely relished the dish. They may write something like, "This recipe is highly adaptible to your specific tastes, and the other ingredients hold up well to widely different balances of garlic and white wine. Changing the amounts of these two ingredients can greatly impact the overall taste of the dish, but all variations have been bright, flavorful dishes that I'd be proud to serve at my restaurant."

Obviously, these opposing viewpoints can both be true, because they're a subjective account of a personal reaction to the taste. The middle ground (or perhaps not even on that spectrum) would be a more objective account: "Adding more garlic will help bring out the lactic, buttery flavors in the cream sauce, while reducing the garlic will permit more of the flavors from the basil and rosemary to come through. Similarly, you can reduce the white wine used, which will have the effect of sweetening the overall flavor, while increasing the quantity will impart a bright, citric note to the sauce, as well as a somewhat cleaner aftertaste."

I'd say that the third option does a better job of documenting (again, using the definition I've had in mind) the actual flavors or the recipe, as opposed to the first two, which really aren't documenting the flavors at all, but rather the personal reaction of the writer to those flavors. Obviously, the medium of photography muddies these waters to an extent, but I think this was a good illustration of how semantics will affect things.

[on beer tasting]

While there are schools/classes that one can attend, I've received the vast majority of my training through employment at a brewery, and being a member of their quality control taste panel.

The vast majority of this training is an exercise in memorization combined with experiential familiarity. The memorization is for things like appropriate glassware, style history, and guidelines of acceptability in the various aspects if the tasting experience. Experiential familiarity is knowing diacetyl when you taste it, and knowing what it is...which then leads back to your memorization which helps you determine whether that taste is a fault.

The real key is being able to translate the decidedly nonverbal information gleaned from a proper tasting and convert it into the appropriate terminology to objectively and understandably describe the experience.

For the record, while I'd tend to choose other styles over a witbier, there are some really good ones out there, and I have nothing against the style as a whole. That said, accuracy comes through training (is that intense aftertaste "harsh" or is it "bitter"? Is that color brown, copper, or amber?) and impartiality comes through effort and having the descriptive tools gained through the training at your disposal.

I'm not saying that either of us would be a better or worse reviewer, but I definitely know that, with a witbier, I should expect a pale straw to golden beer, with considerable haze being perfectly acceptable, and a generous, dense head with good retention.

Taste-wise, one should expect slight to moderate sweetness, tastes of bready/buscuity maltiness with a light wheat flavor. Zesty citrus flavors will likely also be present, along with some spiciness, usually coriander. Hop profile should be very modest and reserved, only strong enough to keep the beer balanced and crisp. While a slight flavoring from the hops may be acceptable, too much impact from the hop profile will overwhelm the other flavors, which should not happen.

There are other aspects of the tasting experience that could be considered (mouthfeel, carbonation, aftertaste, aroma, etc.) but the above would be an example of a time when one might document something and strive to be as objective as possible to good effect, and if done correctly, the results from two people should not really betray whether they enjoyed or despised the beer as a whole.

Many of my friends are puzzled by that, because typically, if I'm reviewing a beer, I'll do the objective analysis followed by a wholle subjective overview. Thus, when we're out, if we try different beers, I will taste and maybe praise a barleywine by saying that it's a good barleywine. Then , later on when I mention that I didn't care for it, they're confused...at which point, I explain that it was a good barleywine, and it's not the beer's, or the brewer's fault that my taste buds simply weren't receptive to their efforts.
Click to expand...
As so often occurs in respectfully conducted RFF debates, we are not really very far apart. I particularly take your point in the highlighted paragraph, but equally, I'd suggest that if I really dislike the taste (as for example the way I feel about sweet potatoes), the amount of useful information I can give is limited.

As for the colour... Well, I expect a witbier to be, um, wit. Oder weiß. The haze is taken for granted. But then, I'm a bit of a purist about Hefeweiß. The only time I ever worked for a brewer is a long story: I hope entertaining, over a drink, but it would take much too long to recite all the anecdotes here. Perhaps one day we may meet.

