I have a strong opinion about this essay in the NYT "Obama's People"

<p>Hey Sp, no shadows in 153521...and your web portfolio can be found where...?</p>

<p>A few comments:<br>

Michelle Obama has a Chief of Staff....fair dunkum? What for?<br>

That blue tie was recycled a few times. And it's ok not to staighten your tie when being photographed.<br>

They all look wasted...was it just at the end of the campaign?<br>

Brown is the new "power" colour.</p>

<p>Hey Scott, and thanks for the considered response. First I'd like to point out a phrase that you seem tto attribute to me "Even if Kander is acting out his adolescent alter ego, so what? Who says his subjects are his betters? And it is a real stretch for you to surmise that thought process anyway." but was John Kelly.</p>

<p>I don't think Kander has any such insecurities, and I don't care if he does.</p>

<p>That these images may have some relevance as documents of our time, I concede this may be true, and I find that disappointing.</p>

<p>I fear that if such is the case, disco will seem a cultural highlight by comparison. Not all chronological signifiers are evidence of quality.</p>

<p>I have a favorite passage that I keep on my desk (for some 20 years now): It's Szarkowski speaking of the portraits of Irving Penn: "<em>That the apparently inconsequential can be redeemed by artistic seriousness: that a plain vocabulary is the most demanding; that high craft is the just desserts not only of monuments and ceremonial vessels, but the ordinary baggage of our lives</em> "</p>

<p>I find the presence of Blackberries, cellphones and such as extremely valuable accoutrements of the depicted individuals... quite telling of who they are, as I do the gestures and distant gazes affected by many as they endure the process.</p>

<p>What I don't find appropriate is the heavy presence of the process, the overlayed, after-the-fact trendy processing and the overbearing lighting that shrouds the people in a fabricated glaze that adds nothing, but instead obscures under a distracting gloss of artifice, serving only to brand these images and limit them to a description of what was hip and excessive in the photographic pop culture of 2009.</p>

<p>We know the style of the photographer better than we know the people depicted. As an alternative for contrast, since Avedon is so controversial, consider Penn whose portraits certainly have stood this time test and have just as indelibly printed in them the hand of the artist. Through them, we can clearly see the people of their era and marvel at the artistic seriousness that reveals them to us decades later... t</p>

<p>"are you saying that this work is situationally inappropriate, or generally inappropriate?"</p>

<p>Situationally. Look at Kandar's website and you will see thoroughly appropriate and effective usage of the same techniques. He is an excellent photographer. I wish I had a career half as successful and admirable... t</p>

<p><em>"Hey Sp, no shadows in 153521...and your web portfolio can be found where...?"</em></p>

<p>Same place as everybody else...listed on the community member page:</p>

<p> </p>

<h2>"Photographer Biography</h2>

<p>Due to extreme laziness I maintain only one on-line image location. Please <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/37135917@N00/sets/72157607081098342/show/" target="_blank">click here</a> for a general idea of what I point my camera at..."</p>

<p>Sp - And you defer to "glass houses?"<br /> <br /> Well, I guess if what you're doing is workin' for ya. Window washers make a good living from people who live in glass houses.</p>

<p>Actually I <em>referred</em> to glass houses, but no matter.</p>

<p>My point was simply that your comment applies equally well to quite a few shots in your portfolio. So if you're going to slag Kander, you might want to step up your own game.</p>

<p>Well Sp, when/if business gets slow for me, I'll give some thought to your advice. But for the record...that ain't gonna be anytime soon.<br /> <br /> Also for the record, In natural language, a <strong>deferred</strong> reference is the metonymic use of an expression to <em>refer</em> to an entity related to the conventional meaning of that expression, but not denoted by it.<br /> <br /> I have a Master's in linguistics from Fordham. Still don't talk so good...but do know the difference between a referral and a deferral. A Master's...you don't get that from being extremely lazy...</p>

<p>It seems that such photographs are only important if you want them to be, for reasons that you're free to make up as you go along... :) The same can be said of politicians and any associated little debates on the internet, of course... :)</p>

<p>Well, it gives us something to think/natter/squabble about over a coffee, I guess, but we may just as well be gossiping about long-deceased movie stars, the token pop starlet of the day, or our colleagues' taste in casual footwear... It's merely light entertainment. No harm in it, but it doesn't achieve a great deal... It's just something to do... Time is a very valuable commodity, and it's vitally important that we waste it on trivial nonsense whenever we get the chance... :)</p>

<p>Sincere thanks to all concerned (including myself...) for wasting a few minutes of my never-to-be-reclaimed time... :) Now I'm going for a much-needed shit.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Thanks for that, Paul. Now my mind is at ease...</p>

