View Full Version : Where are our social dissidents?
williams473
02-23-2008, 08:58
I realize there are many who frequent this forum from all over the World, but I would like to pose some questions to U.S. photographers in particular, and opinions from all over will be valued as well.
Why does it seem (and it may simply seem to me) that photography no longer leads the charge in social critique and when necessary, social upheaval? Why is it (and I include myself here) that we allow ourselves to be pacified by material comforts, and close our eyes and ears to the fact that the US is continuing down a path of global imperialism that is severely weakening our social fabric? Why does the U.S. have such high murder rates in our major cities? Why are the children in our country so poorly informed about the state of the World at large? Why do we value watching TV more than any other activity? Why is obesity an epidemic in the U.S.?
Of course these are rhetorical questions with a myriad of answers that could be framed in a number of ways, but my larger point is that for those of us out there who like to think of ourselves as social documentarians, why are we not cranking out photo essays and self publishing them in places where people outside our sphere will see it?
We can't count on employed photojournalists to do it - most local shooters are on assignment, covering car crashes, high school football, fires, local government and the like - not that there isn't a need for that. They simply can't have a global perspective because their assignments are local, and they answer to editors. Am I just not looking, or are we not taking advantage of a very fertile country, rife with things that need to be pointed out and looked at with the powerful eye of the photographer? Is it even possible anymore, seeing as most media outlets who could publish on a National level primarily use established freelancers, and heavily edit the images they publish? Is there any room for diversity in expression? Is there any way to do some real down and dirty photo essays that will matter in the least to the American public - to a country that is one of the more depraved in the Western World?
Here's the real question I ask myself every day - if I bust my butt working (outside of my day job,) pound away as a working class artist, produce thousands of photographs, make my points - maybe even some people see the work - does it matter? Are people in this country interested in work that isn't endorsed by one of the major media outlets? Is social photography a complete waste of time if there is no significant audience?
williams473
02-23-2008, 09:18
Yes, I suppose that very well may be the case - sad. Maybe our World is toobig? To many choices of media to consume, and to many fun things to do instead of looking at what's wrong?
williams473
02-23-2008, 09:20
Take a work like "Tulsa" for example - how did Larry Clark get that made in the 70's, and how do we know about it now? Chance?
Sitemistic stated exactly what I was going to say. Well said.
Could it also be that the present socio-political climate oppresses social activism and any questioning of the status quo as un-American?
One more factor that comes to mind ... the overabundance of electronic media has probably (though I don't have the numbers) reduced attendance at photo exhibits in galleries and museums. Seeing a really good exhibit installation is quite different, and it need not exclude electronic media.
The current Larry Towell exhibit at Eastman House is stunning, IMO. The impact is different than solitary viewing on a computer screen. Anyone in the Northeast and Southern Ontario who can make it should do so. I'll get you in on my membership.
robertdfeinman
02-23-2008, 09:57
Before the internet an individual had essentially no way of getting their work before the public. Every spread that Eugene Smith managed to get published was the result of hard fought battles with "Life" management.
Now you can just set up a web site and publish whatever you wish. I do it both with my photos as well as a section that I devote to essays (words, not pictures) on social issues of the day.
There is no point in complaining that people don't care or won't pay attention, when you have, for the first time, the ability to do something about it without worrying about a gatekeeper.
So. if you have something to say, say it. If it strikes a chord, and if you take the time to promote your work, you will attract an audience. It won't rival Life magazine in circulation, but it's better than what you might have achieved in the "good old days".
williams473
02-23-2008, 10:47
Posting in blue now, so people who read white on black can see it - sorry!
Yes, I agree to a certain degree my own apathy probably robs me of the satisfaction of ditributing on a smaller scale.
Thanks for the heads up on the Larry Towell show. My mentor, Benita Keller is one of Larry's disciples, so I like to follow his work (and Benita's for that matter) as much as I can. He is a great artist indeed.
Maybe it's photography, not just film, that is dieing? Oversaturation, cell phones, TV news asking cell phone users to e-mail news, boredom with the whole thing and and a digi in every pocket.
Photography is simply going through a transitional phase.
The "problem" for me with self-publishing via the web is that I don't fancy building and promoting a website; I'm a photographer. But if that is the reality, then it has to be dealt with.
charjohncarter
02-23-2008, 11:55
tripod, have you ever been to Berkeley, CA? I don't think oppression is alive and well.
I certainly think that the proliferation of images everywhere had an effect on the role of photography as a vehicle of social "complain", for a lack of a better word. If we look at the time period where photography was not only the only vehicle for truth, but also almost of unquestionable veracity, we can see a big shift of circumstances surrounding photography today.
When Capa took his pictures, photograpry was the only way to let people know about distant fact. And photography was, as french scholars said, iconic and indicial (err... my poor english skills make for a big probability that the word "indicial" doesn't exist at all :D). What was in the image was true, without discussion. And images were few and far between, photography was not a major part of the everyday landscape.
Now, images are not only everywhere, but also its veracity is questionable. The flood with imaging is so important that I don't know if today an image as the Tian An Men event -the student in front of the row of tanks- would have such an impact (it would have an impact of course, but I doubt that it would become the icon that it became if that image would be recorded today).
Most of us photographers, professionals or hobbysts like myself, lived this as part of a seamless process, and probably without noticing, "quit" thinking of photography as a social critique media -though I believe it is a perfect vehicle, it's just that the circumstances don't allow for this-.
It's sad indeed, I think, when we look at the hard work of documentary photographers, look at the fruits of their work -I'm thinking about those first photo documents of Hiroshima and nagasaki yearas after the nuclear bombs, for example-, and realize that today photography has no place to achieve the same results not for a fault in photography's nature, but because of a change in surrounding factors...
Heck, makes me sad indeed.
Cheers.
dazedgonebye
02-23-2008, 12:20
Angry Young Man ~~ Billy Joel
I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too,
I had my pointless point of view,
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.
Hello:
I suspect we have, at least in the West, lost the habit of attention. The photographs are still taken but the communal audience is gone.
Think of the contrast between the awareness of the work of Mary Ellen Mark and Annie Leiboweitz.
The larger spirit of the age has also seemingly shifted to approval of the Pharisee and a discomfort for the Samaritan. Below a certain age the best are antinomian and the rest unaware.
yours
FPJ
Roger Hicks
02-23-2008, 12:22
Before the internet an individual had essentially no way of getting their work before the public. Every spread that Eugene Smith managed to get published was the result of hard fought battles with "Life" management.
Dear Robert,
Seconded. With multinational, bland, snivelling-coward publishers, getting hard-hitting images published in print is ever more difficult; the internet is good news here (except when international companies cave in to censorship, especially from China).
Cheers,
R.
keithwms
02-23-2008, 12:33
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.
I can remember when, in the US, there was ABC, CBS, and NBC, and that was it. Now there are far more sources of news and info... yes, some questionable ones too...but overall the media is a far larger entity now with far fewer constraints on information and more choices. People expect instantaneous firsthand footage and, by and large, they get it.
As for advocacy via photography, again I don't see what you're getting at. You can type any social issue from drugs to global warming into your browser and get thousands of pages of firsthand content, including photos. Streaming content even. All major media outlets now openly solicit contributions in the form of photos and videos. Overall they have far more content now, visual, audio and text, than they have ever had. By a long shot. Now the issue isn't getting the content, it's how to sift through all the stuff you get.
Bottom line the way I see it: if you are an amateur journalist and you have an issue and a half decent camera, then there is a far greater chance that your content will be on the evening news than here was, say, a decade ago.
[political / generational aside: as for the insinuation in the thread that younger Americans are somehow less socially conscious: bunk. The most self-absorbed, wasteful, socially-unconscious, "me" generation of Americans is now being shown the exit door from American politics. Replacing them is a far more internationalized, social conscious, open-minded, multilingual, multicultural, tolerant and educated younger generation. A lot of baby boomers are squirming right about now and I frankly am enjoying it.]
dazedgonebye
02-23-2008, 12:40
Sounds a lot like we're blaming the audience instead of the performers.
If I produce what I think is art, or compelling social comentary, and no one notices/buys/buys in, perhaps the problem is that I haven't actually hit on a truth as perceived by the audience.
I know that the ignorant swine of the world have yet to discover my genius...but I'm learning to live with that.
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.
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
Sounds a lot like we're blaming the audience instead of the performers.
If I produce what I think is art, or compelling social comentary, and no one notices/buys/buys in, perhaps the problem is that I haven't actually hit on a truth as perceived by the audience.
I know that the ignorant swine of the world have yet to discover my genius...but I'm learning to live with that.
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?
...
Here's the real question I ask myself every day - if I bust my butt working (outside of my day job,) pound away as a working class artist, produce thousands of photographs, make my points - maybe even some people see the work - does it matter? Are people in this country interested in work that isn't endorsed by one of the major media outlets? Is social photography a complete waste of time if there is no significant audience?