To return to the OP, a radical has only to present pictures of what needs changing. A true conservative wants nothing changed, and pictures of the boringly familiar are, unsurprisingly, boringly familiar. Because change normally produces winners and losers, and because losers are normally easier to document and to gather sympathy for, the left has an inherent advantage.

Cheers,

R.
 
Quick question... posts, some of them very wordy. It'll be a lot of effort, so is it worth my while reading this thread?
 
conservative photography

conservative photography

Photography is a very personal expression and has different goals depending on the interest of the individual photographer. Both Reagan and Thatcher certainly had some legitimate concerns that needed to be addressed but their approach was disastrous for the middle and working class - both in the US and England. I wish that my ivory tower life, as a college professor, would not have prevented me from doing the photography documenting their impact. But having lived in the Midwest of the US for more than thirty years has, unfortunately, confined me to a less "social" oriented photography (mainly landscape/nature) and it has giving me somewhat of a "guilt" complex. Our Western societies are in trouble and photographers should draw attention to it as was done by photographers of previous decades. Thank you for addressing this issue. I really have enjoyed this threat of practical photographic issues.
 
War on Poverty, Head Start, Great Society, Afffirmative Action all need to be documented photographically. Someone should do it. But not me me I'm only a tax payer; are you?
 
Chris101 said:
Excuse me? Manzanar, Suffering Under a Great Injustice was a series by Adams that exposed the conditions and life in the internment camps that United States citizens of Japanese decent were involuntarily confined to during World War II.
Click to expand...

Adams' work on Manzanar looked to justify the internment. He readily went along with US censors, and did not make photos that showed the injustice that internment stood for, despite the name "suffering under a grave insustice". Adams showed compliant and insdustrious Japanese, embracing American values and accepting their internment. Just look at the photos.

Dorothea Lange's photos of the camps were far more powerful, and that is why she had trouble with U.S. censors.

"Both Adams's and Miyatake's photographs present a positive view of the Japanese Americans interned at Manzanar. In contrast, Dorothea Lange, who had earned her reputation as a social documentary photographer with images of migrant farm workers made during the Depression, worked for the War Relocation Authority photographing the evacuation of Japanese Americans and their arrival at Manzanar. Lange's vision is strikingly unlike those of Adams and Miyatake. She photographed the upheaval of the evacuation and the bleak conditions of the internment camps."

The above quote is from the U.S. Library of Congress website:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/anseladams/aamabout.html
 
charjohncarter said:
Why don't you document how 'give away' politics have, destroyed personal; responsibility, initiative, and achievement in the USA.
Click to expand...
If "'give away' politics have, destroyed personal; responsibility, initiative, and achievement in the USA", why indeed has no-one documented this catalogue of disasters? I can think of only three replies.

First: there are absolutely no competent, concerned right-wing photographers who are able or willing to take such pictures

Second: 'give away politics' haven't had the effect you describe

Third: 'give away politics' are a bogeyman that doesn't actually exist

Perhaps some kindly photographers from the left could give these incompetent right-wing photographers some helpful advice. This is, after all, supposed to be a thread about how people use photography to further a political agenda, rather than a forum for unsupported political rants.

I mean, it's quite easy to photograph foreclosed houses, people living in shop doorways and under bridges, Occupy protesters and the like. All are evidence of the ever greater separation between rich and poor. It's also quite easy to photograph those whose incomes have risen, because, after all, there have been both winners and losers from increasing income differentials. Somehow, winners attract far less sympathy than losers.

Cheers,

R.
 
charjohncarter said:
Why don't you document how 'give away' politics have, destroyed personal; responsibility, initiative, and achievement in the USA.
Click to expand...

