Jump to content

Ultimatums & Political Warfare Common In Photography World? How To Handle?


Recommended Posts

<blockquote>

<p>Sometimes, on the other hand, I'll get home from an exhibit, read about an artist, and say to myself, "Gee, I wish I had known that when I was looking at their work. It would have allowed me to see more."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said, Fred. I am not necessarily a "historicist" simply because I think that understanding persons' backgrounds and epochs can help us to understand their work or legacy. We all historicize to some extent, and I believe justifiably. We do not necessarily thereby automatically become value relativists.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Fred and Anders,</p>

<p>My point of view is not seated uniquely on perceiving photographs as simply what they appear to be without other information about the subject or author. If my argument suggested that, then mea culpa. I am just as interested as others in having additional information.</p>

<p>Like the case of political based images I like to see them and decide for myself whether they ring true or not for me.</p>

<p>However, what I was attempting to say is that if photography has any communication value (conveying aesthetic value, symbolic or emotional statement, allowing us to see rare events or things, or suggesting some resolution or tentative to truth, or whatever else) I sincerely think that it is best, when that allows us to do so, to see the photo itself before adding background literature or facts to it (and that occurs more often than we may think, also a usual component of the review forum on Photo.Net). Our mind is then overwritten with our personal perception and observation. If another viewpoint is added by knowing something about the author or the situation photographed, then I like others am willing to rewrite my mind overlay at a later time. If I know the accessory stuff beforehand, my perception then overlays whatever the previous knowledge has contributed.</p>

<p>Perhaps I am more of a purist when it comes to visual perception. Perhaps some will instead counter that with no, Plumpton, you are just a product of your prior experience, biases and cultural training. I agree that we cannot operate in a vacuum, except sometimes it is not good to have too much information filling that vacuum.</p>

<p>Perhaps I have a too short attention span for politically generated photography. In some cases it is necessary, as the wealth of propaganda photographs of World War II apparently attest. As a person who would have been in support of the western allies position, I might have not needed any further information to what was depicted (women assembling rifles and bombs in my home town, etc., as an example of a factual use of the image), but how many people in Germany were able to recognize that the apparent hate shown towards German expatriates in Poland were very selected and non-representative images and not in any way the overall situation that allowed Hitler to convince his fellow citizens that Poland must be invaded. Or the case of the visit and the images accepted by the European Red Cross of children happily playing in an encampment in France, days before being sent to the gas chambers elsewhere. Yes, sometimes, we need information other than that of the event and image of it.</p>

<p>Lannie, what do you mean by value relativism? And in what regard to the resent context? Are you referring simply to relativism, as defined here by Wikipedia?</p>

<p>"Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity within themselves, but rather only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration."</p>

<p>As the propaganda example probably shows, there is some degree of application of relativism in seeing images.</p>

<p>I enjoy this discussion and differrences of viewpoints, but must apologize that I have to go back this morning to some serious writing that is due to be delivered today and which I struggle much more with (unfortunately). I will rejoin you later if the thread still has some steam left.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> I don't think that we can necessarily infer anything about anyone's intentions for the occasional misstep on these matters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Given the lack of response, I'm inclined to infer otherwise.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As LBJ famously said</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Using someone well known as a racist isn't making a good case here.<br>

<br>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur, yes, I did understand that you appreciate having information and background after you have viewed the photos or paintings and that you prefer to view them first and then gain that background information later.</p>

<p>I tend to mix it up. Sometimes I will skip the introductory text and go right to the work. Sometimes I read the introduction or research an artist before I encounter her work. I can't say why I decide what I decide, but I like that flexibility. It can be my mood, it can be some simple bit of information I know about the artist in advance that either makes me want to know more from the beginning or wait to learn more later. Each way of doing it equally fulfilling to me, just different. One brings my "mind" in earlier, which is fine with me. And the more "pure" experience you describe works sometimes as well. I do the same with art books. Sometimes I go right to the pictures and then read the text. Sometimes I start with the text. Sometimes I even start from the back of the book or from the middle and go in different directions. I have started several museum exhibitions from the end and walked in the opposite direction of most of my fellow viewers.</p>

<p>I agree with you that there's a difference between all the prior experience and biases we may have and getting this sort of direct background information about an artist. Where I differ is that I don't find it better to approach it one way or the other. I prefer to experience art in a variety of different ways, from the more mind-oriented to the more perceptual-oriented.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred, I have to agree that the different ways of approaching a photo are equally interesting and fulfilling. I do both as well and also often go in opposite directions to the set museum exhibition suggestion as you do. Why do I usually prefer the direct look at an image or piece of music, I guess it again has something to do with the way one overlays the experience in one's mind (whether perceptual or mind activity). By having my first layer of impression followed by the textual or extra informational one, I am possibly less influenced in my gut reaction and even analytical appreciation by not having to deal with an initial layer of pre-digested information. Having that valuable input later can alter my impression and often does, but sometimes the gut reaction is diffused or modified then if I know too much beforehand.</p>

<p>I just completed my text and one of the persons who viewed my subjects in 1850 was Henry David Thoreau. I use his interpretation of the subject matter (quote) in a sub-theme of my exposition text. But what a guy. He died at 44, and like Mozart he covered so much ground (including different subjects and disciplines) and much of that ground and his thoughts are quite relevant today. Perhaps I ought to have read him (and others who tread this area and left their thoughts) before composing my exhibition.</p>

<p>I mentioned young filmmaker Dolan because I have seen three of his feature films before reading much about him (his first English only film is currently in production, while the Cannes film will be released in September). Perhaps I will gain more from his approach and texts of his films by reading more about him or watching in-depth interviews. He certainly is spunky enough to mix with the established greats who were at Cannes. No university courses in his past, instead a somewhat turbulent youth experience and a natural cinematographic brilliance and collaborative ability with actors. But then there were many other amazing directors and actors and their films in southern France last week, so considering just one and his or her work is not easy. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie, what do you mean by value relativism?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, I was talking about ethical relativism, but as part of a more general theory of value. </p>

<p>The remark was tacked on by me after I had made a reference to "historicist" and "historicism," which as a school of thought numbers among its adherents some who are avowed ethical relativists.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well if Adam is a Democrat and does a project about hispanics in America, than Jack, the Trumpette favoring photographer should try to understand the work and have some compassion for the artists point of view. If on the other hand if Adam is a trump supporter and does a project on hispanics in America, then yes, its safe to say he wants to deport them, build a wall, and prevent any muslims from entering the u.s. and is most likely a racist. What's the problem?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur, yes, I understand. As I said, I do like that sort of influence you speak of from the very beginning sometimes.</p>

<p>Fortuitously, I am in Massachusetts and saw an exhibit at one of the contemporary museums today of the work of Sol LeWitt. He started working in the 60s, doing mostly geometric wall paintings. I had not heard of him and did read the intro wall placard upon entering the museum. </p>

<p>I quote from that intro:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sol LeWitt executed his first wall painting in 1968. a year after publishing his influential text <em>Paragraphs on Conceptual Art</em>, in which he declared that "the idea is the most important aspect of the work."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It seems he made sure to publish the ideas previous to showing the work so that the ideas were present in the minds of viewers when he introduced the wall paintings themselves. Therefore, he determined that the information and idea of the work should precede the first layer of impression.</p>

<p>On a matter unrelated to this particular thread, he also saw his wall paintings as the performance of a score and democratized the creation. He painted the first wall paintings himself and then provided very specific instructions (a score) for other artists to execute the other wall paintings and to recreate them for various exhibits in various cities. In that way, he purposely avoided the individualism associated with a lot of art in allowing for other performers to interpret his "scores."</p>

<p>All of this was information I was happy to have before viewing the work. It all went nicely hand-in-hand with the viewing. I didn't want or need an information-free first viewing experience.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The term "colored people" has been used as a derogatory term by racists in the US and also in South Africa. There's no ambiguity about that.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That would be shocking news to the NAACP, National Association of Colored People. Maybe you're suggesting the members of that decades old organization are too ill informed to know it's "derogatory"...............</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>That would be shocking news to the NAACP</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's a historical thing, which you would know if you paid attention to anything they say. They don't use the term "colored people" in any of their statements, discussions, etc. They were forced to use that at the time they started. <br>

<br>

Nice try though.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>That's a historical thing, which you would know if you paid attention to anything they say. They don't use the term "colored people" in any of their statements, discussions, etc. They were forced to use that at the time they started.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Roosevelt (Teddy, FDR, Eleanor) all used it frequently. As did Harry Truman. As did JFK. As did Duke Ellington. It was the politically correct term. A racist would say "darky" or "nigra" if pretending to be polite. You are clueless.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Seems the eminent black scholar Henry Louis Gates <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored">uses the expression</a> as well. Go figure. </p>

<p>That Wikipedia article is interesting, because it cites the opinion of the NAACPs communications director. Her take on it is that the term is antiquated, but not in itself offensive. Source article <a href="http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2008/11/12/lohan-calls-obama-colored-naacp-says-no-big-deal/#ftnb">*here*</a>. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kent, the clueless one is you. Currently the term is racist. There many alive today who experienced the water fountains and bathrooms marked "colored" and thus the term has a sting. Terminology for African-Americans has gone through many changes. Mistreated under one name or another, the words used for them changed.</p>

<p>You are using the Roosevelt presidents, Teddy and FDR, as authorities for non-racist terminology? Teddy supported eugenics so that we would only have the "right people" around, and he was known to have referred to Africans a non-human, while the "great" FDR greeted the triumphant American athletes returning from the Olympics in Berlin in 1936, all but one, Jesse Owens. Owens said afterwards, ". . . it was our President who snubbed me." And it is important to remember FDR's internment of 100,000 Japanese-Americans.</p>

