Should a Photographer Conceal or Reveal Political Leanings in Her/His Work

Z is a BS artist. bringing up Calder in the context of the question I posed is uber BS

Nah, .[. Z's OK. It's just he grew up mean, having to defend that name. (I mean, what was his momma thinking of??)

 

We mostly disagree on semantics. But I'm still right, dammit.

The word 'should' implies compulsion to me, which is anathema to free expression. A secondary consideration, for me anyway, is the fact that I am apolitical by nature - making the 'should' either impossible or irrelevant.

It's not BS, quiche, unless you want to try to restrict the claim away from discussions of all

art. Pay attention to the claim, and what I was responding to. Again, it is absurd to believe

that "Good art is usually political" -- the argument has suddenly transformed itself into

saying that ANY art can, at any date in time, be deemed political by dint of reactions to it.

 

Therefore, tautologically, if all art can be deemed political, OF COURSE good art is political.

By that defnition (where all art can be such), bad and indifferent art also is political.

My momma was thinking that "dave" was a boring name, probably.

Show Political images on photo.net and watch what happens.......your question will answer itself automatically.

Any art becomes political when viewed by those with a political mindset/agenda (even a fart can have political overtones if it's delivery is timed right in a politically charged atmosphere). Hence, many artists are censured in totalitarian political climates (while farts are pretty much always frowned upon).<p>As for this initial question, a photographer who deals in metaphorical images should (sorry grant) do whatever they want to do... be political, or try not to be... It's an entirely personal decision and the question has no broad spectrum applicability for "photographers" as a general group.<p>Narrow the question (should <i>photojournalists</i> conceal or reveal political leanings...) and you've got something to talk about... t

Is this concealment?....J<div></div>

guess you'll have to 'splain this pic to me...don't get it

How we decode the image depends on context. This image will mean nothing to most of us, unless we know what we're looking at.

You are correct it does take context. If just looking at this image you only see a few people playing and (with this tiny image) one policeman. If looking at the series (you can see it on my <A href="http://www.digitalreflections.biz/wakeup.html">site</A>) you will find the common thread. So,"Should a Photographer Conceal or Reveal Political Leanings in Her/His Work" Depends, for me at least, on the context of the viewing. In other words who is my audience? And is this the place to make a particular statement?

One must pick ones battles or spend ones entire life battling.

....;)....J

i don't think i am in your audience. the pic did not interest me enough to visit your site. sorry.

I am afraid that is not the point....J

<I>Again, it is absurd to believe that "Good art is usually political"</i><P>I agree.<P>The 'high art' community consists of a lot of black clothed, body pierced, "I came from wealthy parents but hate wealthy people" social outcasts that have turned any expression that is anti-establishment into an art. Photographers in general tend to hang around the periphery of these coffee slurping, sandal clodding vampires for reasons I've never been able to figure out. Must be the high albido of their plutonian complexions is handy to calibrate light meters off of. <P>There is political expression that uses photography (and other multimedia) to get across it's message, and there is photography that contains political/social context. There is a difference, and photography meant to inspire a political debate over artistic form is not photography, it's an editorial. <P><I>Should a Photographer Conceal or Reveal Political Leanings in Her/His Work</I><p>

If given a poll on photo.net, I'm thinking most of us could really care less what a photographers political leanings are, and would perhaps prefer to keep geo political politics outside our hobby. While emotion often and justifiably inspires the artistic process and we all have wildly varying tastes and favorite subject matter, good photography is also objective in intent and doesn't try to shove a conclusion on the viewer. To counter intents to push political views in posted photographs, I wouldn't do the the image the courtesy or flattery of calling it political, because that's what the photographer wants. I call it an advertisement instead. That's really what it is.

Well, I hesitate to respond to this, because it's a little puerile even if you ignore the spelling errors. Here's the obvious and familiar counterexample. I doubt if St. Ansel had a plutonian complexion, but he was a leader of the environmental movement and an effective lobbyist for the Sierra Club. Is that political? And whether he intended it or not, his work was a vehicle for the environmental movement. How about 'Born Free and Equal'? Is that political? Was he a black-clad coffee-sipping anti-establishment hanger-on?

 

I'm not saying all great art is political in content or context. Just most of it. And I'm limiting my opinion to influential workers, not the derivative stuff that most of us create.

