Bas
Dough!
lic4 said:
Hmmm... not sure if my engish skills are up to the task of understanding correctly that paragraph. Could you clear it for me a little bit please?
For what I understand, I have to say that I mostly agree, if what I am understanding is correct. Some kind of internalization of dissidence, or critique, to the point of beeing able, with the practice of photography as a form of art containing critique, to critique oneself.
The main problem that I see in trying to create such kind of art is that, as you said, it transcends time and message and sounds to me, hence as a Kantian proposition, a categorical imperative. While I mostly agree with Kant's categorical imperative idea, the main failure of it was that at the moment of judge it as a formal proposition, it failed.
If we could create a form of art inside photography -read this as a form of photography- that would transcend message and time, it would become probably the archetype of photography, and add to this that this message has the possibility to transform one person to the point of making oneself aware of his position in the world (which, on my humble opinion, is no more than a grain of sand in a beach).
I'm a little more fond on existencialism when I take my camera with me... after all, I still believe in the unquestionable veracity of what's in my images... kind of a responsible witness
The main problem is that I know that most of beholders -and I include myself- do not consider the act of viewing an image with the same amount of responsability as we photographers do when we press the shutter release. Meaning: the act of holding camera makes us responsible witnesses. The act of viewing a picture doesn't contain the same level of responsability.
Hence, photography loses its capacity beeing an effective media of social critique by a different logic on the viewer than on the photographer I think. Hence, we photographers try to find a way to at least satisfy ourselves...
Best,
Bas.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Merlin, I got sucked into politics when I was working for the paper and city hall was on my beat. Since then, nearly forty years now, I've served on several advisory boards, ran election campaigns, and show up at nearly every city council meeting. The new city manager knew my name and what I looked like before we met. He walked over and introduced himself. Knowing the local players got me hooked up with the local congressman and I did all his photography for twenty-five years. It's easier to be a dissident when you're also an insider...LOL Here's a shot of me with Bill Clinton taken at a congressional fund raiser a few years ago http://photo.net/shared/portrait.tcl?user_id=498939 You start showing a photo like that around town and you get a lot of credibility! For the Republicans I can show them pix of me with Jeb Bush.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Al Patterson said:
yes yes I placed a t where a d should have been, I am also known to spell Sebastopol with that 3rd b instead of a v.
the Z film was only shown to the public starting in 1975 and it is known to have some alterations done to it.
the clear film comedian Bill Hicks refers to in his poignant joke is not the ZapruDer film.
lic4
Well-known
Hi Bas, yes, I think I was agreeing with most of what you said as well, but I value the areas where we might disagree too. I should try to be clearer with the way I word things.
In short, I was saying that protest and social dissidence should be aimed toward one's own evil; I think that this can impact the world more than an outward battle. This sounds like a grade school message, but aren't they the best?
I also meant to say that (as long as we are talking about photography as art) the function of art doesn't have practical benefits, nor does it necessarily teach us how to live. As one great artist says, it should teach us "how to die, to plow our souls, rendering them capable of turning to good." Anyone who experiences the work of art--not just the creator, the viewer/participant too--should have mini-revolutions that occur within themselves, a transformation, big or small. My grasp of philosophy is not very broad, but I'm thinking more along the lines of Henri Bergson than Kant.
I love the part in Sontag's On Photography where she elevates the work of Jeff Wall. I'm not sure if you've ever gotten a chance to see his exhibits, but to me they provide the kind of impact she mentions. Where much of social documentary seems to emphasize information or spectacle, catering to our apetite for image consumption, Wall works toward the undefinable direction of art and art's impact on humanity.
For this century, we might judge the value of a photograph based upon the social impact that it had. This is a fine criterion, but it is not the same as the way we value a Manet, or a Da Vinci. If a Van Gogh painting helped to end a war, that would not be the reason we appreciate it now. Usually, the ones we appreciate now had no mass appeal at the time. I like to believe (again, the optimism), that these transcendent works are the ones that change us for good, individually and hence socially, with more lasting effects.
By the way, I can talk a good talk, but my photographs are pretty crappy.
In short, I was saying that protest and social dissidence should be aimed toward one's own evil; I think that this can impact the world more than an outward battle. This sounds like a grade school message, but aren't they the best?
I also meant to say that (as long as we are talking about photography as art) the function of art doesn't have practical benefits, nor does it necessarily teach us how to live. As one great artist says, it should teach us "how to die, to plow our souls, rendering them capable of turning to good." Anyone who experiences the work of art--not just the creator, the viewer/participant too--should have mini-revolutions that occur within themselves, a transformation, big or small. My grasp of philosophy is not very broad, but I'm thinking more along the lines of Henri Bergson than Kant.
I love the part in Sontag's On Photography where she elevates the work of Jeff Wall. I'm not sure if you've ever gotten a chance to see his exhibits, but to me they provide the kind of impact she mentions. Where much of social documentary seems to emphasize information or spectacle, catering to our apetite for image consumption, Wall works toward the undefinable direction of art and art's impact on humanity.
For this century, we might judge the value of a photograph based upon the social impact that it had. This is a fine criterion, but it is not the same as the way we value a Manet, or a Da Vinci. If a Van Gogh painting helped to end a war, that would not be the reason we appreciate it now. Usually, the ones we appreciate now had no mass appeal at the time. I like to believe (again, the optimism), that these transcendent works are the ones that change us for good, individually and hence socially, with more lasting effects.
By the way, I can talk a good talk, but my photographs are pretty crappy.
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
You left out Mark Twain...xayraa33 said:
- Barrett
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This has never struck me as a good proposition. Yes, many messages we are given as children are based on simple decency -- do as you would be done by, that sort of thing -- but quite a few are gross oversimplifications and many others are culturally specific and often indfefensible, especially those that are based on religion.lic4 said:
(Anyone who says, "But my religion is different" is invited to reflect that other kids are taught other religions.)
The distinction between self-perfection and working for the good of society is quite well summed up by the concepts of hinayana and mahayana, the 'lesser vehicle' and 'greater vehicles' of Buddhism.
Hinayana/theravada teaches the Buddha's basic techniques of self-realization; mahayana suggests using what you learn from this for the good of all sentient beings, in every possible way.
Which is why most Buddhist monks are pacifits, and why, if necessary for the good of all sentient beings, they condone killing and will even kill, as in the case of the king Langdharma, killed by a monk.
Cheers,
R.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The big advantage of featuring a toy monkey in my blog http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com/ is that she can get away with saying things and making comments about politics that I wouldn't dare say directly. It's a very effective technique.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Wow.
I've managed to read the entire thread, which I regard as quite an achievement since it seems to have been growing faster than I could read it (distracted, as I was, by such things as going out and taking photographs). It has also gone somewhat sideways from what I take as the OP's intent, and then gone sideways some more on a few occasions after that!
Without going into the rights and wrongs, or Rights and Lefts of all that previous discussion, I'd like to say something here about documentary photography and "social comment" photography.
Photography, "played straight", shows what was in front of the lens when the shutter was released by the photographer. What the resulting photographs show really was there (remember, we're "playing straight") but is always open to interpretation - about what was "really" shown, about the photographer's agenda (whether political or aesthetic - which might be antethical) and so on and so forth. In particular, without appropriate captioning or even an "in words" story by the photographer intent is often very hard to read. Sontag, in "On Photography" and in some ways even more in "Regarding the Pain of Others" takes great pains to point out the use, reuse and re-purposing of photographs taken from one context and placed in another to exactly opposite effect.
It may have been the case - a long, long time ago or even in a galaxy far, far away - that a common context could be assumed. Those were the (perhaps somewhat mythical) days where the books documented in Cultural Literacy were equally known to all and network radio then TV dominated collective discussion. Those days, to the extent they fully existed, are long gone and even then were mostly an "inside the same country" exercise.
For example, I grew up in (while being too young to serve in) the Vietnam War era, and lived in both Australia and the US (and SE Asia) while doing so. Despite the real (and sometimes not-so-real) similarities between the two countries, there were also very real differences between the reactions in the two different places, and also somewhat different reactions to identical images because of the different cultural contexts.
This extends further. My father was a military officer and so I grew up in the military - which is a land unto itself, in many ways, but also shows both cultural similarities and differences between different countries' experience, within the different militaries and within their different countries' parent societies. I subsequently served in the military, and since then have lived for substantial periods in the US and Asia (where I earlier lived as a military brat) as well as in Australia.
I can assure you, through up-close and personal knowledge, that the same events and the same images (whether moving or still) are subject to wildly differing interpretations depending on context, and often most varying between cultures that superficially look all-too-similar to outsiders.