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. :confused: I think of social critique and upheaval as being more grass roots in scale, an underdog proposition.
.
.
dazedgonebye
02-23-2008, 13:31
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.
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
02-23-2008, 14:05
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
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.
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
02-23-2008, 16:23
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.
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
02-23-2008, 17:31
Nothing to add that would make anyone happy. So...
Semper Fidelis,
Bill Mattocks
williams473
02-23-2008, 18:02
"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.
keithwms
02-23-2008, 18:16
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
02-23-2008, 18:30
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.
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.
"Africa"......kinda general, eh? I mean we're talking about a whole continent....
xayraa33
02-23-2008, 19:04
Democracy is annoying when you started out as a FREE REPUBLIC.
kind of a step down if you ask me.
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.
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
02-23-2008, 19:07
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.
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.
bmattock
02-23-2008, 19:23
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2331/1970084610_570d85893d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/1970084610/)
Interesting discussion going on and it's much appreciated. There's dissent going on every day but most of the time we either don't hear about it or don't care about it. It's ironic that this thread is here and I saw this YouTube video of Texas students who shut down a highway & walked 7 miles to their early voting polling plae to cast their votes in the Primary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvDAiWWuvRg&eurl=http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=718
The premise for this display of dissent is that redistricting has made it more difficult for voters to actually vote. These student have to go 7 miles from campus just to vote. Will you see this in tomorrow's major news outlet? Maybe, most likely not.
bmattock
02-23-2008, 19:42
Interesting discussion going on and it's much appreciated. There's dissent going on every day but most of the time we either don't hear about it or don't care about it. It's ironic that this thread is here and I saw this YouTube video of Texas students who shut down a highway & walked 7 miles to their early voting polling plae to cast their votes in the Primary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvDAiWWuvRg&eurl=http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=718
The premise for this display of dissent is that redistricting has made it more difficult for voters to actually vote. These student have to go 7 miles from campus just to vote. Will you see this in tomorrow's major news outlet? Maybe, most likely not.
7 whole miles? How awful that must be for them. Can't they just drive their Mercedes Benzes?
williams473
02-23-2008, 20:09
Sitemistic,
Yes I think you are hitting on something there - I probably do rely on external approval too much - just part of my makeup. It's strange that I can see myself doing it, but if I'm honest I still can't seem to break myself of needing approval for my work. May be part of the old question "is it art if no one sees it" sort of endless discussions you have after drinking a lot of beer.
Keith - thanks for the encourgement - I am indeed trying to just keeping on shooting, if for not other reason than the place you are today - the specifics, the story about the protest in Texas - these events and ones that don't seem to any lasting significance at all at the moment, may play into a latter understanding of how we got to where we are. This whole thread might have actually been more specifically about art photography that looks like photojournalism - using the camera to make quality works of art that reflect the culture in which they are made, and then can be used to wake people up to the plight of the culturally, financially, or spiritually bankrupt people we have living in this country.
PaulRicciardi
02-23-2008, 20:10
7 whole miles? How awful that must be for them. Can't they just drive their Mercedes Benzes?
Great generalization of the youth of today! (apply sarcasm liberally to last sentence)
I think the point of that story was that many college students, contrary to what you apparently believe, don't have a car and, subsequently, by placing the poll so far away from campus you effectively eliminate a substantial portion of that voting demographic. 7 miles is a little bit of a hike, that's going to take a while and the average American isn't going to want to walk that far (and then back again) to vote. Would you? My guess is no, you would rather drive. Although I'm sure I will get a speech about "when I was in the Marines we used to walk 15 miles up hill both ways just to s**t."
Just to let you know, I'm 18, car-less, and a college student. 7 miles is no big deal to me, I ride about 120 miles a week on a bike, but I'm sure that makes no difference.
And no, since I'm sure you will ask, mommy and daddy aren't paying for my education- I moved out at 17 and worked multiple jobs for the past 3 years so I could get an education.
On the issue of dissidence, I think that some still remains. I sure hope so at least.
keithwms
02-23-2008, 20:12
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.
Actually, Steve, I think a compelling case can be made that the eff-ups of the current generation of leaders are quite historic in magnitude and will be paid for by my generation and probably the next.
But let's leave it at that.
The OP should feel encouraged to use photography as a social tool.
I'm not even going to bother replying to bmattock as it's really not worth it.
What I was trying to get at is that there are things going on that we can document with our cameras. We just have to look for it and be aware. One benefit of not being a paid photojournalist is that you can be more deliberate in showing your own point of view instead of what the traditional media wants nowadays - the washed down "safe" middle POV.
Go out and photograph in your environment and enjoy.
PaulRicciardi
02-23-2008, 20:27
The OP should feel encouraged to use photography as a social tool.
Agreed, I feel that a photograph (or a series of them) that truly encapsulates an event in the world can make a big impact and potentially lead to social change. Many people view an image and feel compelled to act upon what they see. Despite the fact that the world has changed and we are living in an age of information saturation I still think that a powerful photograph remains a powerful tool. All it really takes is a few individuals to hang onto that idealism that photojournalism is not dead. Personally, soon as I'm done with school, I plan on being one of them.
Going in a different direction I feel that the social issues in America are different from those across the world. They are more subtle perhaps. Here the issues are less "extreme" than in other places across the world. While America might not have poverty, famine, violence, and disease in the intensity that the rest of the world has it, these issues still exist here. Not to mention the issues unique to American society. But taking a broader world view, what about everything that is occurring worldwide? Shall we ignore it and leave it un-photographed for fear that the public will ignore it? I say just go ahead, do it, and get the photos are out there. If you feel like your work will make a difference in the world or inspire others to act for change than go for it.
As far as I am concerned, If at least one life is changed for the better, in my book, that's all that matters.
bmattock
02-23-2008, 20:30
Great generalization of the youth of today! (apply sarcasm liberally to last sentence)
Not all of them. I listen to whatever my nephew has to tell me about the war and politics. He's just a few years older than you, he's on his second tour in Iraq at the moment. I admire him.
I think the point of that story was that many college students, contrary to what you apparently believe, don't have a car and, subsequently, by placing the poll so far away from campus you effectively eliminate a substantial portion of that voting demographic. 7 miles is a little bit of a hike, that's going to take a while and the average American isn't going to want to walk that far (and then back again) to vote. Would you? My guess is no, you would rather drive. Although I'm sure I will get a speech about "when I was in the Marines we used to walk 15 miles up hill both ways just to s**t."
Well, since you already know the story, I'll keep it to myself. Pretend I said it.
Just to let you know, I'm 18, car-less, and a college student. 7 miles is no big deal to me, I ride about 120 miles a week on a bike, but I'm sure that makes no difference.
It isn't your lack of funds that makes me less than sympathetic.
And no, since I'm sure you will ask, mommy and daddy aren't paying for my education- I moved out at 17 and worked multiple jobs for the past 3 years so I could get an education.
Huh. Sounds familiar. I'll bet I sounded just like you, too. Guess what? You ain't the Lone Ranger. Guess I wasn't, either.
On the issue of dissidence, I think that some still remains. I sure hope so at least.
What I hear is not dissidence, but dissonance. From a lot of people not qualified to play an instrument in the band.
Social dissidents?
With the latest american scam (yeah, supporting Kosovo, the biggest Drug dealers and the land with most uranium and fuel in Europe, thus taking it away from Serbs and giving it to the powerful albanian lobbyists), what can the social dissidents do?
I could write a book on this but yet, CNN and other brainwashing media and brainwashed people will just ignore the truth.
Social dissidents? More serbs dead then jews in WWII. Died for the same cause, BTW. But yet, because of money, serbs have been shown as monsters while it was exactly the opposite, for the past 20 years.
I'm a social dissident and I vomit at all the lies from the press. I vomit at all the brainwashed sheep out there. And still, being a social dissident just doesn't help at anything. It's all about the money and control.
So to answer your question: this social dissidence thing is just a lie and always was. Just gives the people an impression of change, but in reality it's worthless. Always was.
PaulRicciardi
02-23-2008, 20:45
Not all of them. I listen to whatever my nephew has to tell me about the war and politics. He's just a few years older than you, he's on his second tour in Iraq at the moment. I admire him.
Good for him, but sorry to say I shan't be wasting my life for a cause I don't believe in. If he wants to great, I respect him for it. I can name on both hands friends from high school who chose the same path. Actually, at one point in time the military was a very good option for me. So good, in fact, that once in my life I was sitting in a recruiting office with a piece of paper waiting for my name on it. Not signing it was the best decision of my life.
Huh. Sounds familiar. I'll bet I sounded just like you, too. Guess what? You ain't the Lone Ranger. Guess I wasn't, either.
Not saying I am alone in my situation. Nor am I asserting that I am the only 18 year old kid who has worked his rear off to get somewhere. Just simply reminding you that not all of the kids in this world are lazy bums. I think we would both agree, to an extent, that most 20 somethings haven't had to work for much of anything. But a lot of them have. However, just because they have chosen to do so outside of the military does not make them "lesser."
What I hear is not dissidence, but dissonance. From a lot of people not qualified to play an instrument in the band.
So only those who have served in the military are qualified to have an opinion?
xayraa33
02-23-2008, 20:52
Social dissidents?
With the latest american scam (yeah, supporting Kosovo, the biggest Drug dealers and the land with most uranium and fuel in Europe, thus taking it away from Serbs and giving it to the powerful albanian lobbyists), what can the social dissidents do?
I could write a book on this but yet, CNN and other brainwashing media and brainwashed people will just ignore the truth.
Social dissidents? More serbs dead then jews in WWII. Died for the same cause, BTW. But yet, because of money, serbs have been shown as monsters while it was exactly the opposite, for the past 20 years.
I'm a social dissident and I vomit at all the lies from the press. I vomit at all the brainwashed sheep out there. And still, being a social dissident just doesn't help at anything. It's all about the money and control.
So to answer your question: this social dissidence thing is just a lie and always was. Just gives the people an impression of change, but in reality it's worthless. Always was.
you got to see who is REALLY behind this Kosovo thing Ned.
it has to be" Stepinac's "organization.
it is always good for future planned wars too.
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.
Don't think so much about it; just do it. Don't worry if folks will like it now, or 50 years from now. You can never tell. When Robert Frank's book the "Americans" came out it was trashed by the critics in this country. Now (and it's about to be re-released in May on Amazon) it's heralded as a masterpiece.
When Walker Evans did the photos and James Agee wrote the text for what eventually became "Let Us Praise Famous Men," by the time the book finally came out, much of that material had already been presented by the FSA photographers. So the book wasn't a hit then. However, during the era of Johnson's "Great Society" efforts in the 60's, the book gained heightened appreciation.
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.
If it brings you happiness, then it is never worthless. If you find joy in doing it, and you care about the subjects, chances are you're going to portray a story -- whether it's AIDS in Africa or the community on your street -- that is going to be meaningful and appreciated.
Good luck!
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?
Bas, I was thinking of the same quote while reading the thread.
I live in America with an overwhelming sense of terror most of the time, and not because of so-called terrorists. On that note, living for self and living for country can be equally problematic. Always faithful? To what? Certainly not humanity.
The problem with social photography moved over to video, and it's ruined much of serious cinema. Anytime George Clooney is the poster child of our social conscience, you know that something has gone terribly wrong.
My most optimistic side says that the changes are good for photography, letting the form turn deeper to artistic ends. I'm probably in the minority in thinking that social documentary is not particularly effective.
There is a great poem that says, "every wise child is sad;" I like to think that it is the best guide for the creative process.
xayraa33
02-23-2008, 21:52
how is one to publish photographic social documentary?
on Flickr or here perhaps ?
images on the internet are so fleeting and have to compete with many on it.
the corporate media might not be interested if the images are going against a certain agenda.
My most optimistic side says that the changes are good for photography, letting the form turn deeper to artistic ends. I'm probably in the minority in thinking that social documentary is not particularly effective.
I think it depends somewhat on the times. I think when there's an overall sense of hope in society, it becomes more receptive to change highlighted by social documentary. I think when society is preoccupied by despair or anxiety, folks rather watch American Idol or Big Brother than to hear about genocide.
I forget where I saw it. But it was a discussion about photojournalism today. Something about how video was now the major form if information dispersal at the critical moment, but that still photographers were now going in after the big event to more carefully reveal the aftermath. I wish could remember where I heard that. I'm still recovering from the flu and so my head is even more scattered than usual. ;)
Speaking of photojournalism, a member of our family did some really interesting work recently on MAG (Mines Advisory Group):
http://flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/sets/72157603670403322/
http://flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/sets/72157603753032385/
It's a really terrific and interesting spread.
bmattock
02-24-2008, 04:21
Good for him, but sorry to say I shan't be wasting my life for a cause I don't believe in. If he wants to great, I respect him for it. I can name on both hands friends from high school who chose the same path. Actually, at one point in time the military was a very good option for me. So good, in fact, that once in my life I was sitting in a recruiting office with a piece of paper waiting for my name on it. Not signing it was the best decision of my life.
It's not for everyone. Some are sheep and some are sheepdogs.
Not saying I am alone in my situation. Nor am I asserting that I am the only 18 year old kid who has worked his rear off to get somewhere. Just simply reminding you that not all of the kids in this world are lazy bums. I think we would both agree, to an extent, that most 20 somethings haven't had to work for much of anything. But a lot of them have. However, just because they have chosen to do so outside of the military does not make them "lesser."
Lesser? No. But less qualified to render a judgment on the military, the war, or the state of our country.
So only those who have served in the military are qualified to have an opinion?
Two words there. Can anyone have an opinion? Yes. Is it an opinion I am liable to put much consideration towards? Perhaps less so.
You can count on both hands the friends of yours who have gone into the military. I can can count on both hands my friends - almost all of whom are veterans.
What I cannot count on both hands are the number of people who think they can join my club by telling me (when in their 40's) about how they "almost joined" or "if there was a war today, I'd be right there on the front lines with 'em" (haven't heard that one recently, I must say) or "I thought seriously about joining, but never got around to it." Regrets are funny things. People think that regretting not having done something is almost the same as having done it.
In the end, you pack the gear or you do not. Those who do and did are my brothers, and their opinions matter more to me than do yours on certain subjects. Not one of them wasted their lives who did not come home; they just quietly paid a high price so that you can complain about a 7 mile trip to vote. Enjoy it, your freedom comes courtesy of veterans.
dazedgonebye
02-24-2008, 05:15
Actually, Steve, I think a compelling case can be made that the eff-ups of the current generation of leaders are quite historic in magnitude and will be paid for by my generation and probably the next.
But let's leave it at that.
The OP should feel encouraged to use photography as a social tool.
It's pure arrogance if you believe you won't be seen the same way by the next generation.
Give it another 20 years before you pass judgement on the current leaders. That data just won't be in till at least that long.
Now...you can have the last word if you want it.
Uh, I think I nailed it in post #8.
We are at war with Oceana. We have always been at war with Oceana. (1984)
antiquark
02-24-2008, 06:28
Hey, it's easy to be a social dissident: next time you're in a voting booth, place your vote for Barack Obama. Piece of cake! No photography necessary! :)
(Too bad I'm a Canuck!)
bmattock
02-24-2008, 06:31
We are at war with Oceana. We have always been at war with Oceana. (1984)
We are not at war. America's military is at war. America is at the mall.
Roger Hicks
02-24-2008, 06:54
One odd little thought here. When was the last time American troops fought for their country?
Not 'against communism' or 'for oil' or 'in support of UN objectives' but in defence of their homeland, as in WW2?
This is not to denigrate the profession of arms. My father served in the Royal Navy (and both my grandfathers were killed in the Royal Navy in WW2), and I have several relatives in various branches of the armed services, including a cousin who is a colonel. But it struck me as an interesting question.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
02-24-2008, 07:01
It's not for everyone. Some are sheep and some are sheepdogs.
Dear Bill,
And it is a legitimate debate as to which are which.
Cheers,
R.
charjohncarter
02-24-2008, 07:04
bmattock, nice photo, very socially dissident.
The presumption of the O/P was that documentary photography needs to be done because of how awful we all are.
Well, that wasn't the impression I got. I felt that the OP was struggling for a sense of meaning in a society that, whether we like it or not, has become pretty glib and superficial. At the heart of the OP's expression of frustration, I thought, was "why bother?" I thought it was a very real concern. How does one combine the practical life of paying the bills with one's passion for photography? How does one keep from feeling disenchanted with photography because at times it seems like a waste of time and money, and not all of us have tons of money to blow? What drove those in the past that produced remarkable documentary work, and how did it bring meaning to their lives and to the lives of others? How much, if any, does social documentary photography impact society, anyway?
I have to admit to pondering similar things myself lately. While I was home sick with the flu last week, I was looking through old books on Walker Evans, W. Eugine Smith, Frank Capa, and Dorothea Lange. I also just ordered the new book on Gerda Taro (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3865215327).
I can sympathize with the OP's frustration. About 15 years ago, due to a myriad of reasons, I totally bailed on photography. One of those was a sense of "why bother?" Then I realized: "because it makes me happy!" Duh. (Well, when you grow up poor, sometimes that reason isn't always sufficient.) And despite having a long held appreciation for social documentary, will I ever achieve such work? Probably not. But that doesn't stop my enjoyment of what others are doing, nor does it stop my enjoyment of tinkering with a camera, even if at times it's a bit pathetic. ;)
I think it's somewhat unfortunate, but sadly inevitable, that someone's sincere expression of frustration turns into a political pissing match. Folks need to not take things so personally all the time.
Al Patterson
02-24-2008, 07:28
I am here to serve as a voice of dissent.