... that's a good idea, but how exactly would one photograph the government giving all those billions to the banks? ... I fancy they do it by cheque rather than truckloads of twenties ... mind I suppose it would have to be one of those really big cheques, like one sees on the lottery ... to get all those naughts on
 
charjohncarter said:
War on Poverty, Head Start, Great Society, Afffirmative Action all need to be documented photographically. Someone should do it. But not me me I'm only a tax payer; are you?
Click to expand...
Well, I was a US taxpayer when I lived in the USA, and I've likewise paid taxes in Britain and France: wherever I happen to be living at the time. I can't quite see, though, how paying taxes is supposed to be some sort of qualification for being able to think clearly, or for being the only sort of member of society whose views and vote count.

So here's an interesting proposal: a series of pictures of people who have either made a worthwhile contribution to society while living on next to nothing on the dole (perhaps artists and poets) or who have made a fortune as a result of work done when they were living on the dole: JK Rowling would seem to be an excellent example.

Do not forget that for every 'welfare queen' who is 'being paid more than most people earn for an honest day's work' (generic quotes, seen and heard all the time) there are many more who are struggling to live on a pittance. I know: I've been there, when I was unemployed for several months in the 1970s.

Finally, while we may all deplore the statistically insignificant number of the chronically lazy who breed like rabbits and who receive large welfare cheques, remember that these cheques are intended to support (and often do support) the children. Take away the dole money and it's the kids who go hungry and shiver.

All of these topics are quite easy to illustrate, but (surprise) they're all somewhat left-leaning in that they show the good that state aid can do. The harm that is done by trying to help people is harder to document.

Cheers,

R.
 
Well said, Roger. I'd read the earlier comments and gone away to consider how to respond. When I came back, I found you'd already answered the point better than I could.
 
Sparrow said:
... that's a good idea, but how exactly would one photograph the government giving all those billions to the banks? ... I fancy they do it by cheque rather than truckloads of twenties ... mind I suppose it would have to be one of those really big cheques, like one sees on the lottery ... to get all those naughts on
Click to expand...

That's what I think.
 
Well, OK, done right, wars and war photography can probably promote a right-wing agenda. But they can equally well show horror and suffering; and once again, by an extraordinary concidence, horror and suffering somehow resonate more with people that pictures of The Glorious Soldiers Of Our Eternal Republic Willingly Laying Down Their Lives for Our Glorious Leader.

This, I think, is where the left has the enormous advantage. Anyone with any imagination can easily see how, with a comparatively short train of misfortunes, each misfortune in its own right only a small drop from our previous position of comfort and privilege, could put us on welfare or plunge us into poverty.

It's quite cheering, actually, for those who think that people are basically good. Pictures of people who have more money and material goods than we do may provoke envy, but understandably, envy is not seen as something to which we should aspire. Yes, they can promote class warfare, but more often, they provoke reactions of "He was lucky" or "I wish I had that but I'm not prepared to sell my soul to get it."

Pictures of people in poverty, on the other hand, tend to make us think, "There but for fortune go you and I." Well, most of us anyway, and I am sure you are among them. But there are always those unsavoury few who will look at the same pictures and think (or say) "Look at those filthy disgusting lazy scum."

Cheers,

R.
 
I don't own a car and some of my taxes pay for highways and interstates. Why doesn't somebody document all those free loaders who do nothing but pollute, maim and kill with my tax money? :)
 
tunalegs said:
I don't own a car and some of my taxes pay for highways and interstates. Why doesn't somebody document all those free loaders who do nothing but pollute, maim and kill with my tax money? :)
Click to expand...
Exactly! And I don't have any kids, so why am I wasting MY money on schools?

Cheers,

R.
 
charjohncarter said:
War on Poverty, Head Start, Great Society, Afffirmative Action all need to be documented photographically. Someone should do it. But not me me I'm only a tax payer; are you?
Click to expand...

Documenting the Great Society would include photographing old people getting medical treatment (Medicare), poor children getting medical treatment (Medicaid) and other poor kids getting educational materials and free lunch (Head Start).

The War on Poverty has in fact been a bust, because poverty is winning. I would start by documenting crumbling factory buildings that used to provide decent jobs (I already do that!). Pile on more images of people picking through dumpsters for food (more of that in Greece and Spain at the moment, but we will surely catch up soon).

Randy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom