| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2006 03:15:03 PM · #51 |
| This just goes to show why all political and religious groups should be required to get together and coordinate their uniform / costume choices so there is no confusion. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 03:19:58 PM · #52 |
I'm not sure, but maybe some of you are interested in this kind of celebration. I have a pair of photos of it. I wasn't sure what will the most of you think about them. Looking at the comments on Pedro's image, it was more or less what I throught. Hope you understand is not for offensing anybody, but it's a spiritual celebration very deep. Any of you that is in Spain in this week is very curious to see.
Hope you like the photos.
 
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 03:21:33 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The photographer himself noted in his comments that he expected the image to be misunderstood as KKK by some people. It's not surprising that they did so "misidentify" it. The reactions are honest, and the photographer is fully capable of understanding that the negative reactions are actually not directed at "him" in reality, as this is NOT a KK scene, so no harm is being done and no apology is required, IMO.
It doesn't seem to me to be a major issue here; the shooter knew damned well the image would be misunderstood, and I'm he's not not suprised it was.
R. |
Point taken, but the big question is was the photographer's comment about the KKK made before or after he started receiving comments about the clan? Honestly it's not my place to request an apology, if the photographer doesn't require one, then so be it.
It's just my mama always said that if you talk out of school to someone, you outta apologize fer it. Jus' my southern roots kickin' in I guess.
:-P |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 03:31:46 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
This just goes to show why all political and religious groups should be required to get together and coordinate their uniform / costume choices so there is no confusion. |
No, the Panamint Tribe is not-anti-semitic; the swastika motif predates the Nazis (in more than one non-Aryan culture) by at least hundreds if not thousands of years, yet it is probably irreconcilably associated with them and nothing else from now on.
 |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 03:46:50 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
the swastika motif predates the Nazis (in more than one non-Aryan culture) by at least hundreds if not thousands of years... |
and postdates them as well...
 |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 03:50:10 PM · #56 |
Btw, if you see a swastika that is not pointing clockwise, then it's not a Nazi swastika.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 09:10:45 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The fact that the image produced a very strong emotional response (negative) to me means that the image was very successful. I do agree that it's hard to be impartial with negative responses.
Look at photos of war situations for instance.
|
Like the Kent State Masacre, WWII concentration camp victims, the Vietnam War photo of the girl running out of the exposion, etc
Other successfull photos with negative emotional tones include the shooting of JFK and Martin Luther King, the Alaska Oil Spill,
Many of these are great photos, but (I hope) no one approves of the content. Some of these are not technically great but the emotions evoked make them memorable.
IMO, if art evokes an emotion, it should also make you think. The photo the OP refered to provokes emotion, and a title like
"Mistaken Identity (Catholic 'Semana Santa' festival in Spain)"
Would have added a focus for thought to go with the evoked emotion.
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 21:11:30. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 09:27:03 PM · #58 |
It's weird, but my first thought was religious regalia, especially considering the challenge came at a time of one of Christianity's most important times and remembering something of the Spanish customs from school. My next thought was, they kinda look like KKK, though.
Maybe it comes from being non-American? (and no, I'm not a religious person.) |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 09:33:52 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by naldslc:
Not much to say about this but....1. |
That's not right on so many levels.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 09:56:35 PM · #60 |
| On a lighter note, I would think the KKK sheets would be less taylored. ;o) |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 10:14:43 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, this picture is simply saying the wrong words. It certainly isn't saying anything that would make me think that it̢۪s a depiction of a religious ceremony. It̢۪s easy to see how some people took it the wrong way. After all, few of us are really good at mind reading. :) |
And it's obvious in which direction some people's minds obviously go... mind reader or not. Perhaps it would be best in the future to not jump to conclusions and assume the worst.. and I do think an apology would be appropriate by many of the commenters on this image as ignorance is no excuse for poor judgement.
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 22:19:00. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 10:41:10 PM · #62 |
surely goes back to, yet again, attempting to be objective. whether a shot is of dog poo, a kk rally, or anything else, we should first be looking at the quliaty of the photograph. as long as no-one was hurt for the making of the pic, it's our responsibility to judge the quality. really, as has been said many times, under 4 should be reserved for pics with quality problems, not your taste/opinion problems. rate the image on what you see in it, not what you infer from it.
look at franz capa's death of loyalist soldier. it actually shows a man being killed. or any of a myriad challenging images that are part of the pantheon of photography.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2006 01:48:02 AM · #63 |
Interesting thought by Kirbic. Sometimes we need to see things that are unpleasant.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that we need to see all things that are unpleasant.
There should also be a reason. On the other hand, this is a Photo contest, so that's the reason right there. There are pictures that belong with a story in a newspaper too..
One thing of note though is that pictures like this often have a brief caption to explain their relation to the article. If this is appropriate and considered necessary in an article, perhaps it is a good idea in this photo contest medium as well.
There are many pictures too that are of unpleasant things that don't say anything. Some of these pictures are of unpleasant things that need to have something said about them and that we all need to see.
This is called an ineffective picture. This is very difficult to judge in our arena of DPC, because sometimes our context is limited (like the short title of that picture). However, there is usually enough there to get something out of the picture. In this case, there is enough technically there to get something out of it.
That is why I personally would have given a 6-7 vote. If the eyes had been missed, and the primary subject was more about the clothing, the vote would have dropped tremendously. |
|
|
|
04/21/2006 05:47:33 AM · #64 |
OUCH!!!
I hadn't see this thread until now, I hadn't even read (yet) all the posts... it's a 10 pages long printout!!
First off, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone.
I didn't know about KKK still being so alive today in the States. To me it's a thing of the past, something like the Inquisition was all over Europe. Nobody here has a such strong feeling on this subject as you seem to have about KKK in the US, ad it lasted from more than seven centuries. That's why I pointed out in my comments "And no, it's not a Ku Klux Klan memorial I'd say it's right the opposite ;-)". Are they still doing his thing TODAY?
I doubt I will... I'm certain I would't have had the courage to take this pic of a klansman at 3 meters (10 feet) away.
I'll try to explain more about the facts. Processions are festive events all over Spain during "Semana Santa" (Holy Week), as you can see from the pictures posted along this thread and many many more you can find in the web. Do a seach of "semana santa" on Pbase and you'll find plenty, as these of my friend Felipe as an example (have a look at his whole porfolio BTW), or these and these... I'm sure you can find Semana Santa pictures outperform KKK ones in a 100 to 1 ratio.
The "penitentes" (penants) wear that "antifaces" (hoods) as it's a private, personal action. Their intention is to do his/her penance without other people noticing who they are, that's why they cover their faces, not to hide off of shame. As an sidenote, you can find Antonio Banderas in Malaga´s processions year after year... if you're able to spot him!. They wear different color dresses, from whole white to whole back, with red, green, purple, blue, yellow... in between.
You can see it as a religious event, an artistical event or even a musical event, or as a mixture of all three together as a cultural event overall. I'm not a religious person, but to me (and many other people) this pic conveys the exact opposite feeling it seem to do on you in the States. That's why I cannot consider this an offending picture at all.
As per the photo itself, I really think is a good one (I wouldn't have posted otherwise), detail is amazing at full size, and the eyes expression says it all when a little lighten up. And as it has been proved, it conveys feelings, one way or the other.
I'm not happy about the ones, but it's OK. If only the "one" voters had passed by, it will have scored more than a hundred positions higher, but that's the way it goes, I'm not complaining. I'm happy with so many of you rating it as a good picture after knowing the history behind.
Sure, another title could have lead this issue in a different way, but this is the better I found at the moment.
I'll be more than satisfaced if this makes some of you know a little more about different cultures and think out of the box, and will be more than pleased if someone wanting to watch the event (and take some pics ;-) gives me a call and an opportunity to show it to you.
My apologies for such a long post ;-) |
|
|
|
04/21/2006 08:39:29 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by carlos:
OUCH!!!
I hadn't see this thread until now, I hadn't even read (yet) all the posts... it's a 10 pages long printout!!
First off, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone... |
Great post carlos.
Now does anyone feel that the photographer deserves an apology for the negative comments made on his image? |
|
|
|
04/21/2006 08:45:23 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Originally posted by carlos:
OUCH!!!
I hadn't see this thread until now, I hadn't even read (yet) all the posts... it's a 10 pages long printout!!
First off, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone... |
Great post carlos.
Now does anyone feel that the photographer deserves an apology for the negative comments made on his image? |
A photo brings its own interpretation to everyone who sees it .. with all of their prejudices ... I don't think that it is fair for your to demand apologies of anyone ... |
|
|
|
04/21/2006 08:54:18 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by kari1:
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Originally posted by carlos:
OUCH!!!
I hadn't see this thread until now, I hadn't even read (yet) all the posts... it's a 10 pages long printout!!
First off, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone... |
Great post carlos.
Now does anyone feel that the photographer deserves an apology for the negative comments made on his image? |
A photo brings its own interpretation to everyone who sees it .. with all of their prejudices ... I don't think that it is fair for your to demand apologies of anyone ... |
I didn't see 'demand' anywhere.....
|
|
|
|
04/21/2006 09:09:46 AM · #68 |
I couldn't imagine that photo having only one way to look at it and wished that the title of the photo had said something more to what it was about rather than eyes. I didnt vote on that photo and passed on it as I didnt have an answer on it.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2006 09:12:22 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by kari1:
A photo brings its own interpretation to everyone who sees it .. with all of their prejudices ... I don't think that it is fair for your to demand apologies of anyone ... |
I didn't see 'demand' anywhere..... |
There was no demand. Like I said in an earlier post, it's not my place to demand an apology. I was merely requesting an extension of common courtesy.
I also stated that I also would've intepreted the image wrong and if I had voted on this, I would've given it a low score. I personally feel that the extreme misinterpretation of this particular image could be just as offensive to the photographer as the image was to those who originally misinterpreted it. The photographer has apologized for offending those who misinterpreted it. |
|
|
|
04/21/2006 09:14:10 AM · #70 |
carlos, a wonderful image, regardless of whether the viewer knew the history of the penitentes or the purpose behind the hood. there will always be those who take offense at things and make their views loudly known. i guess the best thing is to just quietly walk away and shake your head, and keep going about your work in the same manner.
shrill arguing will only make them worse. stating the facts calmly and letting the shouters see for themselves is all we can do.
a superb posting by you earlier too. thoughtful and incisive. are you writing in your second language? if so, great kudos.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2006 01:04:22 PM · #71 |
Great post by Carlos. In the context of what's been said in this thread, it brings up an interesting, if subtle, point:
Much has been made of our "obligation" as viewers to not make assumptions too hastily, and of how "wrong" viewers are to react to this as if it were a KKK shot. However, as Carlos himself pointed out, he wasn't even aware of the depth of feeling about KKK in the USA, and of the fact that they are still an active group of demagogues. So, using the same argument, it might perhaps be said that as a [i]photographer[/i[ he has an "obligation" to be aware of how the viewers might pereceive his image, and provide us with a context in which to view it.
Personally, I don't think either is the case: I think the image is what it is in the viewer's eye, and that no viewer needs to "apologize" for whatever emotions/responses an image evokes when s/he sees it. They're all valid responses, by definition, because they are real to us.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-04-21 13:04:50.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2006 01:46:51 PM · #72 |
A nice observation Bear. I would like to add however that it's important to keep in mind that this is an international site with contributions from all corners of the globe. In the whole time I've been here (roughly a year), I am hard pressed to remember an instance where an image was entered that was deliberately meant to offend and cause controversy on such a deep level. Perhaps before allowing oneself to be so quickly offended, it would be wise to pause, take a breath and ask oneself, am I right in my assesment, and is there a chance that there is an alternate significance to the image. It's hard to do sometimes, I know. But in the end, given the superb track record here @ DPC, I for one think that shooting so quickly from the hip often times results in very poor aim.
Message edited by author 2006-04-21 13:58:01. |
|
|
|
04/21/2006 01:55:47 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
IMO nobody owes the shooter an apology, and I'm sure he doesn't expect one either, based on his own comments on the image.
R. |
Now what did I do??? |
|
|
|
04/21/2006 02:49:29 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Nobody:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
IMO nobody owes the shooter an apology, and I'm sure he doesn't expect one either, based on his own comments on the image.
R. |
Now what did I do??? |
thank you for a spot of levity! :-D
|
|
|
|
04/21/2006 02:51:45 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...Personally, I don't think either is the case: I think the image is what it is in the viewer's eye, and that no viewer needs to "apologize" for whatever emotions/responses an image evokes when s/he sees it. They're all valid responses, by definition, because they are real to us.
Robt. |
all responses are valid in and of themselves. however, when setting oneself in judgement, as we all do in the voting process, or responses need to be tempered by objectivity. i have voted on images i don't like on a personal level, yet if they are well made images, i wouldn't give them below a 5,
|
|