Everytime one of these threads gets going, someone starts taking it on a very leftist political route.
I really hate these Bush Sucks threads and have made a promise to myself that if the political tides ever turn, I will take every opportunity available to throw the same egg back to the faces of the "Bush Sucks, Bush Lies, People Die" people for an equal ammount of time because payback is hell...
Maybe I am the true radical and voice of dissent here - I am not running with the crowd, I think our president's reaction was VERY restrained given the circumstances... and has continued to be an understated response to a crucial situation...
I seem to recall several places in the world where Clinton should have stuck his boot in a country's arse -- hmmm so maybe we should have tried this holler "Bill squirts, people die!" --- I almost decided to do some urban warefare during primary elections in the vein of the Chicago 7 -- I was going to stand at a busy street corner loaded with hillary supporters -- holding a sign proclaiming "Show your t1ts for Hillary"
I truly believe most of the screaming frothing liberals are one of the more serious problems ---
Amen! I got myself in trouble once by stating something about the "approved worldview" of RFF. What I was talking about is plainly evident in this thread. (And I don't believe it is intentional on the part of the mods or the owner, it kind of rears it's head on it's own). I come here to read about rangefinders, not to read anti-Bush or anti-Christian or anti-American screeds. There are plenty of places on the web where people of various political stripes (any of them) can go and have a circle jerk. This should not be the place. Just my opinion. I'm off to find my flame-retardant undershorts...
Al Patterson
02-24-2008, 07:31
Imagine how I react when I see read about the city of Berkeley, CA sending a letter to the US Marines stating that they are unwelcome and unwanted guests and that they are required to register like sex offenders due to their predatory nature, which (literally) encourages people everywhere to 'harass, detain, and hinder' US Marines wherever they find them. I suppose to be expected out of Berkeley, but then I read the mayor of Toledo, Ohio, tossed out Marine reservists drilling prior to deployment to Iraq according to previously agreed-upon rules with the city because 'men with guns scare people', that is a little spooky to me.
When I see the sheer, seathing hatred in the eyes of Code Pink marchers who insist that they don't hate the troops but who denigrate our veterans (they are the troops, duh) as dupes, tools, idiots and criminals, I find that rhetoric a little spooky.
Amen to that as well Bill.
I was too young to have joined many of you in SE Asia, but I do remember the lack of respect shown to returning servicemen in the 1970's.
Thank you for your service.
One odd little thought here. When was the last time American troops fought for their country?
Not 'against communism' or 'for oil' or 'in support of UN objectives' but in defence of their homeland, as in WW2?
This is not to denigrate the profession of arms. My father served in the Royal Navy (and both my grandfathers were killed in the Royal Navy in WW2), and I have several relatives in various branches of the armed services, including a cousin who is a colonel. But it struck me as an interesting question.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger: Had the US stepped in to stop another petty dictator with a clear expansionist agenda , say, in 1938, would that have been "in defense of their homeland"? Probaby not, but 20M dead is a pretty strong argument in favour of it.
Was kicking Saddam out of Kuwait another example of American adventurism? I guess Saddam would have used all that oil money to redistribute the wealth and secure free healthcare for his people, and the other Gulf states and Israel would sleep soundly.
The people who scream about American intervention in Afghanistan, where crazy religious fanatics are killing people, are the very same who scream about American indifference in Darfur, where crazy religious fanatics are killing people.
I'll stop short of calling these people historically ignorant, maybe just naive.
But the only thing worse than American interventionism is American isolationism, and I think history backs this argument up pretty soundly.
Mike
dazedgonebye
02-24-2008, 07:53
Roger: Had the US stepped in to stop another petty dictator with a clear expansionist agenda , say, in 1938, would that have been "in defense of their homeland"? Probaby not, but 20M dead is a pretty strong argument in favour of it.
Was kicking Saddam out of Kuwait another example of American adventurism? I guess Saddam would have used all that oil money to redistribute the wealth and secure free healthcare for his people, and the other Gulf states and Israel would sleep soundly.
The people who scream about American intervention in Afghanistan, where crazy religious fanatics are killing people, are the very same who scream about American indifference in Darfur, where crazy religious fanatics are killing people.
I'll stop short of calling these people historically ignorant, maybe just naive.
But the only thing worse than American interventionism is American isolationism, and I think history backs this argument up pretty soundly.
Mike
Amen Brother.
xayraa33
02-24-2008, 07:58
I was so hoping for Michelle Obama to don a pink pillbox hat two days ago in dallas --- I was waiting for his convertable to drive around Dealey Plaza --- history always begs to repeat itself --
the sad thing is that this scenario has crossed my mind, when their man Obama starts thinking for himself and has to be replaced with VP Hillary.
America does not need to get into any more Inquisitorial wars, and finally stop being a huge war machine controlled by an outside force.
xayraa33
02-24-2008, 08:19
If you can answer this question correclty, it would affect where you should direct your ire and plan for social change:
Who currently controls America?
1) The FreeMasons
2) It's a zionist occupied government (the jews)
3) A New World Order (Illuminati)
4) George W Bush
5) Large Corporations (Who controls them?)
6) The Skull and Crossbones (a small group of wealthy and powerful white men)
Pick your flavor of conspiracy cereal -- truth be told, Obama, Clinton, McCain, George Bush, and so forth on down to congress and others are NOT acting independently -- someone is pulling the strings and playing puppetmaster ---
so, the real thing is liberal or conservative? doesn't really matter, the end result is the same --- they will only go so far as Gepetto allows...
there is a 7th one on the list that controls the six that you mention.
it all fully started with the 14th amendment when America stopped being the great Free Republic that George Washington created.
I think he was rich enough and connected enough to become leader and protector of multi-national business interests, esp. petro-chemical. Certainly not based on intellectual merit. Just my opinion.
Peter_Jones
02-24-2008, 09:14
Most people in the UK don't vote as it really does not matter any more, they (politicians) all fill the same pot and feather their own nests. Our current "leader" is unelected anyway :rolleyes: don't you just love democracy ? (or elected autocracy as it has become)
Photography as a vehicle for social change has always been overrated. IMHO, this is primarly because many photographers and photojournalists followed their print bretheren and abandoned objectivity and professionalism to become part of whatever world-changing movment was popular at the time. Or, even less useful, movements of 40 years ago. That's their choice, of course, but they shouldn't be surprised when people wonder if that amazing shot is really just another bit of fauxtography, staged or fabricated because the real world stubbornly refuses to yield photos that fit their message. Or if people look at their work skeptically and ask what else is out there that they're not taking pictures of.
There's plenty of very important photo work coming out of Iraq and the Middle East right now, for example. Unfortunately much of it tends to support points of view that are politically unpopular among other mainstream photojournalist. Or they were taken (horrors!) by millitary photographers who, unlike themselves, have suspect motives. If you're only willing to accept one possible view of the world then challenges to that worldview are uncomfortable and easy to ignore.
maybe the world doesn't need saving --- the problem is not the world itself - but it's an animal control problem -- man has been killing man since cain and abel or cavemen (perspective), israel and the mideast has been an issue since the split and the curse --- we as a species failed to intervene on behalf of other men on countless genocides - Chairman Mao, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Napoleon, General Sherman's march to Atlanta, Che, Noriega, everything going on in Africa for the past 200 years --- no democrat or republican has intervened seriously in Africa -- their genocides are not as important i guess == and so forth --- what makes man's actions any different than anything in our past?
go, son, go save the world ---
Simply because there is no oil there. The "interventions" are not about helping people, it is about securing valuable resources for consumer nations. (Man, am I cynical!)
Here's the real question I ask myself every day - if I bust my butt working (outside of my day job,) pound away as a working class artist, produce thousands of photographs, make my points - maybe even some people see the work - does it matter? Are people in this country interested in work that isn't endorsed by one of the major media outlets? Is social photography a complete waste of time if there is no significant audience?
You are responsible for your work. if you put the maximum amount of thought and effort into your craft as you can spare, then it is not a waste of time.
Film, properly developed and stored, can last for hundreds of years. Time enough.
Don't get me started on churches! :bang:
williams473
02-24-2008, 09:43
Wow - I log back in to check the thread today and discover the post has gone down the endless road of political squabbling -- Amos had it right -- I was indeed referring to the quandary one has when trying to figure out how to make one's country better through photography. I am an American, so I know what's wrong with my country, and have strong opinions about it. I figured I would offend some folks like Bill who think that criticising one's own country is unpatriotic. Actually, the way I see it, I agree with Bill that really an American is quite well qualified to criticise America, although it is also possible that it is easier to have a strategic view of a situation when you are not mired in the day to day tactical issues. So, I really don't know how we even got going down this road, except that Bill takes offense to me seeing improvements that desperately need to be made in this country, and his condescending tone and elitist attitude regarding his service brought out the worst in a few of the posters. I think a stand up comic put it best in saying that arguing on the internet is like j*rking off - except you have nothing to show for it when you're done.