For example, just about all Vietnam War related, um, stuff is interpreted very differently in the institutional memory of the Australian and US military. In a completely different vein, the interpretations of HK Chinese students protesting the Tianamen Square incident in China (in the lead-up to the impending handover in 1997, which I was present for) are quite different in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways from the interpretation of students who were actually in the square at the time (one of whom I worked with, closely, for many years after she migrated to Australia).
All of which is a very long-winded way of saying that while I strongly believe in the utility of documentary photography - in a cause and/or for good or ill - I also believe that photographs alone are an insufficient medium for conveying a point of view (if that is what is wished). Interpretation is important, it is provided by an implicit or explicit context, and I believe that photographers place way too much reliance on an implicit context that just isn't there for a globaly or (these days) even nationally fragmented audience.
For example, look at these photographs I took at a demonstration organised around last year's APEC conference in Sydney:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/sets/72157601924787455/
If you knew me and what passes for "my politics", you might understand some of what I was trying to say in some of the photos. (Some of them were just "wow, look at that".) But to even know that, you'd need to know some very local politics(Sydney and NSW, much more than Australian national, in a very specific time period). But some of those photos could be used to illustrate very different points of view, or to perceive me as holding views very different from those I actually hold. And, trust me, if you think you know you're probably mistaken.
What I'm trying to say, after expending even more wind, is that I think documentary photographers should take much more note of the importance of context, and should think carefully about using words to provide context to go along with their images, or who will if they don't or won't.
...Mike
I've managed to read the entire thread, which I regard as quite an achievement since it seems to have been growing faster than I could read it (distracted, as I was, by such things as going out and taking photographs). It has also gone somewhat sideways from what I take as the OP's intent, and then gone sideways some more on a few occasions after that!
Without going into the rights and wrongs, or Rights and Lefts of all that previous discussion, I'd like to say something here about documentary photography and "social comment" photography.
Photography, "played straight", shows what was in front of the lens when the shutter was released by the photographer. What the resulting photographs show really was there (remember, we're "playing straight") but is always open to interpretation - about what was "really" shown, about the photographer's agenda (whether political or aesthetic - which might be antethical) and so on and so forth. In particular, without appropriate captioning or even an "in words" story by the photographer intent is often very hard to read. Sontag, in "On Photography" and in some ways even more in "Regarding the Pain of Others" takes great pains to point out the use, reuse and re-purposing of photographs taken from one context and placed in another to exactly opposite effect.
It may have been the case - a long, long time ago or even in a galaxy far, far away - that a common context could be assumed. Those were the (perhaps somewhat mythical) days where the books documented in Cultural Literacy were equally known to all and network radio then TV dominated collective discussion. Those days, to the extent they fully existed, are long gone and even then were mostly an "inside the same country" exercise.
For example, I grew up in (while being too young to serve in) the Vietnam War era, and lived in both Australia and the US (and SE Asia) while doing so. Despite the real (and sometimes not-so-real) similarities between the two countries, there were also very real differences between the reactions in the two different places, and also somewhat different reactions to identical images because of the different cultural contexts.
This extends further. My father was a military officer and so I grew up in the military - which is a land unto itself, in many ways, but also shows both cultural similarities and differences between different countries' experience, within the different militaries and within their different countries' parent societies. I subsequently served in the military, and since then have lived for substantial periods in the US and Asia (where I earlier lived as a military brat) as well as in Australia.
I can assure you, through up-close and personal knowledge, that the same events and the same images (whether moving or still) are subject to wildly differing interpretations depending on context, and often most varying between cultures that superficially look all-too-similar to outsiders.
For example, just about all Vietnam War related, um, stuff is interpreted very differently in the institutional memory of the Australian and US military. In a completely different vein, the interpretations of HK Chinese students protesting the Tianamen Square incident in China (in the lead-up to the impending handover in 1997, which I was present for) are quite different in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways from the interpretation of students who were actually in the square at the time (one of whom I worked with, closely, for many years after she migrated to Australia).
All of which is a very long-winded way of saying that while I strongly believe in the utility of documentary photography - in a cause and/or for good or ill - I also believe that photographs alone are an insufficient medium for conveying a point of view (if that is what is wished). Interpretation is important, it is provided by an implicit or explicit context, and I believe that photographers place way too much reliance on an implicit context that just isn't there for a globaly or (these days) even nationally fragmented audience.
For example, look at these photographs I took at a demonstration organised around last year's APEC conference in Sydney:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/sets/72157601924787455/
If you knew me and what passes for "my politics", you might understand some of what I was trying to say in some of the photos. (Some of them were just "wow, look at that".) But to even know that, you'd need to know some very local politics(Sydney and NSW, much more than Australian national, in a very specific time period). But some of those photos could be used to illustrate very different points of view, or to perceive me as holding views very different from those I actually hold. And, trust me, if you think you know you're probably mistaken.
What I'm trying to say, after expending even more wind, is that I think documentary photographers should take much more note of the importance of context, and should think carefully about using words to provide context to go along with their images, or who will if they don't or won't.
...Mike
Last edited:
goo0h
Well-known
Sounds like a good plan to me. And please post your results! I would enjoy seeing them.williams473 said:
I know what you mean about that creative place. Sometimes when my mind has been sunk deep into technical crap for a long while (I work in IT), I'm just so drained and tired. I pick up the camera, even if just for a few moments, and I begin to wake up. Perhaps it's just shifting from the left-side of the brain to the right-side for a while. Dunno. But it sure is a peaceful feeling.
goo0h
Well-known
And in fact -- it was a very long time ago that I read about it so details may be rusty -- but I'm pretty sure Dorothea Lange typically took extensive notes while she was taking her photos. When conversing with individuals, she always tried to quote precisely what they were saying.mfunnell said:
And perhaps somewhat related, W. Eugene Smith was notorious about being extremely particular as to precisely how his photos were placed in the magazine, making sure the text and the photo spread progressed like a story.
An interesting comparison between approaches and intentions and how that impacts the end result is to look at the pictures Dorothea Lange took of the Japanese internment campus in the US during WWII, and then to look at the photos Ansel Adams took at the very same camp at about the same time. Ansel was decidedly apolitical while Dorothea was more sympathetic to the conditions of the Japanese. Same exact place, same exact time, but the result is dramatically different. Definitely worth checking out to see for yourself.
williams473
Well-known
That's a very well thought out point that images can be taken of context to mean anything - but I think we still need to strive towards clarity of meaning in out work, even if it is impossible to truly achieve. "Selectivity" is what's it's all about.
As far as the Lange/Adams comparison goes, indeed that is a great example of two photographers producing drastically different work in the same situation. That's why I like Lange much more than Adams - his work is so formal - all about tone, geometry and composition, whereas Lange communicates the feel of a place in her work, and was a master of noticing human gesture, and conveying the personality and depth of her subjects. I used to live in Washington D.C. and in my time there, went to both an Adams show and a show of the Farm Administration work, and after a while, Adams work just starts looking the same, once you get over the impact of the first room or two.
I think the VERY best of photographs, the ones that survive the test of time, are so specific and well made that there is at least less interpretation that can be made about the meaning they were intended to convey. Take Lange's most iconic image for example, "Migrant Mother," - who can look at that and not see anything but someone who is tired and down on their luck? It may not tell us what State she is in, or what she does for a living, or if she is healthy or not, but it is a very clear, selective masterpiece I think, that is an accepted emblem of the American Great Depression.
And yes, I'll try to stay away from the meth labs
Actually I generally try to be universal as I can in my approach to subject matter - I try to avoid the trap of choosing subject matter that is blatantly, obviously negative or "edgy" or whatever. This point was brought home to me in 96 when I was in Russia, and shooting a few frames of a drunk passed out on the dirty street in a pool of his own urine. I was patting myself on the back for being "gutsy" enough to do this in public, and a Russian lady (a stranger) took me aside and in broken English angrily asked why we (photographers, Westerners maybe) only want to make Russians look bad. It was really life changing for me - I thought a lot about it and realized that it's true that often the images of hardcore suffering - war, famine etc., people out of their minds on meth or whatever, don't necessarily stand on their own based on shock value, and I needed to question why I thought the photo needed to be taken. It is much harder to make a universal image that conveys meaning with a slight gesture or expression, or through composition and control of the print than it is to hit people over the head with hardcore imagery. It comes back to that numbing effect of the proliferation of imagery we talked about much earlier in this thread. retnull
Well-known
williams473 said:
I can't recall where I read this. The two children who are clinging to their "Migrant Mother" would seem to be frightened or needy. But apparently, they were only shy at being photographed -- at the moment that Lange pressed the shutter, they were actually giggling and shyly hiding their faces. For us, their laughter isn't present in the photograph, only the careworn expression of the mother.
