JTK
Established
Photographs are, in general, irrelevant to "social issues" currently. Life Magazine is no longer of interest to the public. Video's the thing.
I think online slide shows, as perfected by NY Times, San Jose Mercuy News, and Magnum have a great deal of potential. The trick is to combine meaningful narration or interviews with the images. SmugMug.com allows that, as does Slideshowpro.com.
I think online slide shows, as perfected by NY Times, San Jose Mercuy News, and Magnum have a great deal of potential. The trick is to combine meaningful narration or interviews with the images. SmugMug.com allows that, as does Slideshowpro.com.
FPjohn
Well-known
hello:
The younger generation seems, IMHO, to be both of a higher level of accomplishment in general and less hopeful then the 68ers.
yours
Frank
The younger generation seems, IMHO, to be both of a higher level of accomplishment in general and less hopeful then the 68ers.
yours
Frank
V
Vic
Guest
sitemistic said:
The social dissidents are alive and well, except that they are all outside the US.
We in the US tend to think that we are the only ones who matter, that the world still revolves around us, that nobody else counts. Good heavens, we even use the word "Aliens" to describe foreigners. How insulting is that?
We live in a country where we still are not allowed to see pictures of dead soldiers in their coffins. The censorship is so complete, and so subtle, below the radar.
People have also emasculated themselves. They are content to believe sound bites. It's Rush vs. Huffington, or whoever. The issues don't really count, as long as my fornicator wins.
The US "dissident" is not willing to lay it all on the line. They like to go home at night and watch American Idol. And build their stock portfolio, and watch Donnie Deutsch and Donald Trump, or Oprah.
It's the people in other countries who are willing to go to prison, to even die for their cause. You don't have to go far to see examples. Bobby Sands, Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson Mandela. Who do we have in the US? Nobody of this stature. Not since Martin Luther King.
Most couldn't point Myanmar on the map. Or even Iraq, where over 4,000 US soldiers have died.
We revel in our lack of education. Only sports matters any more.
It looks as if the American empire is in decline. But in Minneapolis the public school system has Chinese language immersion schools, French, German, and so on. There is still hope.
40oz
...
dazedgonebye said:
I agree.
Further, it's much easier to blame the world for "not caring" than to realize that the world is indeed a big place. One cannot possibly act to save everyone we are told needs it.
I'm not sure I would blame photography for the world's ills, nor would I blame American society for the fact that the world isn't a perfect place.
IMHO, if one is of the opinion that there are no photographers out there trying to better the world with a camera, one has to look in the mirror. There are plenty of news and photographs of places in the world that could use some help. If one can't recall ever seeing such, one might not be looking. And if one indeed feels there are needs not being met, why not go and meet them yourself rather than lament the fact that nobody else is doing so?
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
williams473 said:
no it's not a complete waste of time. Tulsa didn't have a "significant audience" but it had an audience, and it had/has an impact you. sure the world is inundated with images, but the world has never been more connected, and there has never been a better opportunity for an artist to reach so many people (e.g., forums, web sites, downloadable books, on-demand printing, etc.). You can reach and group with like minded people from all over the world without lifting your a** off your chair. YOU need to reach YOUR audience.
Accept the fact that your socially relevant b&w photo, shot with your RF camera, is not going to be carried around the world by a major media outlet, and get out and find a way to reach the audience that is looking for your socially relevant b&w photo, shot with your RF camera. You want photography to lead the charge in social critique and social upheaval, and yet you want the major media outlets to propagate that for you.
I think of social critique and upheaval as being more grass roots in scale, an underdog proposition..
.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Vic said:
People all over the world are willing to die for their causes because they have causes to die for.
You don't have people being run over in tanks in US squares because there are not tanks in US squares.
There are no mass protests for freedom because there is already mass freedom.
I'm not saying there aren't worthwhle causes left to stand up for in this country, but there is nothing on the scale that exists in so many other parts of the world.
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
hello. i am finding this thread of very much interest. but it has moved from the first question. i have lived in many parts of the world in my sixty years or more and have come across many american ex-pats. the first thing that i am aware of is that while i was in america i talked to photographers about ex-pats and they did not know what one was, what it meant. it is a simple name. but when it is defined it is thought to be as though it is treason to americans, to want to live in another country, another culture. i think america is a wonderful place to make pictures of american things because they are not like the rest of the world and neither are the people. there are copies in many places like america because the copies are safe and easy to remember to do and make. many good things in science come from america but not everything is from there, much to the surprise of some i have met in my travels. stem cell research for motor neuron is being made in India because the stem cell collection is not illegal or an ignorantly (uninformed) religiously dominated argument.
but one has to ask, why is this person an ex-pat from america? the emphasis is put on the from word. the answer is that it is not the only good place in the world to live and be free. it is good but many places are also good without the same cultural domination and national exclusions it has. i have family member who is living in america and we have very lively debates because he is having the american citizenship and big television but no more freedon than we had as children in Danmark.
my thoughts on the first question in this thread is that photography and social dissidents are part of a past mentality of a time when the world was shocked to have the rest of the world revealed to it through photographs. in that time of the 50s to the 70s there were things in the world and in america that one could not have on the day they decided to want it, including freedom. now you can buy a car in the middle of the night because you want it then. this is the sign of an impatient culture that is numb to most things that are not if immediate interest with them. and the more they are to ignore things that are not important to the things they want just then the more they are ignoring the plight of others except to force the replication of their culture on others.
but the plight of others is in the eye of the presenter and the way the image is marketed, many times to the advantage of the presenter, the marketer and seldom the subject of the image. the whole world does not always want to be like in america.
photography, when it was the mirror and weapon of the social dissident is now for many the tool of the commercial greedy and self-interested governments of the naive and sheep-like followers of a population that is safe and blind.
but i also am knowing that photography is being used in many countries to expose untruthfulness within that country that americans will never see or know about because it is not about them and will not sell a car or plastic medicines.
dd
but one has to ask, why is this person an ex-pat from america? the emphasis is put on the from word. the answer is that it is not the only good place in the world to live and be free. it is good but many places are also good without the same cultural domination and national exclusions it has. i have family member who is living in america and we have very lively debates because he is having the american citizenship and big television but no more freedon than we had as children in Danmark.
my thoughts on the first question in this thread is that photography and social dissidents are part of a past mentality of a time when the world was shocked to have the rest of the world revealed to it through photographs. in that time of the 50s to the 70s there were things in the world and in america that one could not have on the day they decided to want it, including freedom. now you can buy a car in the middle of the night because you want it then. this is the sign of an impatient culture that is numb to most things that are not if immediate interest with them. and the more they are to ignore things that are not important to the things they want just then the more they are ignoring the plight of others except to force the replication of their culture on others.
but the plight of others is in the eye of the presenter and the way the image is marketed, many times to the advantage of the presenter, the marketer and seldom the subject of the image. the whole world does not always want to be like in america.
photography, when it was the mirror and weapon of the social dissident is now for many the tool of the commercial greedy and self-interested governments of the naive and sheep-like followers of a population that is safe and blind.
but i also am knowing that photography is being used in many countries to expose untruthfulness within that country that americans will never see or know about because it is not about them and will not sell a car or plastic medicines.
dd
Bas
Dough!
dazedgonebye said:
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. You can say that technically there is freedom, but you have to agree with me that someone iving in Africa certainl doesn't have the same chances, the same oportunities, than someone living in, to say something, Germany. Although both are technically free, you have to agree with me that the opportunities given to an African certainly constrain his liberty.
The problem is that those differences are differences that the world has become used to live with, as part of everiday life. Hence, a critique against this is much more likely to be seen by a small share of people.
I'm pretty sure that DPReview has far more visitors than James Nachtwey's site. No wonder why really.
Best,
Sebastian.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Bas said:
I'm not sure we're disagreeing. My response regarding freedom was to a post asking why we have no US dissidents willing to lay it on the line. My point was only about freedom in America.
Certainly freedoms are not absolute here, or anywhere else, but they are not so constrained here as to give rise to many people willing to martyr themselves for the cause.
bmattock
Veteran
Nothing to add that would make anyone happy. So...
Semper Fidelis,
Bill Mattocks
Semper Fidelis,
Bill Mattocks
williams473
Well-known
"Matt I am not quite sure I see it your way. What I see now is waaaay more overlap between social issues and photography and video. Now we have the 'net... everybody and his trained pet has a blog and is posting info on it. The influence of the mainstream media has never been weaker."
Keith - I see what you're getting at, but I think that what many others said in their posts about the "noise" of the present day mass media and culture is what makes this proliferation of "publishing" somewhat irrelevant. Truth is, people (and justly) take what they see on the net with skepticism, and certainly in the case of photography, as was mentioned earlier, not as seriously as photographs they would see on the wall at a reputable gallery or from an accredited news source, like AP or the like. So I don't know that it's really worth it to work so hard to reach only people who are seeking my type of work - to carve out a small audience for the sake of it. After reading all of the previous posts, I have just come to the conclusion that maybe I must simply make peace with the fact that indeed, I am in the wrong country to do significant photojournalism in hopes of changing things. But I will keep on anyway - don't know why. I guess maybe one day an image or a portfolio might have worth in retrospect - through the lens of history. Maybe one day in the U.S., people will be very interested to see how us Americans looked during these days. Hard to say.
The hardest thing I have to deal with in my own mind, is that I've staked myself to Photography. If what I'm doing "doesn't matter," then I can easily feel pretty worthless. As much as I love my wife and kids, there needs to be some other calling. Maybe this is the curse of being educated to believe life holds more than it actually does. Even though I do my part for our society by working my job, paying my taxes and generally following the rules, I don't feel that doing my 50 years of labor and retiring is really doing much at all - I am trying in my life to connect to the Higher Power somehow, and for me Photography is the only avenue to do that. I guess that is why it bothers me so much to realize that indeed, people in this country really don't give a sh*t about much else than bringing home the paycheck and surviving to old age - what many have said is true - photojournalism is one of many, many competing noises for most folks I guess.