<I>Should a Photographer Conceal or Reveal Political Leanings in Her/His Work </I><BR><BR>

Short answer? No, unless they want to. Just because it's an election year in the U.S., what's the difference? Does your question apply to all users of photo.net? I'm Canadian, and couldn't give a damn about American politics most of the time, we've got our own monkey-circus up here to entertain us. Besides, you woulnd't want MY political imagery being shown. You'd get some offbeat pictures of hanging chads or someone carrying "Voting for Dummies" into the polling booth.

"Should a Photographer Conceal or Reveal Political Leanings in Her/His Work?"

 

Of course not. If his political leanings aren't obvious they aren't relevant. If they are obvious it's a political cartoon.

Are Ansel Adams's masterpieces political?

 

Considering that the national parks (read: national parks in many countries around the world who will copy with/without modifications a lot of what happens in the US) might never have been created without great publicity of his images, without nudging the correct people at the correct places with the pictures, it does seem the images played a big part in politics of the day (political?).

 

Pictures of scenic landscapes have in no small measure increased tourism (and commercial movie production) all around the globe by making changes to legislation in countries both of the visitors and the visited.

 

A person is not born of vacuum and what s/he puts down on paper or film is a part of oneself, what one has experienced and what one hopes to. An image is thus a perspective showing both the environment of the photographer from which s/he arose and also the environment s/he looks forward to.

 

To quote my friend -- Show pictures of the Taj to a hundred people and ask them to pick their favourite one, and 99 will pick the one which the tourism department made famous on their brochures.

 

Pictures are political, either by accepting accepted views, or by trying to change them.

The major part of my serious photography consists of documenting the decline of my former home town, an old nineteenth-century coal-mining town with its attendant brickyards, pipeyards, potteries, foundries and railways. I document this in preference to the stately homes, landed estates and big houses, since I am drawn from the stock that worked in the mines, the brickyards, the pipeyards, the potteries, foundries and on the railways. In this way I'm sure I'm declaring my political allegiances, but it isn't overt. It is simply a record of the world in which I grew up and whose legacy I inevitably carry.

MANY people make comments on the images of Ansel Adams. A good sampling of the enormous variety of Ansel Adams images can be found in the Library of Congress netsite. Many of those images, especially viewed in Today's political climate of American Agressiveness and European Selfishness are clearly political, even though they initially appear to be taken as simply documentation of situations.

This started with the question should a photographer conceal or appear naked in only their political socks etc.

 

Be serious. No actually do not. I suspect you are already in earnest.

 

A more interesting question may be what does the president really ask for in his prayers. Possibly photographers like these?

 

I know the rules. Should is not allowed. OK.

 

George Orwell bless his cotton socks reckoned that all Art was political. Nonsense. Art is not political people are. Art is a mystery busy revealing a mystery that is its mystery. Everyone assumes that they know what it is. If they do please produce it immediately we are running out of time and always remember eternity is a waste of time. On the latter you can quote my original thought. Really you heard it here first folks. People think they know what art is but art it knows them. Scott talks above of high art. Theres no such thing if there was there would be its opposite low art. There is only great art and really very very precious little of that. Ansel Adams was a sort of dabbler. He only painted the set. The comedy is about the actors. Someone says that Scott is special of course he is we are all special. Or should be. I put one in for luck. Meryl Arbing above says art can be used to tell disgusting lies. Who are you trying to kid. By definition art cannot lie it just sometimes tells little black and white fibs for its true and truthful ends. Sure people may use it to their own ends. But in the end it always wins. The idea that the photographer/artist bears responsibility for their art is nonsense. You make it sound like its some sort of dog that you can bring to heel. In spite of the abundance of many many finely crafted smocks artists are a very rare breed indeed and are obsessed however calm their demeanour. People do not judge art time does it. And by the way Im not German unfortunately but please lay of the Nazi stuff its such a hackneyed hammer and see that Americas own history needs examining in a different way. Lay of the selfish Europeans stuff too. They they make such lovely ice cream. One other thing how come I know so much about art when I say its such a mystery. Nobody knows but I know what it is not.

 

Yours in some haste. OK quick beam me up Scotty.

Good golly Quiche, you certainly know to wake alot of thinking people up,I love it when people really start thinking for themselves.Who knows some may even get to looking beyond their greed and predjudices and maybe they'll vote for candidates that will make life a little better for everyone not just the few.

Just was wondering if there's any Heinz ketchup in the White House.

W. will need it to eat crow from that first debate.

Darn, I got to get me a scanner