Not sure how this is significant....but it is interesting.
williams473
Well-known
retnull said:
retnull said:
True, and another interesting thing about the image which I learned about visiting the show, is that in the original negative there is a hand (Lange's assistant?) holding back the flap of the tent, clearly evident in the lower left hand side of the frame. The hand was mostly cropped and then the remaining dodged out and retouched because it was deemed to be distracting. However, that fact doesn't detract from the truth of the image, and indeed whether the children pictured are laughing or not in reality, doesn't change the meaning of the photo.
keithwms
Established
dazedgonebye said:
Sure, thanks.
Peace.
That was it, the last word.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
xayraa33 said:
I understand it was a joke, but wouldn't you like to see it if it in fact existed? I have read many books regarding the Kennedy assassination, and even saw Oliver Stone's movie JFK. I'm not sure we'll ever know what REALLY happened that day. But that is a topic for another thread, unless you have a clear photograph of Oswald in another location on that date... (To try to get back on topic a bit.)
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
There is a photograph taken of the TBD with the crowd by the doorway watching the motorcade with someone said to resemble LHO, but to me he looks more like Carl Perkins .
A more convincing photo, taken a little after, of the TBD,
has what looks like GHW Bush a little ways from the doorway.
yes , oldman Bush involved in this is very believeable to me.
the other Altgen photos are also worth looking at .
.A more convincing photo, taken a little after, of the TBD,
has what looks like GHW Bush a little ways from the doorway.
yes , oldman Bush involved in this is very believeable to me.
the other Altgen photos are also worth looking at .
Last edited:
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
good article there.
yes the camera does lie, with no need of composite photos either.
yes the camera does lie, with no need of composite photos either.
d_ross
Registered User
the social dissidents have been consumed!
goo0h
Well-known
williams473 said:
I'd have to agree. There's a very personable nature to Lange that has always gotten to me. I know she suffered from polo as a child and retained a slight limp the rest of her life. I wonder if it actually helped folks to feel at ease around her, especially the down-trodden.
I've also wondered if by being apolitical, Ansel was in fact being very political. It's been a while since I've seen those particular photos, but I remember thinking how beautiful and serene they looked. It was more like a religious retreat center than an interment camp. What a wonderful place to stay! Isn't that being political by acting as propaganda, without purposely trying to do so?
Evans is also interesting because he too was uninterested in politics and didn't want to play the propaganda bit, but on the other hand he was very sincere, and wanted to show things truthfully. The expression on some of the faces of the folks on the street are rather touching. (I think it was in Chicago, or was it New York? Will have to go back and look them up again.)
williams473 said:
This is an interesting account of that picture. When you see the 5 other shots, you see just how desperate they were:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/128_migm.html
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Vic, the idea behind the Monkette/AT&T claim was to stir up some publicity for Monkette and my blog, which had a large increase in traffic because of it. That in turn translated into an increase in ad revenue. Not big bucks for sure, but money is money! And had AT&T offered me a settlement of a few hundred thou I sure wouldn't have turn it down.
It's all about publicity, getting a few Google friendly paragraphs out there on the 'net. A friend who should know better (he OWNS an ad agency) remarked to me about how much money Starbucks would lose by closing every single store for the exact same three hours "for retraining".
That one little press release was emailed to news media planet-wide. It was the talk on TV and radio news, discussed in offices and restaurants, the subject of stories and editorials in magazines and newspapers ~ ONE LITTLE PRESS RELEASE! That was a stroke of genius! Starbucks won't suffer because of being closed three hours...
If you want to get a message out there, whether social, political, or business, you have to use the right key words. These days you not only have to catch the reader's eye but also attract the search engines. They're not always attracted to the same things as real live people.
It's all about publicity, getting a few Google friendly paragraphs out there on the 'net. A friend who should know better (he OWNS an ad agency) remarked to me about how much money Starbucks would lose by closing every single store for the exact same three hours "for retraining".
That one little press release was emailed to news media planet-wide. It was the talk on TV and radio news, discussed in offices and restaurants, the subject of stories and editorials in magazines and newspapers ~ ONE LITTLE PRESS RELEASE! That was a stroke of genius! Starbucks won't suffer because of being closed three hours...
If you want to get a message out there, whether social, political, or business, you have to use the right key words. These days you not only have to catch the reader's eye but also attract the search engines. They're not always attracted to the same things as real live people.
Last edited: