|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/28/2012 03:28:32 AM · #26 |
|
|
|
01/28/2012 04:12:11 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Sorry Bear, took me a few days to follow your link & get back to you. It's superb photographic craftsmanship, but this very quality has the perverse effect of making the pictures, especially when viewed as a whole, lack authenticity.
The photographer has emasculated the photographs by making them too stylized; too meticulously executed; too beautiful, in fact.
The result is that the photographs feel like they are more about Lee Jeffries than anything else.
These pictures are simply not sympathetic (sympathetic in the literal sense). |
i agree, as individual images, they are powerful. but when seen as a collage of all the images they seem to be the way the photographer sees homeless or less fortunate people.
just miserable wretches, i dont see any humanity or life in them, which as the photographer, we are able to choose the final emotions. i'm sure there were moments when some of these people even smiled, and, yes, i understand that was not the goal emotion for the sessions. as seen as a group they are a dozen+ different people in the "same" pose. it is kinda freaky actually. is this the "photoshop effect"? |
|
|
|
01/28/2012 05:24:52 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Sorry Bear, took me a few days to follow your link & get back to you. It's superb photographic craftsmanship, but this very quality has the perverse effect of making the pictures, especially when viewed as a whole, lack authenticity.
The photographer has emasculated the photographs by making them too stylized; too meticulously executed; too beautiful, in fact.
The result is that the photographs feel like they are more about Lee Jeffries than anything else.
These pictures are simply not sympathetic (sympathetic in the literal sense). |
I've been enjoying Lee Jeffries portraits for a while now on 500px but i have to say i do tend to agree with you Paul. Even though i think they are wonderful and make me wish i could do the same they do make me slightly uneasy. And not uneasy in the way they are meant to either - i.e the subject- more in the treatment. I do tend to have problems with photographs of homeless people just as i have problems with the photographs of muddy children and noble old men in third world countries that often pop up on DPC. Nan Goldin derides much 'documentary photography' and 'strong white men going to India, making exotic pictures of something they have no idea of' and i think of that quote when looking at these.
That's not to say i don't enjoy and value much documentary photography, and Lee Jeffries, just that those are the alarm bells that ring when viewing.
I wonder what you think of Brett Walker, a photographer Pawdrix introduced me to. I guess the same accusations could be made here as well as he's arguably even more of a stylist but, for me, his portraits tend to 'ring true' in a way that Jeffries doesn't quite manage as often. |
|
|
|
01/28/2012 07:56:41 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Sorry Bear, took me a few days to follow your link & get back to you. It's superb photographic craftsmanship, but this very quality has the perverse effect of making the pictures, especially when viewed as a whole, lack authenticity.
The photographer has emasculated the photographs by making them too stylized; too meticulously executed; too beautiful, in fact.
The result is that the photographs feel like they are more about Lee Jeffries than anything else.
These pictures are simply not sympathetic (sympathetic in the literal sense). |
I tend to agree, but is there a chance that we have considered the photos out of context, and that perhaps the photographer meant them to be perverse, unsympathetic, etc? (I doubt it but just thought I'd throw it out there). If this is the case, then the commentary is perhaps more on the commodification (is that a word?) of somebody's misery, or some such thing.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2012 08:07:22 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I wonder what you think of Brett Walker, a photographer Pawdrix introduced me to. I guess the same accusations could be made here as well as he's arguably even more of a stylist but, for me, his portraits tend to 'ring true' in a way that Jeffries doesn't quite manage as often. |
That's it precisely, Clive. Walker's pictures are, on the face of it, certainly no less manipulated and stylised than Jeffries's pictures, and yet they still have the stamp of authenticity, of insight, about them; whereas Jeffries's pictures primarily have the stamp of Jeffries about them. Not the same thing at all. I think it's because Walker's are looser, more open treatments.
The proof is in looking first at Jeffries's linked collection, and then at the slideshow of the Walker collection that you linked. Each successive Walker picture is a blank canvas: a fresh start. Jeffries's pictures, on the other hand, are never a surprise after you have seen the first two or three. Jeffries has bent the subjects to fit his vision, while Walker has bent his vision to fit the subjects: a much more satisfying and authentic approach to photographing humanity's fringes.
Message edited by author 2012-01-28 08:40:04. |
|
|
|
01/28/2012 08:14:17 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by deeby:
I tend to agree, but is there a chance that we have considered the photos out of context, and that perhaps the photographer meant them to be perverse, unsympathetic, etc? (I doubt it but just thought I'd throw it out there). If this is the case, then the commentary is perhaps more on the commodification (is that a word?) of somebody's misery, or some such thing. |
You make an excellent point, Scott. It could also be said that the Jeffries treatment has a different kind of legitimacy; that the act of reducing these people to a 'motif' is in itself a worthy artistic and anthropological position to take. I hadn't though of it that way until you postulated it, but I'd concede your point on reflection. I still prefer Walker, but I perhaps shouldn't have dismissed Jeffries quite so much! |
|
|
|
01/28/2012 08:51:41 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
But alcohol and drugs are a choice. Which costs money. Which they don't earn, so they have to beg/steal. Yes, addiction is a real thing, but in the end, it is about choice. |
That's a somewhat inaccurate over-simplification. Nobody goes into their life thinking, "I think I'd like to be a junkie.". There are a lot of variables to consider, not the least of which is the predisposition of being an addictive personality. Many people drink, and use drugs, in a moderate, social manner and have no problems with it. Someone who is predisposed to be an addict, or alcoholic is in trouble from the very first drink without knowing it until it's too late.
Not all addicts beg and/or steal either.....there are plenty who have the money to afford their slow death.
Originally posted by tanguera:
There are SO many programs here in LA. Addicts won't use shelters because they have to "give up" their habit to stay there. There are programs to detox. There are programs to teach skills. There are programs to house them, clothe them, feed them. Most opt for staying on the street so they can continue their habit. |
Again, you're stating that the choice is pretty much black and white.....it's simply not. Many programs don't work, there isn't insurance available to some to cover the good ones, the strength and will needed to combat addiction is enormous, and the attrition rate is abysmal. If you've not been an addict, you simply cannot comprehend the Hell that it is.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2012 10:02:19 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I find the arguments and counter-arguments about "choice" to be somewhat simplistic. Just because someone makes a choice we don't agree with, even a choice like dropping out of society, it's not a sign they are mentally unstable. Just because someone is a participating member of society does not mean they are mentally healthy or stable.
We live in a semi-rural suburban area that is considered relatively affluent. We have a local homeless man, Jeff, who has been in the area for almost as long as we have (22 years). It is clear that he is in possession of his faculties, however he has steadfastly resisted the offers of housing or other assistance that members of the community have made. His life is, for him, truly a choice. He harms no one, and in turn we respect his choice. To force him into a shelter or to institutionalize him would be wrong. |
I work with our church in a poor neighborhood in town, and I have had the distinct pleasure of getting to know some of the locals. They are homeless and/or impoverished, yet many still have their self-respect and the determination to live life to its fullest despite their situation. This church has a clothing bank, distributes food vouchers to the local food banks, does its best to provide transportation on a limited basis, and twice a month we put together a community breakfast where we serve as many as 200 people a full breakfast at no charge. These breakfasts are a delightful event where we get to know our neighbors and do a little good. And I get to shoot these folks as they enjoy themselves.....it's a little bright spot in this big, bad world.....
  
And the kids!!!
 
Not all the poor and homeless stories are tragic....
|
|
|
|
01/28/2012 10:16:29 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
Originally posted by The_Tourist:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The sad truth is that (in this country at least) "allowing" is not part of the game. The authorities cannot force these poor people to do anything, not even take them to a hospice and some prefer to be alone and not have to deal with authority.
There are organizations and individuals that provide warm food, clothing and blankets for the homeless and try to convince them to come inside during the winter months, but often to no avail.
Yes it is sad, but in some instances the situation could be rectified with the participation of all involved.
Ray |
+1 For some, it's a choice they make to live that way... |
you can't make someone who is agoraphobic go into a shelter without meds it would be a horrible experience for them but what would you care it's a choice they made to be mentally ill, right......that was just a ridiculous statement. |
...Assuming that you are directing your comment to me, I would urge you to go back and try and find where it was exactly that I said that these people were made to do anything. The sad fact is that even under the most hostiles of conditions, the best one can do is try to convince someone to come out of the cold and if they freeze to death, then society as a whole is viewed as being uncaring.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/28/2012 03:19:13 PM · #35 |
I would hesitate calling many of them them portraits in the true sense of the word, quite the opposite.
Some are portraits though, and they seem to give insight into the person and the dignity of a peer, which the viewer can relate to.
But in many, PP hijacked that train completely. Raw material turned into something else entirely.
I looked through the series but flickr noise was too much to read through the comments, so I am not sure about the photographer's intent.
I can imagine ways advertisement-like PP can be used to actually create sympathy by contrast with the subject matter, but this is really not the case.
Once I have seen in a video the art academy students who routinely prepare Salgado's prints in Paris. One would never guessed that there is so much work behind when seeing the finally images.
It really is not the how much but the how, that's fascinating..
|
|
|
|
01/28/2012 04:23:07 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by ubique:
It's superb photographic craftsmanship, but this very quality has the perverse effect of making the pictures, especially when viewed as a whole, lack authenticity.
The photographer has emasculated the photographs by making them too stylized; too meticulously executed; too beautiful, in fact.
The result is that the photographs feel like they are more about Lee Jeffries than anything else.
These pictures are simply not sympathetic (sympathetic in the literal sense). |
How do you feel about Avedon's In the American West series?
Personally, I think there's a place for this sort of abstraction of the subject from his/her surroundings. I don't see it as purely a stylistic choice.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2012 05:05:45 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ubique:
It's superb photographic craftsmanship, but this very quality has the perverse effect of making the pictures, especially when viewed as a whole, lack authenticity.
The photographer has emasculated the photographs by making them too stylized; too meticulously executed; too beautiful, in fact.
The result is that the photographs feel like they are more about Lee Jeffries than anything else.
These pictures are simply not sympathetic (sympathetic in the literal sense). |
How do you feel about Avedon's In the American West series?
Personally, I think there's a place for this sort of abstraction of the subject from his/her surroundings. I don't see it as purely a stylistic choice.
R. |
It's intersting to compare the two. Avedon's series sits more squarely into the 'documentary' mold. The white background and relatively benign lighting gives a 'document' feel that harks back to the Victorians. A cataloguing. I think the abstraction from suroundings here doesn't really harm the portraits at all. With Jefferies images the seperation from surroundings is less a point than what he does afterwards. The close framing and heavy processing that creates skin texture and eyeballs that are almost an abstraction in them selves.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 03:55:26 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 03:55:26 PM EDT.
|
