| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2014 01:24:30 PM · #76 |
Ryan, you have a valid point, the thread has moved away from its original intent.
I think the context of this thread has become something else, and I won't re-post. Perhaps we'll have another thread, or we can all discuss the connections between punk rock and street photography at an NYC GTG at some point. Too bad CBGB's is now a John Varvatos store. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 02:08:55 PM · #77 |
I'm really struggling to wrap my thoughts around all of this.
I reacted strongly and overreacted -- not to the comment itself, but because of who made the comment. I really like ubique and have had some interesting conversations with him. That's why it got personal.
So in backing up and taking a longer look at the entire thread -- I'm trying to make sense of it all. And it leads me to questions. I have another really nasty migraine, so this probably isn't going to come out right, so I want to say in the beginning that these are now real, valid questions. Not trying to be sarcastic, point fingers, etc. I want to explore this because I think it's important. So please bear with me and my headache.
Things were viewed from two different view points:
1. A photograph as a commentary on society
and
2. The commentary being seen as an unfair condemnation
What struck me yesterday was that I have no background/experience in #!. I don't view photographs as comments on society, because I haven't studied photographers and photography. Yet, it's one of the first things that usually comes up in reviews of old time photographers. (which I've only skimmed occasionally because of their mention on DPC.) So perhaps one of my biggest mistakes is not looking at street photography that way.
However:
Back to #2 -- since I'm used to viewing things on a more personal level, even taking into account my lack of experience/understanding of #1, (is anyone else getting uncomfortable with #1 and #2?? Or am I a mom too long... Potty references just pop into mind when you say those numbers too often. I should have used a and b instead. Anyway, back to the point) Since I'm used to viewing things on a more personal level, even taking into account my lack of experience/understanding of #1, is it fair to make comments/assumptions of a society based on photographs? Is there truly enough information? Isn't it kind of similar to How to Lie with Statistics? You can make a photograph show/say anything you want. Is America a place of health and vitality because we show photographs of gorgeous guys/girls jogging on the beach?
Seriously -- I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm just questioning now, because I'm truly wondering.
My problem stems from the fact that I truly try not to judge things of which I have no knowledge. There are stereotypes of every people/place, and I truly try to avoid those. I don't go around considering the French rude and obnoxious, because I have no knowledge of that. Then there were the Pollack jokes that went around for a huge part of my childhood. Is it right to see a photograph of these things, and say that "see -- here's the proof"?
Yes -- there is absolutely an obesity problem in the US. But the comment didn't just say it points out the problem, the comment was scathing in everything it saw. It saw the dog as being pampered, I assume because the dog was in the basket? I'm not sure. Perhaps it's in the basket so it doesn't get run over by the scooter. I sound like I'm making excuses again, but I'm just asking if it's right to make assumptions based on a photograph, when we only know what it shows us, and looks can definitely be deceiving.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and many people believe only what they see, but how many times have we seen something and completely mistook what it really was?
I don't know if I'm making much sense here.
But one thing I want to get across is: I don't think the thread has moved away from its original intent at all. The question was: how good is this comment. And we've seen that things are being seen and approached in entirely different ways. We already knew that -- but this shows how incredibly different the spectrum can be.
But what is right/fair when viewing photography -- and is there truly such a thing?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2014 02:21:36 PM · #78 |
| Regarding the OP, bear in mind that "How good was THAT?!!!" is a common vernacular expression for "That was INCREDIBLE!". I took the title of the thread as a statement, not a question. For whatever that's worth. And Wendy, Paul's not "making an assumption based on a photograph": the assumption is already OUT there, and in his mind, the photograph illustrates or underscores it. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 02:24:44 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
But what is right/fair when viewing photography -- and is there truly such a thing? |
No - you see what you see, interpret it through your ownexperience, and feel what you feel. Others will undoubtedly arrive at their own interpretations filtered through their own experiences and feel differently. You can disagree, but you can't really say either is "right" or "wrong" ... |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 02:35:38 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Regarding the OP, bear in mind that "How good was THAT?!!!" is a common vernacular expression for "That was INCREDIBLE!". I took the title of the thread as a statement, not a question. For whatever that's worth. And Wendy, Paul's not "making an assumption based on a photograph": the assumption is already OUT there, and in his mind, the photograph illustrates or underscores it. |
I think Bear's post here is a very accurate summation. Paul's disdain for American culture is well documented, and this photo reaffirmed nearly all of it. And Neat, with schadenfreude-esque glee, wanted to call extra attention to it. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 02:41:13 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by vawendy:
But what is right/fair when viewing photography -- and is there truly such a thing? |
No - you see what you see, interpret it through your ownexperience, and feel what you feel. Others will undoubtedly arrive at their own interpretations filtered through their own experiences and feel differently. You can disagree, but you can't really say either is "right" or "wrong" ... |
And what Ubique saw was something that, in his opinion, reinforced his distaste for America and it's culture. Ubique has never really hidden his disdain for the US. It's his right to express it and it's the right of others to express their beliefs that he's wrong.
He lives on a continent that has by far the highest murder rate in the world and a human rights history as atrocious as any in history and yet has numerous times disparaged America for things such as it's obesity problem, arrogance, and now apparently our "Disney World architecture". I for one find it tiresome but who am I? Just another fat, dumb, uncultured, gun-owning, arrogant American.
Message edited by author 2014-02-25 14:42:09. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 02:42:22 PM · #82 |
Just reading through this, and I'm fairly ashamed at how over sensitive and PC you lot are.
Really, you all should be proud of yourselves, in this single thread you've managed to silence several voices with cries of intolerance.
Honestly, I'm really very saddened by all of this, since it will only further serve to reduce the diversity of the community, or at least to make those with differing opinions hold back out of fear of being lambasted for their honesty. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 02:49:01 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Regarding the OP, bear in mind that "How good was THAT?!!!" is a common vernacular expression for "That was INCREDIBLE!". I took the title of the thread as a statement, not a question. For whatever that's worth. And Wendy, Paul's not "making an assumption based on a photograph": the assumption is already OUT there, and in his mind, the photograph illustrates or underscores it. |
I think Bear's post here is a very accurate summation. Paul's disdain for American culture is well documented, and this photo reaffirmed nearly all of it. And Neat, with schadenfreude-esque glee, wanted to call extra attention to it. |
all of that is absolutely spot on. I just think it's a shame that he'll now just add 'oversensitive babies' to his list of things he hates americans for, and keep his mouth shut about it here in the future.. It would have been better if he felt free to express himself, as that could possibly have lead to a conversation that might have broadened his worldview.
Now, I'm headed back to my conference before I piss off everyone even more. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 02:50:42 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Paul's disdain for American culture is well documented, and this photo reaffirmed nearly all of it. |
Originally posted by chazoe:
And what Ubique saw was something that, in his opinion, reinforced his distaste for America and it's culture. Ubique has never really hidden his disdain for the US. |
Can you two not get it through your heads that having disdain and distaste for *some* aspects of a culture is not the same as having disdain for an entire country and culture. There are plenty of things about America i'm sure Paul loves - jeez, the guy even did a whole photo essay on Breaking Bad last month.
Honestly, get a tougher skin guys!
Message edited by author 2014-02-25 14:51:30. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 02:57:44 PM · #85 |
Geez Wendy, forget about it and think about something that makes you feel happier.
I probably over-egged the pudding with my comment. I wasn't addressing the specific people in the picture. In the context of the picture and of the photographic genre they as individuals were not relevant. I was reacting to the picture, and treated it in exactly the same way I would a painting or a drawing.
The artist had already made the decision to use these people in a way and a context in which they had no say. They were hijacked and turned into a picture before I ever saw them. So all that I saw was the picture. There is no back story for them as individuals, no matter how kindly you might wish to invent one. That's how this kind of photography, street photography, usually works ... it's genteel identity theft.
Don't think for one moment that I am trying to lay off some heat on Lev. I'm not. The decision to say what I said about the picture was mine alone. I'm far more of a street photographer than Lev is, and for both of us that's by choice. It's the only kind of photography that I know anything significant about, not just as a practitioner but also as a student of the history and development of the genre. Street photography is often nasty and blunt. It's exploitative almost by definition. And its certainly not fair, inclusive or even-handed. It nearly always starts with a premeditated theft, so its unlikely to rise to any great heights of altruism after that.
Message edited by author 2014-02-25 15:16:58. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 02:58:12 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Paul's disdain for American culture is well documented, and this photo reaffirmed nearly all of it. |
Originally posted by chazoe:
And what Ubique saw was something that, in his opinion, reinforced his distaste for America and it's culture. Ubique has never really hidden his disdain for the US. |
Can you two not get it through your heads that having disdain and distaste for *some* aspects of a culture is not the same as having disdain for an entire country and culture. There are plenty of things about America i'm sure Paul loves - jeez, the guy even did a whole photo essay on Breaking Bad last month.
Honestly, get a tougher skin guys! |
I just said he has the right to express it and I have the right to disagree. How is that thin skinned?
How great would the discussions be if opposing viewpoints weren't allowed? |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:02:06 PM · #87 |
Goodness! How awesome that a picture and some words could inspire such spirited discussion! Art?? :)
Love the picture. Almost unreal, as though it were staged brilliantly, yet not! Loved the comment. One of the greatest features of this site is seeing through the eyes of others, be it in words or pictures.
My concern... who the heck is watching that toddler?? :)
Carry on. But never stay calm. Where's the fun in that? |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:02:52 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
1. A photograph as a commentary on society
...
is it fair to make comments/assumptions of a society based on photographs? Is there truly enough information? Isn't it kind of similar to How to Lie with Statistics? You can make a photograph show/say anything you want. Is America a place of health and vitality because we show photographs of gorgeous guys/girls jogging on the beach?
Seriously -- I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm just questioning now, because I'm truly wondering.
...
Is it right to see a photograph of these things, and say that "see -- here's the proof"? |
you're confusing social commentary with social science. social commentary in art is about making assumptions and making you feel something about those assumptions. science is about proof. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:03:10 PM · #89 |
Well said Paul
(photography) It's exploitative almost by definition
We are predators - of a moment, a second, of humans and birds alike, wars and catastrophes, kind moments and what's not
As I said before:
We are primarily photographers here. Let's not censorship photograph, photographers and commenters. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:04:15 PM · #90 |
Tougher skin, right or wrong, fair or unfair, stupid or not stupid...
This was a conversation worth having.
I was one of the most vocal in my response -- but people are taking that as a bad thing and this thread as a bad thing.
If the comment was worthwhile and completely just in being made, so are the reactions.
If I can't handle the comment, it's up to me to work it out. Why stew in silence?
In talking it out here and receiving numerous PMs covering all sides, I'm seeing things that I hadn't seen before, and viewpoints that hadn't occurred to me. Whether or not any of us agrees, the conversation is worthwhile.
So I see no reason to complain about the thread. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:06:53 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by vawendy:
1. A photograph as a commentary on society
...
is it fair to make comments/assumptions of a society based on photographs? Is there truly enough information? Isn't it kind of similar to How to Lie with Statistics? You can make a photograph show/say anything you want. Is America a place of health and vitality because we show photographs of gorgeous guys/girls jogging on the beach?
Seriously -- I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm just questioning now, because I'm truly wondering.
...
Is it right to see a photograph of these things, and say that "see -- here's the proof"? |
you're confusing social commentary with social science. social commentary in art is about making assumptions and making you feel something about those assumptions. science is about proof. |
Excellent post, Don, and puts a lot into perspective.
One of the best posts in the thread. Thank you. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:07:19 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
and now apparently our "Disney World architecture". I for one find it tiresome but who am I? Just another fat, dumb, uncultured, gun-owning, arrogant American. |
If you're going to accuse Paul of intolerance, then go ahead and defend that architecture. Tell us how form follows function. Tell us of its elegance and beauty, or its integrity. Don't just condemn him for condemning something. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:10:36 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Paul's disdain for American culture is well documented, and this photo reaffirmed nearly all of it. |
Originally posted by chazoe:
And what Ubique saw was something that, in his opinion, reinforced his distaste for America and it's culture. Ubique has never really hidden his disdain for the US. |
Can you two not get it through your heads that having disdain and distaste for *some* aspects of a culture is not the same as having disdain for an entire country and culture. There are plenty of things about America i'm sure Paul loves - jeez, the guy even did a whole photo essay on Breaking Bad last month.
Honestly, get a tougher skin guys! |
Just an observation, Clive. Nothing to do with being offended or even disagreeing with it. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:13:15 PM · #94 |
Guys, get a grip. There are only two aspects of American culture on which I've ever made critical comment: deranged obsession with guns, and relentless self-indulgence. Everything else about America I admire; almost everyone does.
The only reason it seems like I'm always attacking America is because the guns and gluttony stuff is so frequently all that's visible, from way over here. Stop that stuff, and I'll be delighted to shut up. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:21:15 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Guys, get a grip. |
What fun is that? And what else would we do with our time?
And what would Art have upon which to comment (and eat popcorn)?? |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:23:21 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Goodness! How awesome that a picture and some words could inspire such spirited discussion! Art?? :)
Love the picture. Almost unreal, as though it were staged brilliantly, yet not! Loved the comment. One of the greatest features of this site is seeing through the eyes of others, be it in words or pictures.
My concern... who the heck is watching that toddler?? :)
Carry on. But never stay calm. Where's the fun in that? |
Deb, fear not: the parents are just outside the frame :). That harkens back to the issue of a street photo vs "real life". I made the choice of leaving them out and that choice certainly affected the perception of the scene. Street photographers do not stage the scenes, but they make such choices to emphasize, change, or even create stories. Which is what makes street photography exciting. As Paul just said, think about a photo as you would about a painting (or a book, or a play) ...and comment/read comments accordingly. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:24:56 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by chazoe:
and now apparently our "Disney World architecture". I for one find it tiresome but who am I? Just another fat, dumb, uncultured, gun-owning, arrogant American. |
If you're going to accuse Paul of intolerance, then go ahead and defend that architecture. Tell us how form follows function. Tell us of its elegance and beauty, or its integrity. Don't just condemn him for condemning something. |
Yes because one apartment building is representative to all the architecture in America. And I'm sure all the apartment buildings in the world are amazing except the ones in the US. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:31:40 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by chazoe:
and now apparently our "Disney World architecture". I for one find it tiresome but who am I? Just another fat, dumb, uncultured, gun-owning, arrogant American. |
If you're going to accuse Paul of intolerance, then go ahead and defend that architecture. Tell us how form follows function. Tell us of its elegance and beauty, or its integrity. Don't just condemn him for condemning something. |
Yes because one apartment building is representative to all the architecture in America. And I'm sure all the apartment buildings in the world are amazing except the ones in the US. |
But that's what a "social commentary" photo does. It provides one example and extrapolates from that. As I told Wendy, it's not science, it's not proof and it's not fair. But it can be powerful. |
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:33:39 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by chazoe:
and now apparently our "Disney World architecture". I for one find it tiresome but who am I? Just another fat, dumb, uncultured, gun-owning, arrogant American. |
If you're going to accuse Paul of intolerance, then go ahead and defend that architecture. Tell us how form follows function. Tell us of its elegance and beauty, or its integrity. Don't just condemn him for condemning something. |
Yes because one apartment building is representative to all the architecture in America. And I'm sure all the apartment buildings in the world are amazing except the ones in the US. |
My favourite architect is American. So is my second favourite.
My favourite painter is American. So is my second favourite.
My favourite author is American. So is my second favourite.
My favourite photographer is Italian. But my second favourite is American.
All true, I promise you.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2014 03:37:27 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Guys, get a grip. There are only two aspects of American culture on which I've ever made critical comment: deranged obsession with guns, and relentless self-indulgence. Everything else about America I admire; almost everyone does.
The only reason it seems like I'm always attacking America is because the guns and gluttony stuff is so frequently all that's visible, from way over here. Stop that stuff, and I'll be delighted to shut up. |
That's what bothers me. That stuff is so shallow and pointless in my opinion. Why is it that so many people focus on those kind of things and never mention the philanthropy or the great things America has done for the world. We are obviously not perfect but we're also not a nation of redneck racist over indulgent under educated (my use of commas or lack there of asside) imbeciles either.
Message edited by author 2014-02-25 15:51:56. |
|