So to bring it back to photography, I think I have gleaned some good info and opinions (minus the right and left wing stuff, which I've heard a million times from both sides) that both encourage and sober me. In the end I am figuring maybe there's no real harm in continuing on - even if it amounts to nothing, it's still better than sitting home and watching T V. I've met some really interesting folks when out street shooting, I got thrown in jail in Russia, I've had to run for my life - man that's some fun!
I also feel that when one focuses all of their mind on making pictures, one goes to a creative pool in the group consciousness that can't be anything but good for you - I know when I've finished shooting for the day and know I did some good work, it's the same feeling I used to get from leaving church - "all is well, I did the right thing today."
This is supposed to be the "philosophy" section of the site, so if you only want to read about gear or developing techniques, don't post here, right? This is my favorite area of RFF precisely because to me, photogrpahy is simply one way to get at much larger issues. In philosophy there are no easy answers - the point is to air your opinions and through CONSTRUCTIVE discussion, discover new ideas - the strength of the group.
Wow - I log back in to check the thread today and discover the post has gone down the endless road of political squabbling -- Amos had it right -- I was indeed referring to the quandary one has when trying to figure out how to make one's country better through photography. I am an American, so I know what's wrong with my country, and have strong opinions about it. I figured I would offend some folks like Bill who think that criticising one's own country is unpatriotic. Actually, the way I see it, I agree with Bill that really an American is quite well qualified to criticise America, although it is also possible that it is easier to have a strategic view of a situation when you are not mired in the day to day tactical issues. So, I really don't know how we even got going down this road, except that Bill takes offense to me seeing improvements that desperately need to be made in this country, and his condescending tone and elitist attitude regarding his service brought out the worst in a few of the posters. I think a stand up comic put it best in saying that arguing on the internet is like j*rking off - except you have nothing to show for it when you're done.
So to bring it back to photography, I think I have gleaned some good info and opinions (minus the right and left wing stuff, which I've heard a million times from both sides) that both encourage and sober me. In the end I am figuring maybe there's no real harm in continuing on - even if it amounts to nothing, it's still better than sitting home and watching T V. I've met some really interesting folks when out street shooting, I got thrown in jail in Russia, I've had to run for my life - man that's some fun!
I also feel that when one focuses all of their mind on making pictures, one goes to a creative pool in the group consciousness that can't be anything but good for you - I know when I've finished shooting for the day and know I did some good work, it's the same feeling I used to get from leaving church - "all is well, I did the right thing today."
This is supposed to be the "philosophy" section of the site, so if you only want to read about gear or developing techniques, don't post here, right? This is my favorite area of RFF precisely because to me, photogrpahy is simply one way to get at much larger issues. In philosophy there are no easy answers - the point is to air your opinions and through CONSTRUCTIVE discussion, discover new ideas - the strength of the group.
Oh, if that's all you wanted to know, then sure, go ahead. Nothing wrong with doing photography if it makes you feel good. :)
xayraa33
02-24-2008, 09:52
Don't get me started on churches! :bang:
yes, there is a much bigger agenda that has been going on for nearly a century and a half.
go read about the warning Charles Chiniquy gave to his friend
Abraham Lincoln.
Chiniquy was so right.
xayraa33
02-24-2008, 10:20
The Republic has long been killed and buried.
It has been " Rome on the Potomac" since 1868.
the church thing has been going on since roughly 4000 bc --- the inquisition, the conquest of america and other lands, the history of the catholic church, the protestants, the muslims, they all have blood on their hands - there are no innocents --
The catholic church needs to be disbanded and it's wealth distributed to parishioners as a penalty for sheltering and hiding chronic sexual predators --
as well as the countries / people that deserve reparations for genocide - slaves decendants, mexicans, central americans, south americans, indians, and so forth
scientology needs to be stripped down as well
I could go on...
You're a bit early on the beginning date for evil institutionalized religion, I put it at 500AD or so, but otherwise how can you be so right about religion and so wrong about politics? ;)
Roger Hicks
02-24-2008, 10:42
Roger: Had the US stepped in to stop another petty dictator with a clear expansionist agenda , say, in 1938, would that have been "in defense of their homeland"? . . . But the only thing worse than American interventionism is American isolationism, and I think history backs this argument up pretty soundly.
Mike
Dear Mike,
The question I was asking was rather different from the question you answered.
As I said, I had no intention to denigrate the profession of arms.
Nor did I call into question ANY American wars since WW2; indeed, I avoided the very word 'adventurism'.
My question was no more, and no less, than the one I posed. Has there been an American war, since WW2, in direct defence of the homeland?
Implicit in the question, I do not deny, was the possibility that Americans may sometimes have been guilty of adventurism or misguided invasions EDIT: They are not alone in this. I would not dream of suggesting that this was invariably the case; to do so would be as foolish as pretending it was never the case.
The second stage of my argument would have been that it is legitimate (and indeed necessary) to debate which wars are just and winnable; which are just but unwinnable (as the history of Afghanistan may suggest); and which are empty posturing (on all sides).
Perhaps you do not feel that such questions are worth asking.
Cheers,
Roger
xayraa33
02-24-2008, 10:55
You're a bit early on the beginning date for evil institutionalized religion, I put it at 500AD or so, but otherwise how can you be so right about religion and so wrong about politics? ;)
actually he may be spot on date wise when you consider the adoption of Sumarian and Babylonian pagan beliefs disguised into the teachings of a certain powerhouse temporal church.
xayraa33
02-24-2008, 11:35
am i?
I believe I'm only going back to the one righteous man, Noah / Gilgamesh, and the destruction of civilization / wrath of God..
Also am referencing jacob ishmael and esau - lots of wrath of god stuff used to control out of fear ----
Kind of how politics works as well ---
Jacob / Ishmael / Esau = the beginning of the mid east crisis historically...
so, nobody's told me who's really pushing the buttons --- certainly not a twerp like bush or bill clinton -- they are merely diversions... pablum for the masses - and things just haven't been the same since al gore invented the internet...
pictures / images will never enact social change...
Bush , Clinton, et al and who is coming next, like life too much to go against the man behind the curtain.
The Zapruter film shows what happens when you think you can call the shots, and they all have seen it.
And as comedian Bill Hicks said, after you get elected you go to a smokey room where you are shown a very clear film taken at Dealey Plaza on Nov.22.63 that you never knew that existed.
On the other question, I agree with what Eric Jon Phelps has to say on Youtube.
You are the man behind your curtain.
Bas, I was thinking of the same quote while reading the thread.
I live in America with an overwhelming sense of terror most of the time, and not because of so-called terrorists. On that note, living for self and living for country can be equally problematic. Always faithful? To what? Certainly not humanity.
The problem with social photography moved over to video, and it's ruined much of serious cinema. Anytime George Clooney is the poster child of our social conscience, you know that something has gone terribly wrong.
My most optimistic side says that the changes are good for photography, letting the form turn deeper to artistic ends. I'm probably in the minority in thinking that social documentary is not particularly effective.
There is a great poem that says, "every wise child is sad;" I like to think that it is the best guide for the creative process.
I almost lost your post, had to scan through all the pro-military, anti-military, etc histeria... certainly this thread lost the point.
I find interesting uour optimistic view, and -partially- share it. It is truth that a change towards a more artistic approximation to documentary phography -still serving as a social critique- is, for me too, a good shift.
However, this brings together a couple of consequences that to my humble eyes certainly restrict the possibilities of approximate to this new form of photography as an efficient social critique vehicle (considering efficiency, more or less, by the achievements of masters of documentary photography).
-By making of this a finer form of art, possiby will restrict the mediatization of these new kind of images. Hence, the public will be a minority. I don't see this wrong, since we can see that today, even in its more pure way -I have no doubts that there are excellent documentary photographers out there-, the reach of this photographs is already a minority. However, purely documentary photographies still has a little more chance to make into a more ample audience than, to say, an artistic refinement of pure documentary photography.
-Also there is the "problem" of losing the tough reality of inequalities -that would be the pure social critique- in behalf of art. This point is opened to discuss.
-Lastly, there is a major benefit: considering that it is almost obvious that pre documentary photography as a social critique is more or less inexistant to the normal TV viewer, a finer art of ot could perhaps make it viewable again, by positioning the purely critique side of the image in/between art. I find this one major gain in your optimistic view. This could make it possible to photography as a social critique to scape from the dissociation that we were talking about.
Best,
Bas.
Al Patterson
02-24-2008, 14:48
personally, I'm inclined to support the theory of a group such as the Bilderberg Group really pulling the strings
The whole idea of such a group instantly make hillary, Barack, Bush, and many of the others meaningless...
But as long as I've got the illusion of choice, I'll advocate for the one that to me provides the best world economic and social future for my child.
The country is run by MBAs from Harvard, Yale, and maybe Wharton. At the minimum, the problems we usually blame on Clinton or Bush are actually caused by those MBAs. I mean, how does NAFTA explain sending jobs to Bangalore? Last I checked Bangalore wasn't exactly in North America...
Al Patterson
02-24-2008, 14:56
Bush , Clinton, et al and who is coming next, like life too much to go against the man behind the curtain.
The Zapruter film shows what happens when you think you can call the shots, and they all have seen it.
And as comedian Bill Hicks said, after you get elected you go to a smokey room where you are shown a very clear film taken at Dealey Plaza on Nov.22.63 that you never knew that existed.
On the other question, I agree with what Eric Jon Phelps has to say on Youtube.
By the way, his name was Zapruder. And it really doesn't show as much as one would think. I've seen it frame by frame on various documentaries, and you don't see much.
I'd like to see the clear version though. The original raises more questions in my mind than it answers.
When are papers due again?
Papers are disappearing. There's a thread on it somewhere ... :rolleyes:
Where are our (US) social dissidents? Well, welcome back Ralph Nader, candidate for President of The United States of America ... again.
Say what you want about this obsessive, perennial spoiler of corporate profitability and presidential elections, you can't deny he is the essence of dissidence – and dissonance as an earlier poster joked. Actually, the two go together don't they?
Yes he is pest, a really bothersome person, but he walks the walk, lives in a small home, has no car (they took away his Corvair), and is poorly-dressed and shamelessly obsessive, but most important, Ralph Nader is what America should always be: somewhat dissident, often dissonant, and never a rubber stamp.
I'm glad he's able to do his thing in my country, whether I like it or not.
Al Kaplan
02-24-2008, 18:18
I've always admired him. He's managed to do on a national scale what many of us have only done in local politics. So few people really get involved day in and day out that one dedicated person can make a difference.
Al - Heck, LOCAL dissidence is the where it all begins, where we CAN contribute but often don't. Fortunately every town has a least a few, usually unsung, scoffed at, but THERE to keep the politicios a little uncomfortable.
Bruce
Speaking of big-time dissidents, I stumbled on some fascinating b&w stills of Castro on tour in the Cuban Boonies circa 1964. The photographs are terrific – the essence of good-old-time photojournalism, and are narrated by the photographer, Richard Eder. One of the opening images shows him loading, I think, a Nikon F, or maybe even an RF SP. Cool stuff!
Corporate Media... we can't even see our dead soldiers on the news. Short attention spans.
Hi Bas, I shouldn't say that social documentary hasn't created any good, but
I also think that a lot of the aims of it are too short or misguided. Maybe some of the photographers I admire who worked in that area are those who, I find, created work that transcends time and message. What I mean here is that there is a role of art to create dissidence within oneself (protest oneself, transform oneself), which I think is fundamentally more productive globally (and prove as impossibly difficult) as all of the dissidence expressed in this board toward external systems, entities, or individuals. I'm sorry if I seem to be demeaning anyone; I mean no harm or ill-intent.
Hi Bas, I shouldn't say that social documentary hasn't created any good, but
I also think that a lot of the aims of it are too short or misguided. Maybe some of the photographers I admire who worked in that area are those who, I find, created work that transcends time and message. What I mean here is that there is a role of art to create dissidence within oneself (protest oneself, transform oneself), which I think is fundamentally more productive globally (and prove as impossibly difficult) as all of the dissidence expressed in this board toward external systems, entities, or individuals. I'm sorry if I seem to be demeaning anyone; I mean no harm or ill-intent.
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.
Al Kaplan
02-24-2008, 19:35
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
02-24-2008, 20:11
By the way, his name was Zapruder. And it really doesn't show as much as one would think. I've seen it frame by frame on various documentaries, and you don't see much.
I'd like to see the clear version though. The original raises more questions in my mind than it answers.
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.
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.
amateriat
02-24-2008, 21:41
yes, there is a much bigger agenda that has been going on for nearly a century and a half.
go read about the warning Charles Chiniquy gave to his friend
Abraham Lincoln.
Chiniquy was so right.
You left out Mark Twain...
- Barrett
Roger Hicks
02-25-2008, 00:02
This sounds like a grade school message, but aren't they the best?
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.
(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
02-25-2008, 01:20
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
02-25-2008, 03:56
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
So to bring it back to photography, I think I have gleaned some good info and opinions (minus the right and left wing stuff, which I've heard a million times from both sides) that both encourage and sober me. In the end I am figuring maybe there's no real harm in continuing on - even if it amounts to nothing, it's still better than sitting home and watching T V. I've met some really interesting folks when out street shooting, I got thrown in jail in Russia, I've had to run for my life - man that's some fun!
I also feel that when one focuses all of their mind on making pictures, one goes to a creative pool in the group consciousness that can't be anything but good for you - I know when I've finished shooting for the day and know I did some good work, it's the same feeling I used to get from leaving church - "all is well, I did the right thing today."
Sounds like a good plan to me. And please post your results! I would enjoy seeing them.
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.
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.
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.
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
02-25-2008, 08:00
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.
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.
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
02-25-2008, 09:32
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.
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
02-25-2008, 10:01
It's pure arrogance if you believe you won't be seen the same way by the next generation.
Give it another 20 years before you pass judgement on the current leaders. That data just won't be in till at least that long.
Now...you can have the last word if you want it.
Sure, thanks.
Peace.
That was it, the last word.
Al Patterson
02-25-2008, 10:16
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.
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
02-25-2008, 10:44
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 .
xayraa33
02-25-2008, 11:02
good article there.
yes the camera does lie, with no need of composite photos either.
the social dissidents have been consumed!
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'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.)
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.
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
02-25-2008, 17:14
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.
williams473
02-25-2008, 18:12
Amos,
I'll be interestd in hearing what you think about Evans in future posts - maybe not in this thread because it's getting so freaking long and people just aren't seeming to drop the politics. :)
I think Evans is one of those artists who is operating on a different plane - so much so that the average person sees some of his images and thinks, "so?" I must admit I find him challenging to "like" at times, so perhaps I should do some reading up on him and his work as well so as to appreciate it more. I've seen some of his work in "Now Let Us Praise Famous Men," but not much else. At first glance he reminds me of a sort of Norman Rockwell - got right to the meat of American culture in the 30's - you get a real authentic sense of the places he's working in when looking at the photos.
Thanks also for the link to those other photos Lange made of the "Migrant Mother." Man that is some powerful work! THAT is what I'm talking about when I mean photography at its best can change things.
I realize I've come into this discussion rather late; nonetheless, I think the question posed by the OP is essentially answered by an understanding of media in today's culture, since media is the channel through which photographic images are published (or, more to the point, not published.)
So it seems essential to understanding the issues posed by the question 'where are today's photographic dissedents' to therefore gain an understanding of contemporary media as a social and political institution; these systems exert control over the sources of media images allowed to be proliferated.
I think the phrase 'embedded media', borrowed from the most recent US empire building activities, sums it up nicely. To pretend that there is a vast gulf of seperation between what were once known as the 'private' and 'public' sectors is myopic self-dillusion; anyone who is genuinely paying attention can see that the handful of multinational corporate media conglomerates who control the flow of disinformation in the US are also intimately involved in the armaments and financial systems that fuel the empire-building activities. Like GE, as one example, who are a major defense contractor, multi-media and industrial conglomerate.
I think if you really want to 'rock the boat', so to speak, about current issues in our culture, and wish to do so using photographic images, you'll have to finance the operation yourself. Don't count on the established media systems to do so, unless there is also some parallel but independant interest that would be satisfyed by publishing your provocative images. I think they call that "being used."
I am reminded of the absence of images of deceased US servicemen returning from the front; even flag-draped coffins were verboten; apparently even the patriotic symbol of the flag isn't really patriotic enough to warrant interrupting the latest episode of "Survivor" in order to remind the populace that there is a war on, and their kids are dying.
What we may have failed to perceive is that the kind of media that permitted Walker Evans to wander around taking images of poor folk, on the government dole, is similar to the kind of media that today also uses photographic images for its own purposes of propaganda.
~Joe
bmattock
02-25-2008, 19:48
I realize I've come into this discussion rather late; nonetheless, I think the question posed by the OP is essentially answered by an understanding of media in today's culture, since media is the channel through which photographic images are published (or, more to the point, not published.)
I don't agree.
The O/P asked a series of 'why' questions with an implication that an answer must necessarily follow his line of reasoning.
Why does it seem (and it may simply seem to me) that photography no longer leads the charge in social critique and when necessary, social upheaval?
There is an assumption there that photographers must be concerned with social critique - indeed, that society needs critiquing by photographers.
What his question does not allow for is an answer that contradicts his base premise.
It is very much like asking "Why doesn't anyone care about man-made global warming?" That question does not allow for the answer that some don't believe in man-made global warming. The question presumes that there IS man-made global warming, and we are simply choosing not to be concerned about it.
Now, I'm going to make a whole bunch of people mad here, but I have to say this - that's a very traditional left-wing style of thinking. The assumption - that if I don't care about your issues, it is because I don't care about your issues. The thought that perhaps I don't think your issues ARE issues is not up for debate.