<p>There have only been 44 Presidents of the USA. The people in these photographs will have a direct impact on your life (though perhaps not on your SO urgent mission this morning), and on the lives of future generations of people in the USA and around the world. Perhaps less baggage will clarify your awareness. Good luck with your early morning download. No updates required.. t</p>

<p><em>"I'll give some thought to your advice. But for the record...that ain't gonna be anytime soon."</em><br>

I'm sure Kander will be relieved.<br>

<em>"...a <strong>deferred</strong> reference..."</em></p>

<p>Nice try (it's fun to quote things of Wikipedia, isn't it?), but linguistically incorrect. I used a portion of a phrase as a reference to imply the whole phrase, so it would be more closely related to synecdoche.</p>

<p>And for the record, I also know the difference between aposiopesis and episiotomy, have an undergraduate degree in Engineering, and once drove <em>by</em> Fordham University.<br>

 

 

</p>

<p>Ahh Sp, I'm beginning to understand your approach to generating the pictures in your portfolio. It's the whole Rt/Left brain thing. You might be able to engineer a camera, that doesn't translate to using it well. Ditto language. You'll have to find someone else here to entertain you, I'm done.<br /> <br /> Hey, for your 2000+ "enlightening" posts on P-Net over the past 7 years, isn't it about time you buy a membership?</p>

<p>take it elsewhere, gentlemen... t</p>

<p>Sorry for the high-jack Tom, I do realize you and a few others were having a serious discussion. </p>

<p>I have the NY Times Sunday Magazine at home, and in full size, the images accentuate all the attributes that have been discussed above.<br>

For us to criticize the style that the photographer was using is a bit disingenuous, for if you look around you today, most people are trying to project some kind of edgy, aggressive, high contrast, "street," "cool" style of photography, most of which comes across as them beign a bunch of poseurs.<br>

Where has all the elegance and style that was exhibited by photographers such as Cecil Beaton, Avedon, Lord Snowdon, etc. gone? We are surrounded by a projection of faux edginess. Rudeness is the new politeness. Ugliness is the new beauty.</p>

<p><em>"For us to criticize the style that the photographer was using is a bit disingenuous..."</em><br>

 

<p>Actually quite true, the one thing you can't accuse Kander of, whether you like his work or not, is that it doesn't reflect the current photographic aesthetic.</p>

</p>

<p>Based on this discussion, I don't think the art of caricature is recognized by photographers. Perhaps if instead Kander had made pencil sketches they would not be so scary.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>nor as enduring... t</p>

<p>Tom said exactly that in his second post: <em>"...and the style was totally a 21st century cliche' that was worn out several years ago."</em><br />

<p>But you have to remember that photographers aren't the primary audience.<br>

<br />As for enduring, I'm not so sure: it's probably a fact* that the general public is far more likely to know the name Norman Rockwell than Avedon, Karsh, Beaton, Lord Snowdon, etc.</p>

<p>* somewhere on the Internet</p>

</p>

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>I didn't really attribute that comment to you but was wrapping several objections to the photos together, the only bit I did in quotation marks was yours. I share your disappointment in much of what is considered stylish and artistic now, but in the same way we embraced the disco age, leggings and the padded shoulders we will look back at this. I too hate the dumbing down of everything to be hip and trendy, I noticed in the UK many years ago the adopting of "common" accents by all people in the media spotlight, particularly footballers, why oh why do broadcasters think that because a footballer was good and popular he will have the ability to communicate his knowledge and understanding in an acceptable manner? Half of them refuse to pronounce their own names correctly. But I digress :-)</p>

<p>I love Magritte, in the same way that you carry your Szarkowski quote, I, being almost entirely visually driven, carry "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" with me, it is my screensaver amongst other things, it reminds me to question, all the time, is it the ultimate rendition of a pipe? Of course not. Was it of the style and age? Yes, but it got more than a few peoples backs up. Does it still work today, well for me it does, but it wouldn't get you an art degree!</p>

<p>So we do agree on lots :-)</p>

<p>"What I don't find appropriate is the heavy presence of the process, the overlayed, after-the-fact trendy processing and the overbearing lighting that shrouds the people in a fabricated glaze that adds nothing, but instead obscures under a distracting gloss of artifice, serving only to brand these images and limit them to a description of what was hip and excessive in the photographic pop culture of 2009." This, is, your main concern. But in this age it is inseparable. You can't have politicians that are not 100% media savy, you can't get by without style, but can go a long way without content, it is frightening that in todays climate a potential presidents haircut or dentistry can be more important than his views on wars, but that is the world we currently live in. The pictures to me, on a deeper level show the willingness and eagerness of this new team to push in unorthodox directions, the younger ones probably didn't care, the older ones realised that they were not being photographed to look their best but to show a new team in a new (to politics) way. They want to be seen as todays team, not yesterdays, and nobody is thinking about tomorrow, yet! To stand back one step, we know about these very intelligent and media savy people because of the photographer they agreed to be shot by, they knew the pictures would look like they do.</p>

<p>But again without studying them, or reading all kinds of meanings into them, as a set, for me, they work.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p>I think it's interesting how many of us become distressed, and even hostile to the point of grotesque typos, when others of us comment negatively on a photographer's work.</p>

<p>In the interest of America's future, this would be a good time to go back to respect for individual differences.</p>

<p>That somehow we're not supposed to infer the motivations for photographic work by looking at it is a remarkably constipated kind of idea. Kander's photos don't call for stupid salutes, even if you do respect them.</p>

<p>I said "Kander's betters." That's what I meant. It shouldn't be shocking to hear someone say individuals who have arrived at positions of such high accomplishment as Obama's team are "better" than an overly-contrived celebrity photographer. Liebowitz, who's got more to offer than she's delivered so far, towers over Kander, just as her mostly-worthless pop-star subjects tower over her.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>I don't have a very strong view on this, I am just enjoying the discussion. I very much respect every bodies right to feel what they want from these, and most other, pictures.</p>

<p>You can infer whatever you like, but that doesn't mean it is accurate or true or not a stretch. The vast majority of the audience for these pictures won't infer anything from them. A few, mostly photographers, will look deeper into them because they can see, what is to them, obvious imperfections or flaws that they think shouldn't have been done, even political analysts will give them a miss because they have far more interesting things to think about. I don't respect photos, some photographers, but no photos, I don't know Kanders work well enough to have a view but I, personally, think this series of pictures works. I have just tried to lay out my reasoning for that assertion, in the same way that you and Tom have done. I certainly don't salute or stand to attention for anybody.</p>

<p>To determine if somebody is "better" than somebody else takes a lot more than knowing the position they have risen to or their photographic ability. In my mind, and I freely live as a minority in one of the most racist countries on earth, all of us are equal. I am not shocked by much, people earn my respect not command or demand it. I don't respect position or authority but people, so the job you rose to is not a factor in my assesment of if you are a good person or not, I don't know Kander or the subjects so don't know, but were I to photograph these people then I see no reason to treat them as anything other than normal people, equals.</p>

<p>Liebowitz, now there is a subject all its own, I don't like her recent portraits of the queen, (but who would you consider to be the better person there?) I think giving schedule limitations as the reason for the complete digital construction is a farce. Surely those pictures are just as stylised as Kanders, just to the moderately knowledgable observer less "digitised"? But even if you, and most others, consider her "better" than Kander, so what?</p>

<p>The series of pictures he produced, even in Toms words " That these images may have some relevance as documents of our time, I concede this may be true, and I find that disappointing." That turns the conversation into a question of "Are you happy with the times?" not "What do you think about these pictures?".</p>

<p>Anyway, each to his/her own, Scott.</p>

<p>Tom, the people in these pictures work for an organization that's required to change certain elements of its management on a regular basis. The people involved come and go... The decisions made by this organization (and others...) may or may not be of interest to me, depending on the nature of those decisions. And yes, some decisions could have very serious and far-reaching consequences, naturally.</p>

<p>The people themselves (as human beings and individuals...) are really not so interesting to me at all. I see no reason why they should be. Well, apart from as tea break gossip fodder, which is all these photographs amount to... Do you really care how these people looked in those moments when the shutter was opened...? How they chose to dress that day...? How they happened to pose for the camera during that particular shoot...? I don't. What do you see in these photographs that's so important to you...? I see skin, hair, clothes, props... So what...? I don't need to concern myself with the physical appearance of these people.</p>

<p>Sorry, but the output of my digestive system is considerably more important to me than these photographs... Shit happens.</p>

<p>"The people themselves (as human beings and individuals...) are really not so interesting to me at all. I see no reason why they should be." </p>

<p>A statement like that says more about one's own values than about the photos. We're free to be isolates if we wish.</p>

<p>Here's an adult photographer: http://www.williamcoupon.com/people_menu.html</p>

 

<p>John,</p>

<p>William is a terrible example of a photographer, he takes one picture, he might have mastered that one picture but he looks way way to limited to me.</p>

<p>Surely you have better examples of grown ups than that?</p>