Against politically correct policing

<p>Charles -- I quoted <em>you</em> in my last post. The only reference to student government in that post is contained within your quote -- only a portion of a more lengthy statement by you regarding the background of that event. Your insistence on bringing it up, yet again, in an attempt to tell me what I may, and may not, discuss in relation to photography is <strong><em>you</em></strong> grinding the axe. Not me. </p>

<p>Then, as if your attempted scolding was not enough, you come back with an uncalled for, and off the wall response indicating that people who watch hockey games are "nuts". If you'd have paid attention to what was written, instead of making what appear to me to be angry, rude, and peremptory comments out of some sort of knee jerk reaction, you would know that those people did not attend a hockey game. Some of them were there for a parade, and some of them just happened to be walking down the street. Why is one person sane and the rest of the people in the photograph "nuts"? Where the heck did that come from? It bespeaks a contemptuous grudge. I do not understand you, Charles. Why do you seem to be so contentious? Why insult people who watch hockey games? Why get angry because, in one post, I mentioned a student body vote? Why refer to the work of another photographer as "crass" merely because you do not like or understand it? </p>

<p>In this thread, and other recent threads, I have attempted to be civil and polite to you, to discuss some of your comments in a polite and understanding way...despite your frequent querulous attitude and your insistence on dragging threads in directions that the OPs never intended. There are too many other posters with valid and engaging comments for me to waste time trying to figure you out. For now, I am done addressing you in these threads. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/ap-drops-term-illegal-immigrant_n_3001432.html<br /> "The <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/press-drops-illegal-immigrant-standards-book/story?id=18862824#.UVs336vkvbT" target="_hplink">Associated Press dropped the term “illegal immigrant”</a> from its style guide Tuesday, handing a victory to immigration rights advocates and Latino media organizations who have pressured the news media for years to abandon a phrase<strong> that many view as offensive." </strong>[emphasis added]<br /> <br /> Your mere use of that term to me is offensive. Very offensive. It's like calling people who go to hockey games nuts or something. Just gets me all riled up.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>a very well known policy about the depiction of children, which, of course, is perfectly reasonable.<br>

. . .<br>

semi naked son covered in spots/eyes.<br>

. . .<br>

and of course the hospital rejected it, as one would expect</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a very different reaction.</p>

<p>I might question the motives of the artist if I suspected she was acting purely out of a desire for publicity, though an artist seeking publicity is hardly among the worst things I've heard people do. But I'd stand with her on the actual case at hand, regardless of her intentions. Rather than questioning the artist, I'm much more inclined to question you and the hospital. You for characterizing this photo as "a semi naked son." I see the picture as a boy, a boy with spots, and a boy without his shirt. "Semi naked" never occurred to me. And the hospital for a bizarre policy or a bizarre interpretation or enforcement of a policy. I would really prefer not to live in a society that forbids showing a boy without his shirt in a photo exhibition, a benign, non-suggestive photo. To me, that's the story here, the hospital's policy. Not the artist's reaction. Obviously, the hospital may be within its rights to institute such a policy, but is HAS TO BE questioned and criticized by a more mature society. I would not expect the hospital to have rejected this at all. I find it shocking and pathetic that they did.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Steve, your photo is an example of the potential for a photo to become more than the original situation provided and more than your intentions. It seems OK to see your photo in racial terms even if there was no racism actually involved and even if your intention had only to do with the fellow's hat or style. A photo frames stuff out and isolates a subset of the overall scene and context. In that respect, the photo takes on a meaning and life of its own, often beyond the meaning of the original scene itself. As I see it, the camera (regardless of your intention or lack of intention) isolated a sole black man in the midst of an otherwise white group of people. The young guy appears (he may not be) to be looking at the main subject. I don't see it as racist, but I see the photo as having the potential to tell a story about race.</p>

<p>Now, if you were to tell me you framed it just this way and wanted to portray the black guy as alone in a crowd of white folks for whatever reason, I'd want to hear it. If a critic were to write about the racial implications of this shot, I'd listen as intently and interestedly <strong>and skeptically</strong> as I do to most critical interpretations. And I'd form my own judgment. I'd determine if you put a spin on the scene by looking at the rest of your work. If I found several other photos that suggested a particular view of race, even if I thought it unintentional, I might deduce that you have a predisposition to seeing the world a certain way and that your photos showed something of your thinking or your looking without your necessarily intending it. People have talked about things in my own work that have opened my eyes to my own photographic inclinations that I didn't do consciously and hadn't noticed but that make sense to me now that it's been pointed out. Knowing your work, I interpret it as a dynamic street shot with an interesting guy.</p>

<p>I think it's got little to do with political correctness to consider when and how we see people. As a man, as a gay person, as a Jewish person there are times when I see myself and others just as people. But the fact is, I am white, I am gay, and I am Jewish and male. And sometimes those things become apparent in a visual way and also in a narrative way. And I don't shy away from the fact that those things are also parts of my identity (which is fluid, not fixed). So I don't mind, if there's a picture of me in a crowd, being seen as gay or Jewish or white or male if that can be made to be or appears to be part of some narrative. Sometimes people will assume I've photographed a certain way or have a take on something because I'm gay when I don't think that's the case. But I listen because even if it doesn't say something about me it says something about them and, as importantly, about how they see me. And that's OK. I can learn from them and I can correct them if I want.</p>

<p>My parents grew up wanting "Jewish" to be not a hateful trait and not a dirty word and wanted to lift themselves out of the circumstances into which they were born and in which they were brought up. They accomplished that and were happy to be accepted simply as people, and for their Jewishness not to be made a big deal. And yet, they continued to want to assert their Jewishness. I understand that. It shouldn't have to be a choice, this or that. They were able to be both, regular people, accepted as equal human beings, and also proud Jews with a culture and a heritage. So it was and it wasn't a big deal, if that makes sense. If they wanted anything, it was to be seen as both. They were Jewish and they were people. It wound up working pretty well for them.</p>

<p>In short, it doesn't much matter to me what was actually the case regarding your photo. Well, I shouldn't say that. Of course it does. And, if this were one in a series of more blatant negative glances (I don't happen to see any negativity in any of the glances) and a picture of racism were to develop, that would actually be very important to note and consider. But if people see it even if you know or think the situation wasn't like that, then the picture has stimulated something significant in these people worth acknowledging. Intentional or not, I can't imagine a better outcome than a photo of mine stimulating people to feel something and to think about important things.</p><div></div>

<p>nm</p>

<p>Regarding Clive's post and the photograph Del Kathryn Barton took of her son:</p>

<p>I was unfamiliar with Barton and the rejection of her photo so I tried to find an article about it to learn more. A quote excerpt from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald (bolding is mine):</p>

<p>http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/why-this-photo-cost-hospital-a-charity-bonanza-20110104-19f54.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tamara Winikoff, the executive director of the National Association for the Visual Arts, said decisions such as this were ''absurd and tragic''.<br>

She said that since the Henson scandal, when photographs of youths and children by Bill Henson, one of Australia's most famous artists, prompted media outrage and a police investigation,<em><strong> authorities were scared to associate themselves with any images of children.</strong></em><br>

''In our zeal to protect children we are erasing them entirely,'' she said.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not see anything objectionable in this photograph, particularly as it was taken by the boy's mother. I see nothing prurient in it whatsoever. I don't know what the "Henson scandal" involved. But fear over something inappropriate that occurred with another artist seems a bit of an overreaction. Lord knows what some of these people might make of Sally Mann's photographs of her children....made decades ago. </p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why does everything have to be run through a PC filter? We all need a sense of humor.</p>

<p>Quite correct Steve and Fred, the majority view by a long way in Australia is that the picture isn't offensive, I don't think it is either, and in any situation other than in a charity fund raising event for the Sydney Children's Hospital (Government Funded) it would not even be provocative, the Bill Henson event is referred to here, again Sydney Morning Herald <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/henson-returns-to-the-most-provocative-landscape-of-all-20120912-25rrv.html">http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/henson-returns-to-the-most-provocative-landscape-of-all-20120912-25rrv.html </a></p>

<p>But to me the important things here are the rights of the hospital to have a policy, which I think is quite reasonable, sure it can be questioned and everyone has such a right; at the time of the event that policy was the one that everyone knew was in place. All the artists involved knew about that policy and agreed to supply an appropriate work for the fund raiser. I question Del Kathryn Barton's intentions because she is primarily a painter and a painting by her would have provided the hospital with a great deal more cash that one of her photos. </p>

<p>It is, on this occasion, not about questioning the policy, but providing the hospital with much needed funds.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Clive: <em>It is, on this occasion, not about questioning the policy, but providing the hospital with much needed funds.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand better now. I agree that the hospital has the right to have whatever policy they deem best. Their primary function is to provide medical assistance to children, not provide an artistic venue. As an award winning painter, I do question why she would provide a photograph instead of a painting. Odd.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred: <em> If I found several other photos that suggested a particular view of race, even if I thought it unintentional, I might deduce that you have a predisposition to seeing the world a certain way and that your photos showed something of your thinking or your looking without your necessarily intending it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Interesting you would say that Fred. I hope I do not appear to be egotistical by including yet another photo, but there is one that I took in a Chicago neighborhood called Lincoln Square. I was at a Balkan Café photographing and interviewing a Serbian musician. Our table was at the front window of the café. While we were talking, I looked out the window and saw that there was a German American parade going down the middle of the street. A black woman was walking down the sidewalk, traveling in the opposite direction. I photographed her through the window of the cafe as she walked past while the parade was going on. Her head was hanging down. I believe it was chance, I don't think she was actually sad or downcast. The shot included white female German Americans, carrying a huge American flag, traveling in the opposite direction of the black woman. If one chose to see it that way (and some people have interpreted it so...), you could see a certain irony and symbolism in the image. Regardless, I don't think I have a great tendency toward showing that kind of a narrative in photographs -- some angst, alienation, and loneliness perhaps, but not restricted to any one race or gender, and not intended in any political sense.<br /> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v413/cyanatic/-GermanAmericanParadeLincolnSquare2012_zpsb71c5bc7.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="529" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> Fred: <em>People have talked about things in my own work that have opened my eyes to my own photographic inclinations that I didn't do consciously and hadn't noticed but that make sense to me now that it's been pointed out.</em><br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you mentioned something similar in the "Intentions" thread. And I think we can learn to see tendencies, themes, attitudes, that we might not have initially been aware of (from others, or from our own work after having produced a large enough body of work in a particular vein). <br /> <br /> Getting back to the original topic (as it relates to your comments about your parents -- and here I should add that the photo of your father reading Torah is one of my favorites -- love, significance, and personality) -- I think being accepted as "just people", while still being able to celebrate whatever religious, racial, sexual, or "other" grouping one is proud of, is the ideal state. Except for the fact that I too am Jewish (though not practicing or religious), I am part of an admittedly privileged class in the United States: a white male. Things have changed a lot, and continue to do so, so I don't think being a white male in 2014 has quite the same level of "privilege" as it did in 1954 or 1964, or perhaps even 1984. But being a member of that group, despite my "Jewishness" may have made me less equipped to understanding the importance of presenting a photographic record which celebrates a particular religion, race, or other grouping. (Can you imagine the assumptions that would automatically be made about any group that claimed, in this day and age, to celebrate being a straight, white American male? There are, and have been, such groups, but they generally wore swastikas or white hoods.) But then again, the word "<em>celebrate"</em> to some people means only portraying the good and the positive. Everything has its warts and imperfections and if you do not include those as well then what distinguishes such a body of work from propaganda? And such a thought takes me back to something Julie said in her opening post: <br /> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Julie: "I think the iconic/propagandic, and the politically correct -- which certainly have their purpose and power within the political arena -- stand between, thwart and even prevent a full, rich and deep portrayal in all its glorious <em>and</em> inglorious un-PC human imperfection."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I want the full, rich, and deep portrayal that Julie speaks of, warts and all. <br /><br /> <br /> Why am I even stating this? I am not arguing against anyone because I don't think anyone in this thread has posited that one <em>must </em>show only the positive. So this is not really aimed at anything you said, Fred. I'm just sort of adrift here, pondering some of Julie's opening statements, realizing that I initially took something she said out of context and interpreted it incorrectly, and find myself in complete agreement with her. But, as always, it has been an interesting journey. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Steve's picture, <em>Man in Porkpie Hat, Chicago 2013</em>:</p>

<p>Circular firing squad. Six different expressions of watching with eyes and/or ears. Seven if you count Steve. Watchers watching other watchers watching other watchers watching; circular. Nobody seeing (there's nothing to see but watchers watching ... ). An onion without a center.</p>

<p>this poem is an onion<br /> for you mr old men because<br /> I want tears from you now<br /> and can't see how else to get them — <em>C.K. Williams (fragment)</em></p>

<p>Steve's second picture doesn't strike me as being any kind of conflict; I don't see friction. I see more a 'passing in the night' kind of thing. Rather than seeming lonely or alienated, to me, the foreground woman looks content (comfortably sexy/strong) in her own thoughts; head tipped out of respect for what she's passing without wanting to get any more involved.</p>

<p><strong>Addendum</strong>: I forgot to say something I <em>meant</em> to say about <em>Man in Porkpie Hat, Chicago 2013</em>: that I think it is wonderfully apropos because it could be a great illustration of political correctness in action (watchers watching watchers watching watchers, etc.).</p>

<p>Yeah, thanks Julie, I can kind of see how a lot of social noise (e.g., its a picture of sports fans) from others would prevent you from coming up with an experience of a photo that is so uniquely your own, having little to do with the people pictured. Sorry. Instead of Williams, reach for this book: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Man">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Man</a> Ralph Ellison</p>

<p>Julie -- Thanks for the comments. I think my post came out a bit muddled on the German-American parade photo. I was responding to Fred talking about tendencies in photographs as it possibly related to PC. I do not think that the woman looks lonely or alienated, I was talking more about my work in general: what tendencies, if any, might be seen, and how I didn't think I have any tendencies toward politics or propaganda. I also hope I was clear in that I do not think either photo represents what some people have told me they see (racism in one, symbolic representation of black exclusion from mainstream American life in the other). They are titled the way they are for a reason ("Man in Porkpie Hat" & "German-American Parade"). I truly did not mean to take up space talking about my photos ("Me! Me! Me!") as an excuse to show them. I was trying to provide personal examples of images in which others had seen things that seemed to relate to some of the comments in this thread.</p>

<p>Taking this in a broader direction: Julie, your comments...and this comment by Fred -- "<em>And, if this were one in a series of more blatant negative glances (I don't happen to see any negativity in any of the glances) and a picture of racism were to develop, that would actually be very important to note and consider</em>." Is it telling at all (and I think Fred did touch upon this) that some people see racial/political overtones in certain photographs, while others (including, possibly, the photographer) clearly do not? Have we become so charged with this consciousness of PC (or, have some of us become so charged with it...) that vision can actually become a bit obscured or deluded? Perhaps polarized is a better word. Fred's photo of the gay men with the sign, DeCarava's photo of the men dancing -- just as two examples -- I do not see propaganda, or representation of a sexual or racial state. Fred did not say anything about interpretations of his photo, so I'm projecting only possibility there*, but Julie did quote one interpretation of the DeCarava image that I understood, but did not see myself.<br>

(*a crude example of a possibility would be the interpretation of a right wing, fundamentalist Christian, who -- believing that marriage should be only between a man and a woman -- might see the photo as propaganda) </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Steve wrote: "Have we become so charged with this consciousness of PC (or, have some of us become so charged with it...) that vision can actually become a bit obscured or deluded?" YES! That's what I've been trying to get at. Thank you!!</p>

<p>It's the catch-22 that from which Crouch can't extricate the audience -- from both directions (i.e. self-censorship by African Americans as well as PC filtering from non-African American audience).</p>

<p>Julie, you forgot one angle. The desire for the muting, by some PC-accusers, of people like Crouch and Maya Angelou. I took Steve to be saying that he and you and I, any one of us, might be deluded by all of this. The potential for delusion can work all ways.</p>

<p><strong>[Addition: I don't think we're deluded by political correctness. I think we're often deluded or at least confused by differences we don't understand and the subtle and more obvious effect of those differences, ethnic, religious, sexual, gender, class . . . I think Steve addressed that honestly in his post in talking about being a part of the dominant culture. I experience it in being a white male in the gay community, having to be reminded at times that ethnic minorities within the gay community often go unnoticed. These are good reminders. I don't resent them but instead welcome them.]</strong></p>

<p>__________________________________________</p>

<p>Steve, following along what I think you were getting at and what I'm trying to convey to Julie would be to consider not just the photo of the guys with the sign but the photo of the women without one. The sign makes the politics fairly obvious, though the politics could be ignored in favor of someone simply wanting to see two smiling young men hanging out on a nice day. But I chose to include the sign to give more information. The viewer has the choice to ignore it if they want and I wouldn't exert control of the viewer's response. But if I chose to supply accompanying text talking about the fact that the women were photographed that very same day, having just become married, and threw in some of my own political feelings about what it meant, I would take exception to charges that I was being politically correct or ruining someone's otherwise unfettered vision of my photo. And if a critic wanted to throw in words like "oppression" and "rights" and "it's about time" I'd be very skeptical of someone accusing that critic of political correctness. I might think the PC-accuser had an agenda of their own, which would be to try and strip a photo of a context which another viewer legitimately saw.</p>