Keith - I see what you're getting at, but I think that what many others said in their posts about the "noise" of the present day mass media and culture is what makes this proliferation of "publishing" somewhat irrelevant. Truth is, people (and justly) take what they see on the net with skepticism, and certainly in the case of photography, as was mentioned earlier, not as seriously as photographs they would see on the wall at a reputable gallery or from an accredited news source, like AP or the like. So I don't know that it's really worth it to work so hard to reach only people who are seeking my type of work - to carve out a small audience for the sake of it. After reading all of the previous posts, I have just come to the conclusion that maybe I must simply make peace with the fact that indeed, I am in the wrong country to do significant photojournalism in hopes of changing things. But I will keep on anyway - don't know why. I guess maybe one day an image or a portfolio might have worth in retrospect - through the lens of history. Maybe one day in the U.S., people will be very interested to see how us Americans looked during these days. Hard to say.
The hardest thing I have to deal with in my own mind, is that I've staked myself to Photography. If what I'm doing "doesn't matter," then I can easily feel pretty worthless. As much as I love my wife and kids, there needs to be some other calling. Maybe this is the curse of being educated to believe life holds more than it actually does. Even though I do my part for our society by working my job, paying my taxes and generally following the rules, I don't feel that doing my 50 years of labor and retiring is really doing much at all - I am trying in my life to connect to the Higher Power somehow, and for me Photography is the only avenue to do that. I guess that is why it bothers me so much to realize that indeed, people in this country really don't give a sh*t about much else than bringing home the paycheck and surviving to old age - what many have said is true - photojournalism is one of many, many competing noises for most folks I guess.
keithwms
Established
sitemistic said:
No, the opposition of the American people has been rock solid for several years now. Certain Democratic leaders are the real sheep here. These people ran their midterm campaigns saying they will vigorously oppose war funding, and they got elected on that platform. Then.. guess what.... they backed down and had their asses handed to them by a lame-duck President with a ~30% approval rating who probably doesn't even know how to spell "veto."
I think it is quite clear that Congress has shown the most sheep-like behavior in this mess. People didn't vote en masse for sheep in the midterms; they voted for opposition. Where is that opposition?
<sigh> And now the dems field a candidate who: supposedly didn't want war; voted to authorize the war; now thinks, "gee, maybe I really wasn't for the war but I did what I thought was right at the time, and by the way I am smart and I have all this experience".... Experience doing what? Standing by when her hubbie bombed the wrong building in the wrong country and considered that to be taking a tough stance on terrorism?
Ah don't get me started!
All I am saying is that the American people know very well what they want, and what is in Washington right now is not it.
Anyway, enough smack talk about the current US leadership, which will be replaced soon enough. Baby boomers out, and the sooner the better.
keithwms
Established
Matt, don't sell yourself short. I fyou have something to say through photography then say it, and let the chips fall where they may. That's how a number of greats became great. Indeed, trust your instincts.
bmattock
Veteran
I'm starting to get a little irritated. You people who have never served your nation keep running your soup-sucks, and I'm going to say something you're not going to like.
Pablito
coco frío
Bas said:
"Africa"......kinda general, eh? I mean we're talking about a whole continent....
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
sitemistic said:
sitemistic said:
jim...take a break. you just followed one post with another. you're already averaging about 10 posts a day. step_away_from_the_computer.
.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Democracy is annoying when you started out as a FREE REPUBLIC.
kind of a step down if you ask me.
kind of a step down if you ask me.
Last edited:
Bas
Dough!
dazedgonebye said:
Ooppss, my mistake, I'm very sorry. We certainly agree.
You see, this point that you bring up is an interesting paradox. While globalization has allowed to know most realities outside our own countries, including painful ones sometime -and has allowed much more tragic things to happen, for example the extinction to some point of some particular ways of living on some places (here in Argentina is an example, it happened), it did not reinforce the capabilites of people to see the world from the other's side.
As you say, here in Argentina happens the same. I live in Buenos Aires, a pretty city by South America standards (I hope this will not be misunderstood please). Here, people certainly ignore foreign realities, and certainly ignore also internal realities. Recently, people in a city of a province are complaining for the deployment of a paper processement plant in Uruguay. Here in Buenos Aires, people really don't care too much for this.
As you describe with the United States example, this is not the only case. Now, why does this happen? Is this a result of a flood of imagery around us that makes as blind to images as social critique?
Is that we have all became schizophrenic, like Deleuze and Guattari said in The Anti-Oedipe and Mille Plateaux, and we indeed have become used to dissociate realities, so we can live with other's desires not fulfilled and only search for ours desires to be fulfilled? Is this why photography has become a not so attended vehicle for social critique?
Anyway, sorry again for the misunderstanding, dazedgonebye. My mistake please.
Best,
Bas.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
keithwms said:
Don't worry. In 30 years the next generation will be talking about how great it is to get your generation out of the way too.
And they too will think they're unique.