<p>The OP used "colored people (for example Hispanics)". What kind of color is that? I'm Hispanic, which I know because the accents of my parents got us turned away from housing we could afford. Yet I'm as pale as my Scottish in-laws, which makes for quite a range together with some of my friends of Mexican or African-Colombian descent. To me, throwing out "colored people (for example Hispanics)" is plainly racist. Sounds like, "take any non-white group."</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There's another case . . . that of Sebastião Salgado. I realized the power of his photos early on and understood the acclaim he was getting but felt his nature and landscape photos were overly dramatic and stylized. Then I saw <em>Salt of the Earth</em>, which I recommend, a documentary about his work. I learned of his environmental ethics and his general benevolence, not to mention his fortitude in dealing with various of the world's populations. Whether it's "supposed to" or not, it made me have a renewed appreciation not just for the man but for the photos as well. I have a much more positive view of the photos themselves when I look at them now. I am perfectly OK with allowing what I know about him as a person to affect what I see when I look at his photos. </p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"We talk about Leni Riefenstahl a lot in this context. IMO, she represented and was part of something hateful and evil. Yet I can still get a lot from her work even within its own horror"Fred</p>

<p>You sometimes wonder about the kind of people like Leni Riefenstahl who use their skills to support evil....how that is so different from those who were "hands on".</p>

<p>I suppose some people find a fascination much like those who collect Nazi memorabilia. The sad thought is she was not particularly talented...but then there's that fascination.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Currently the term is racist.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Colored people" is currently deemed to be racist by many persons, and "people of color" is not deemed to be racist by anyone that I am aware of.</p>

<p>Why is this so? I think that it is because the phrase "colored people" was widely used during the era of legalized segregation, especially the era between <em>Plessy v. Ferguson</em> (1896) and <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em> (1954)--and somewhat beyond. For that fifty-eight-year period, segregation was the law of the land, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Things were arguably worse in 1950 than they had been in 1900, if many accounts are to be believed. In spite of some successes in breaking down barriers, the Deep South has been a horror of continuing racism--and frankly still is, though largely beneath the surface. I grew up in both northern Ohio (Akron) and upstate South Carolina, and I lost my black friends when we moved back to the South in 1955. Frankly, I could never identify with the South again. I did manage to escape the Deep South for much of adult life, depending on where the academic jobs were.</p>

<p>Those who associate the phrase "colored people" with the memory of oppression are likely to remain sensitive to the term. They prefer a new term. This is their right. The rest of us do well to be sensitive to the feelings of those who have suffered under racial oppression--and who in too many cases continue to suffer from such oppression (if my students are to be believed, and I believe that they are and ought to be believed). If a word or phrase hurts others, we do well to avoid it, even if by our reckoning it "should not" be hurtful. Though many decent Southerners used the phrase "colored people" without any hint or stain of racism, as I pointed out earlier, the phrase is too closely associated with the horror of Jim Crow for many African-Americans to ever be comfortable with it again, if they ever were.</p>

<p>To say that Henry Louis Gates used the phrase "colored people" is a bit misleading. Yes, it is true that it is the main title of one of his books, but his usage of the term is highly nuanced, even ironic at times.</p>

<p><strong>RELEVANCE TO THIS THREAD</strong>: None of this impels me to conclude that the original poster on this thread was or is a racist, and it was the suggestion that he was that impelled me to first address the efficacy of the phrase "colored people" in the first place.</p>

<p>We could be a bit kinder to those who sometimes come stumbling into the discussion forums. I wouldn't be surprised if "Nick Nick" concludes that this is a hostile site, not worthy of another post. We shall see. When political correctness becomes the basis for bullying, it has gone too far.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Where money and ego are involved, expect the worst out of some of the people, all of the time.</p>

<p>If you're going to be a political activist, or even be politically vocal on forums and such, expect people to take the opposite position and use it against you in both your personal and political life.</p>

<p>It's interesting to observe my friends in active careers in law enforcement. All use assumed names in social media and tend to shy away from political discussion. OTOH, my friends retired from law enforcement use their own names and are very vocal. Most of us are in less volatile positions, but consideration should be given to anonymous participation in social forums, if such activity might impact your career. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Why do government forms ask what are the ethnic origins of folk...</p>

<p>What possible reference does it have ?. Are certain ethnical backgrounds somehow different from the rest of us?</p>

<p>Treat folk with respect and they will treat the society they live in with respect.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Colored people" is currently deemed to be racist by many persons, and "people of color" is not deemed to be racist by anyone that I am aware of.Landrum.</p>

<p>A white elderly upper society person and his friends.</p>

<p>You cannot help thinking he has a friendship....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For me folk are just folk.</p>

<p>All they want is to be able to feed their family and have a society that respects them....in poverty and wealth...with a health service not dependent on how many gold coins you have.</p>

<p>They want to be part of society not labelled as Hispanic/Black or poor white trash.</p>

<p>Just folk earning a living and caring for their families.</p>

<p>Drop the name labels and inferences...</p>

<p> </p><div>00dxl6-563283284.jpg.e2aac77b0f756d4812db04870b789db1.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...