<p>I titled the photo of my father, "Dad." I didn't have to. It is information I want the viewer to have because I want it to be part of the photo. Because it's part of the photo for me. Some would accuse me of tainting the viewer's experience of the photo, possibly even playing on the relationship to elicit more sentiment than the photo already has. That accusing would be that viewer's issue, not mine. Anything we do or say in life can be interpreted as "pushing an agenda." It could also be interpreted as simply adding color and texture. And insisting on the silence of artists and critics about politics they see in a photo is just as much pushing an agenda as anything else. I think most of it is not pushing an agenda. Most of it is just the kinds of expression and response that art ought to stimulate.</p>

<p>Bergson says, somewhere in his writing: "If you close the gate you know no one will cross the road: it does not follow that you can predict who will cross when you open it."</p>

<p>From Julie's OP "As Crouch notes later, "Unless something of imperishable value from the dead world of the past is held onto, the undeclared audience that we all are could get that dead world dead wrong.""</p>

<p>Teenie Harris, like Steve years later with "German-American Parade", was just out taking pictures of his neighborhood without the intent of making a political statement.</p>

<p>Let's say that of Steve's picture some 50 years later, a commentator like Crouch writes (as quoted by Julie in the OP) "Unless something of imperishable value from the dead world of the past is held onto, the undeclared audience that we all are could get that dead world dead wrong."</p>

<p>And if that Crouch of the future in that same piece also wrote "Here's an African American woman walking down the street and no one is acting like they want to hurl insults at her, no one looks like they want to call her [this word] or [that word]. Instead, that picture speaks for itself and that part of that past world looks <em>right </em>to me."</p>

<p>Does Julie's present remark seem uncalled for when applied to that future hypothetical Crouch: "Crouch, it seems to me is kicking <em>both</em> the PC police <em>and</em> the Roy DeCaravas of the world in the head, out of pure frustration; he's chaffing against the confines of this limiting, silencing, self-censoring, gag that prevents free expression."</p>

<p>Yes, uncalled for in the hypothetical, and uncalled for today. Because Crouch <em>was</em> freely expressing himself. He was chaffing about his own misperception of that past world, being so distant from it, being not fully informed: he was kicking himself.</p>

<p>Look at the grief <em>Crouch </em>has to deal with when he freely expresses himself. Then tell me again <em>who</em> is drowning out his words by hurling PCness at him?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>May I say I'm tired of the term "politically correct"? It's an over broad statement that is usually used by people who don't know what it's like to be offended or repressed in some way. White men use it the most, obviously. They want to continue to have the right to say whatever racist, misogynist things they like without being looked down on. If you don't like it, you're too PC.<br>

<br />Having consideration for other people is a virtue. Being asked to be virtuous is not "censorship" it is "criticism". Stop whining that people don't like that you're rude to them and, instead, become a better person.</p>

I agree we should respect one another. Calling

others derogatory names is wrong. The problem is

when accusations like calling someone a racist they

aren't to shut up their views to provide facts so we

can understand truth. This leads to

misunderstandings, and bad public policy which is

often the intent of political correctness.

<p>Except that you don't get to dictate to a group other than your own how to take something, how to be addressed, or what they should accept. Racism and sexism are much more often called correctly than "PC". Its the oppressed vs those in power. The OPs very notion that he doesn't want to be told "how to portray women" in his photos is bizarrely lacking in empathy and historical context. If women don't like being offered up to the male gaze over and over again because it's been done to death then maybe the OP should take a hint.<br /><br /><br>

I'm not offended by racist and sexist content. I'm bored with it. I'm bored with images of passive women presenting themselves as meat. I'm tired of racist jokes being used to "shock" as if these things are speaking truth to power. This stuff has been done to death. No one is actually shocked. If you can't think of anything else to take a picture of then you're a hack. Come up with something new.</p>

<p>Kyle +1<br>

What's wrong with simple consideration for the feelings of others?<br>

If I may suggest:<br>

Photograph others as you would like to be photographed yourself.</p>