My brother-in-law likes to ask me why Republicans are so evil and hate the planet so much. I can't answer him - first because I'm not a Republican, but second because the Republicans I know aren't evil and don't hate the planet. So how do I answer his question, since it allows no denial of the premise?
The O/P continued:
Why is it (and I include myself here) that we allow ourselves to be pacified by material comforts, and close our eyes and ears to the fact that the US is continuing down a path of global imperialism that is severely weakening our social fabric?
Well again, same issue. I can't discuss it, because the O/P has presented the 'fact' that we're heading down this road towards global imperialism as a fait acompli - it brooks no discussion. His only question is why I am not concerned about it. Personally, I'm not concerned about it because I think it's bullcrap.
Why does the U.S. have such high murder rates in our major cities?
Now the O/P bemoans the allegedly high murder rate as if photography a) could fix that, b) photographers can do anything about it, and c) that there is one answer to that.
Why are the children in our country so poorly informed about the state of the World at large? Why do we value watching TV more than any other activity? Why is obesity an epidemic in the U.S.?
Again - first the assumption that his statements are true, then the wailing and gnashing of teeth that we're not doing anything about it. No idea what a photographer is supposed to do to fix that.
The questions posed by the O/P were not properly addressed because he made an assumption that all photographers agree with his base premise. Once that is done, then we can discuss the hows and whys. I disagree with the base premise, as I do yours - global media disinformation campaign and so on. It's hogwash. But you state as it if were a given, and then pose questions that in order to answer, one must buy into your brand of media super-corporation disinformation nightmare. I can't do that, so I can't discuss your questions.
But I thought I'd let you know why.
[COLOR=#cccccc]Here's the real question I ask myself every day - if I bust my butt working (outside of my day job,) pound away as a working class artist, produce thousands of photographs, make my points - maybe even some people see the work - does it matter? Are people in this country interested in work that isn't endorsed by one of the major media outlets? Is social photography a complete waste of time if there is no significant audience?
Hi Matt,
After reading this thread, I come back to you with hard questions:
Are you asking ?
Are you complaining ?
Or are you looking for a practical course of action ?
Cheers,
Ruben
Want to make a difference? Join an org or group with clout.
There is an audience for social photography but you need to have access to that audience. And for access you need either the media or clout with the media.
williams473
02-26-2008, 05:08
Bloody hell, I had to type this response in Word and paste it in here!
Too long!
The last three posts were really good – thank you Joe, Bill and Ruben for keeping on point – and leaving the venom out of your posts. I think I can respond starting from Ruben’s comments, working backward, because my reasons for posing the questions I did will help to address Bill’s concerns.
I am really asking, complaining and seeking a course of action all at once. On one hand, I was looking for like-minded photographers who might also feel as I do about the state of our country, and if they are interested in processing those feelings through their work. For me, photography is much more than just a hobby, and so I was running up the flag to see who might agree, and how they might feel.
I was complaining, because if I was completely satisfied with everything in this country, I wouldn’t really be motivated to change anything would I? To me, all change is motivated out of dissatisfaction with the ways things are. It could be as trivial as deciding to go on a diet or stop eating greasy foods because you want to lose weight – you see a problem and so it motivates you to go to the doctor. In my case, I am very concerned about my country and how we fit in to the World, and I am interested in changing it. Most of the time I just sit around and talk, like most of us do, about improving things, so I was wondering what a single, mass-media unsupported photographer could do to kick in and do my part to help. So that leads to seeking a course of action – and from what I read, most are finding outlets on the Web. I came to the conclusion from this thread that currently, as Joe points out, there is little chance you’re going to be heard through major media outlets, which is on one hand disappointing. But I also thought that it is somewhat noble to continue on anyway, and working for change through photography certainly can’t hurt anything. In fact, I might find the satisfaction I am seeking by converting the old American saying “all politics is local” to “all photography is local.” Maybe I can work on addressing social issues in Pittsburgh first – that is something I can certainly do. I am originally from Washington, DC, and that city always seemed a little too big and fractured to address photographically – I did a little there, but Pittsburgh seems just the right size. I hope that sort of answers your questions Ruben.
Bill, I think you thought out your points very well, but I don’t see how I can really be all inclusive when searching for an answer to my questions. To make an argument for anything, you have to pick a side. We could probably have an argument about each and every thing I find as motivation to change this country.
It’s true, I don’t allow for the notion that there is no need for social photography, because it is my opinion – it’s what I believe. You don’t agree – point taken. You will clearly not feel the need to pick up your camera to improve society. Fine.
How can a person have any opinion at all that doesn’t exclude other viewpoints? I’m not running a news network here where I am pretending to be objective – these are very subjective statements. A couple of the problems we have in this country are not really debatable – obesity for instance, is a quantifiable measure of exceeding the body mass index – it simply a recorded fact that Americans are more obese than ever. Americans as a whole do indeed watch a lot TV – the ratings system and surveys of satellite and cable TV broadcasts support that – the murder rates are not opinions – these murders are happening -- in my mind these are symptoms of a deeper problems in our culture and society. If I were to allow for your stance, which seems to be that these are not problems in America, then I wouldn’t have posted originally.
One thing you said I found really hopeless and sad was, “Now the O/P bemoans the allegedly high murder rate as if photography a) could fix that, b) photographers can do anything about it, and c) that there is one answer to that.” It’s true there are many answers to that problem, but I disagree that photography can’t aid in fixing these problems. Maybe not the kind of photography you’re interested in, but photography has proved in the past, time and again to be a major catalyst in prompting change.
To frame it within your context, take the famous image by Eddie Adams of AP showing a South Vietnamese general executing a VC prisoner. I have seen similar executions online and atrocities by all sides in our current engagements in the Middle East, but only after looking all over the Web for them. Thermal video footage of a US Apache gunship finishing off wounded Iraqi soldiers in the desert is one of the first media I consumed that turned me against the war, in addition to the videotaped beheadings, but that wasn’t available on CBS – I had to seek it out. But to keep it on photography, the Adams picture deeply moves me, not because I know exactly why they are executing this VC prisoner, which is probably debatable. It simply holds a single truth for me, and that is the cold brutality people are capable of. That VC, and that general for that matter were once birthed from a mother and had the potential to do many good things, and instead end up as they were. I’m not saying it’s wrong to fight wars when you have to, I just think people should understand how brutal it can be before they support it. That’s what photography did in Nam – pictures like the Adams image made Americans wake up, and start wondering why the Country was committed to fighting Communism in Vietnam. That image was part of a movement of ordinary Americans telling their government “no.” Course, I know your stance is that if I didn’t actually suit up and serve a tour in Vietnam, my opinion is not as valid as someone who did, so I accept that you probably refute the premise to begin with. But I really feel that the best images make larger, universal points – take that Adams image out of context, and what do you have? Is it a picture that makes me feel better about humanity, or worse?
So, photography can change things. Can I bring down the murder rate directly through photographing? Probably not. Can I make an image that through it’s intention maybe diffuses the hate that leads to war and murder? Maybe. Perhaps someone having someone else care about them is enough.
But clearly, you’re a pragmatist. If photography is just shooting pics of stuff, then the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence was just writing. I just can’t agree with that. What more power do I have in my own society? Even the power of the vote is suspect in this Country. What I can do: I can volunteer locally (which I do) and then, use the power of the camera to not only affect change, but record a record of things that the mass media is not free to record. If nothing else, adding Art to the catalog of the billions of other images out there can’t be bad.
I really don’t have anything to add about Joe’s post – I think he said it all spot on.
Al Kaplan
02-26-2008, 06:06
The mass audience sees photographs that were published. Even if they were self projects of the photographer they went through the filter of being chosen by an editor and assembled by an art director. They in turn had to follow the guidelines of the publication. The publication had to keep both their readers and their advertisers happy. If the photos were shot on assignment that sequence of events was in mind from the git-go!
It's really only since the internet that the average photographer has much chance of reaching an audience interested in their social commentary, and that is still highly dependent on the text that goes along with the photos. Many photographers aren't the greatest of writers, and even great writers might lack the skills of working with the right "key words" and formatting them within the text to attract a search engine such as Google.
So far I've not heard of a search engine that can pick out images of guns from digital files, nor tell a sniper from a target shooter to a guy hunting rabbits. That requires words. Likewise, search engines presented with photographs aren't able to tell a well dressed woman with her two spit-'n-polished youngsters walking down the street past a row of newly restored 19th century townhouses in a regentrified neighborhood from a welfare mom with her two unkempt kids walking in front of dilapidated three story tenements of the same age.
There's no sense in commentary if nobody is going to see it. Unfortunate, but true. A lot of what got published during the heyday of the picture magazines like Paris Match and Life was chosen because the "search engine" of the mid-twentieth century was what would grab attention on the magazine rack at the local drugstore. Dynamic cover photos that made you want to pick up the magazine and check out the article. As you flipped through the pages other photographs in other stories would vie for your attention.
Today? You're more likely to go to Google and type in some key words like Iraq, execution, war, and see what comes up. It may be text, it might include some photos, but no guarantees.
xayraa33
02-26-2008, 07:00
I think it is naive to think that photography can do all sorts of honourable things like end wars and poverty.
There is a more sinister agenda at work here that has a DNA quality to it.
Hats off to you for trying.
BigSteveG
02-26-2008, 07:09
to you. In the grand scheme of things, it's all that really counts.
I realize there are many who frequent this forum from all over the World, but I would like to pose some questions to U.S. photographers in particular, and opinions from all over will be valued as well.
Why does it seem (and it may simply seem to me) that photography no longer leads the charge in social critique and when necessary, social upheaval? Why is it (and I include myself here) that we allow ourselves to be pacified by material comforts, and close our eyes and ears to the fact that the US is continuing down a path of global imperialism that is severely weakening our social fabric? Why does the U.S. have such high murder rates in our major cities? Why are the children in our country so poorly informed about the state of the World at large? Why do we value watching TV more than any other activity? Why is obesity an epidemic in the U.S.?
Of course these are rhetorical questions with a myriad of answers that could be framed in a number of ways, but my larger point is that for those of us out there who like to think of ourselves as social documentarians, why are we not cranking out photo essays and self publishing them in places where people outside our sphere will see it?
We can't count on employed photojournalists to do it - most local shooters are on assignment, covering car crashes, high school football, fires, local government and the like - not that there isn't a need for that. They simply can't have a global perspective because their assignments are local, and they answer to editors. Am I just not looking, or are we not taking advantage of a very fertile country, rife with things that need to be pointed out and looked at with the powerful eye of the photographer? Is it even possible anymore, seeing as most media outlets who could publish on a National level primarily use established freelancers, and heavily edit the images they publish? Is there any room for diversity in expression? Is there any way to do some real down and dirty photo essays that will matter in the least to the American public - to a country that is one of the more depraved in the Western World?
Here's the real question I ask myself every day - if I bust my butt working (outside of my day job,) pound away as a working class artist, produce thousands of photographs, make my points - maybe even some people see the work - does it matter? Are people in this country interested in work that isn't endorsed by one of the major media outlets? Is social photography a complete waste of time if there is no significant audience?
xayraa33
02-26-2008, 10:54
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42854000/jpg/_42854329_bush_getty.jpg
See there, Kanye... President Bush loves Black people...
Now, that was tongue in cheek, an image can have many meanings and can easily be used to manipulate ---
I wonder how history will remember this prez Bush?
Al Kaplan
02-26-2008, 11:05
I guess that the school kids will look at their history book and discover eight pages marked "THIS PAGE DELETED".
jslabovitz
02-26-2008, 11:12
It seems that the primary dynamic of this discussion is attempting to resolve how an individual photographer can interact with and influence the public; that is, "make a difference."
I'm not sure it has ever really been possible to do this as an individual photographer. Go look at many influential photographers, and you'll see that although the photographer him/herself had motivation, passion, and drive, the fact that their work was effective came through some sort of association.
Look up Lewis Hine (I just did) on Wikipedia: he worked for the National Child Labor Committee, the Red Cross, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, among others. Dorothea Lange, as we know, worked for the Farm Security Administration. Look at all the photographers who have been members of Magnum; that organization was formed, in part, to help its members make a difference, photographically.
There are several organizations active now that encourage and support "difference-making" photography. Blue Earth Alliance (http://blueearth.org/) is a nonprofit I'm familiar with, based in Seattle. In addition to promoting the photography they support, they also help photographers get grants and other funding to produce work that might otherwise not be done. From their site:
A dramatic image can change our perception and alter our understanding of a subject. This idea defines the mission of Blue Earth Alliance: to raise awareness about endangered cultures, threatened environments and social concerns through photography. By supporting the power of photographic storytelling, we motivate society to make positive change.
The Aftermath Project (http://www.theaftermathproject.org/) is another one:
The Aftermath Project is a non-profit organization committed to telling the other half of the story of conflict — the story of what it takes for individuals to learn to live again, to rebuild destroyed lives and homes, to restore civil societies, to address the lingering wounds of war while struggling to create new avenues for peace.
Here are a bunch of others:
http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Photography/Techniques_and_Styles/Documentary/Organizations/
Tonight, I'm going to see a lecture in Portland (OR) by Joel Preston Smith (http://joelprestonsmith.com/), who'll be talking about his experiences documenting the war in Iraq. Here's a guy who *has* been a soldier, as well as a photojournalist. He's created a slideshow of his images, and has been making the rounds presenting it and talking about his experience. He's also written a book (published by Nazraeli Press).
Although publishing on the web is certainly a reasonable thing to do, remember that just putting up a gallery will probably accomplish about as much as throwing a bunch of prints around at your local coffee shop. If you're serious about certain issues, find websites that specialize in those issues, and get them interested in showing, writing about, or supporting your work. Edward Burtynsky, who's done those incredible "landscape" photographs documenting the destruction caused by mining and oil extraction, is working with WorldChanging (http://worldchanging.com). To me, that's a lot more effective than a pretty website.
Finally, I have to close with a personal suggestion for the OP. You said you live in Pittsburgh. I presume that you know of Eugene Smith's monumental work in attempting to document your city? It might be interesting to research that, perhaps following up or rephotographing certain places. In other words, tie your current work with his past work. Just a thought.
--John
xayraa33
02-26-2008, 11:39
I guess that the school kids will look at their history book and discover eight pages marked "THIS PAGE DELETED".
maybe less than eight pages will need to be deleted Al.
this president seems to lack a certain human quality about him
unlike this man of a few decades ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoNkwsAeXG4&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b
Al Patterson
02-26-2008, 12:22
maybe less than eight pages will need to be deleted Al.
this president seems to lack a certain human quality about him
unlike this man of a few decades ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoNkwsAeXG4&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b
At least Bush isn't a serial rapist like the sleazebag he replaced.
See why we should't discuss politics here? And why does the owner of a business related site allow a portion of his potential customers to offended another portion? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hmmm...
Amos,
I'll be interestd in hearing what you think about Evans in future posts - maybe not in this thread because it's getting so freaking long and people just aren't seeming to drop the politics. :)
I'll just say briefly -- I hope -- that it would be worthwhile to look at more of Evans' work. I too for the longest time blew off Evans because I was overly familiar with the photos in "Let Us Praise Famous Men." However, there really is a vast amount of work this man did that I never really knew about until just recently. You need to try to look up "Walker Evans; The Hungry Eye" by Gilles Mora and John T. Hill. I wish I had gotten the hardback. The paperback is printed very nicely and the pictures are well done, but just way too tiny to fully appreciate.
Evans seems to be more methodical and meticulous, contrasting with Lange's more spontaneous approach. Initially he wanted to be a writer and then was hooked onto photography when he was over in France in the late 1920's. I think to some extent he remained a frustrated writer throughout his life. Many of his pictures "read" like a book. He was more "artistic" than Lange, which I don't think she'd be offended by since I think she viewed herself more as a documentarian. There's almost a lyrical poetry to Evans, while Lange is more raw and visceral.
I never knew Evans did so much street shooting. He did an entire series -- self motivated mind you -- in which he hid his Leica in his coat and took pictures of folks riding the New York subway. He wanted what he called snapshots of life. He was obsessed about the concept of the anonymous portrait. Average people, on their way to this and that. Some anxious, some sad, some tired. You get a glimpse of it all. A few are shown here, but the quality isn't too good:
http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/subway-portraits/
http://updateslive.blogspot.com/2006/09/many-are-called-ny-subway-photos-of.html
http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/hd/evan/ho_1971.646.18.htm
He also did a series of "anonymous portraits" in Detroit in 1946 that I rather like. He positioned himself opposite a blank wall that he used as an improvised backdrop. Then as people passed by on this sidewalk, he'd take a snapshot. I don't believe the camera was hidden for these, but I don't recall. Once again we see the daily faces of life. There's something deeply sincere about these glimpses of life. Some looked, some didn't, none seemed to hide themselves from his probing eye. There's something profoundly democratic about these pictures.
Which of these two do I prefer most? Hard to say. I guess Lange is my first love. ;) I discovered her pictures as a young college student almost by accident, and they've stuck with me since. However, after discovering more of his stuff, I'm learning to appreciate Evans more than before.
The dust bowl days of the Great Depression was an interesting period photographically. With its dramatic landscapes as a backdrop, perhaps it lent itself better to documentary exposure than other catastrophes? Can you get such iconic photos as Migrant Mother when covering, say, the problem of homeless vets? Or perhaps vets with PTSD that either are not getting care, or having their benefits dropped? Perhaps modern issues can be more of a challenge to capture photographically, but I think it is possible.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.