Jump to content

What I have been shooting for the last 10 years...


Recommended Posts

In the past few months that I have participated in this forum I saw a breadth of quality, interesting images from Robert Johnson that far, far surpasses most of the "regulars" contributions. This is a talented photographer, as some of the self-righteous critics in this thread are very clearly not. I think Robert should be given the benefit of doubt that these images fit into a larger essay; after all, we know nothing of their intended publication, the subjects' reaction, or even the purpose of the project. A tone of moral indignation is easy to adopt, and it certainly makes the speaker feel good about himself, but is really just an immature reaction to one's lack of knowledge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Addendum #1: There ARE pictures just like this in Greg's house. On the wall, framed, and to commemorate events more recent(trips,parties, etc), on the bulletin board. Addendum #2: I wonder if the shabby clothing worn by Robert's subjects is affecting people's judgement a bit. The social safety net in the US gets thinner every year, and this clothing might come through donations. Addendum #3: The first picture is rather sweet, I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more point: the Russian photo linked by Bender says "look at me, the photographer, aren't I clever?" The symbolism, the iconic Christ, make for a "photograph". Terrific. What about the subjects? I connect with the people Johnson photographed, while in the Russian photo I know with almost certainty that the people were arranged just so the photographer could produce a publisheable image.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they voyeuristic just because flash was used? Does it make a difference if these were shot with nice bokeh in low light? Does it make a difference if they're some kind of juxtaposition of humanity?

 

WHich part of these photos make them mean, voyeuristic and disrespectful?

 

These are HUMANS TOO AREN'T THEY?

 

Only those who wants extra protection with respect to being publicly viewed need to ask yourselves, why are you being protective? Are you treating them differently? If so, then apparently you are prejudiced against them.

 

If you have a heart, you'd take their pictures and frame them up and not condemning someone who did.

 

Robert clearly treated them with respect like everyone else and took their pictures. I dare anyone can say they do the same when faced with similar subjects. You'd surely put down you camera, like they are some freak? Hypocrisy?

 

 

I have the greatest respect for Robert. If he's anything from what I expected from him, I'd be OUT of this forum right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert set himself up . He did the same thing yesterday in NW:Football where he used a vague pointer to criticize the physical condition of 78. Perhaps Robert should stand up straight and declare his point rather than use innuendo for a cheap laugh at the expense of a third party. If it's you or me, we can live with that, but all too often, under the name of 'street shooting' the unlucky are dragged through a first grade line of name calling. Next week someone will be whining that a complete stranger tossed his M7 with the new BOOGY/WOOGY in the river simply because he wanted a picture - this is why.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just a passerby to this web site. Don't have much photographic experience, none on slr's, don't know anything about "technique" or "composition". I don't care about flash.

 

when i saw these pictures, i laughed. i thought they were posing on purpose for a halloween party or something. Without Bender's comments, I wouldn't have known these were disabled people. I don't think the pictures are very humane. I said I know nothing about photography, but I know plenty about people. At first I was angry, like many, about the pictures, but looking further, I can see that the photo is not the culprit.

 

The worse part of the photos are the clothes and the environment. I can only trust the photographer in this case that he did not dress, or pose these people in these exact circumstances just for pictures, or he would loose all my respect, regardless of whether he is a "good" photographer or not.

 

Imagine a place where the disabled are treated like kids at a carnaval. Of course, some people would say that they have the brain power of a two year old, or they can't talk or something like that, but they are still adult people, and as illustrated in Bender's linked photo, adults humans still deserve their dignity.

 

I guess that's the whole point. People being stripped of dignity by their caretakers, and by the photographer, who are also people. It's part of what people do to each other. And in this light, the photographer is being truthful, genuine, and deserves credit for being only human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the baby clothes are indeed the result of budget shortages in the caretaking of diabled persons, what would that say about all of us typing, throwing around hot air instead of contributing to improve their environment?'

 

I am guilty, as is all of us.

 

On the other hand, it could be a "dress-up" day at a house party or something. My experience with diabled people include participating in one of these dressup events.

 

Like everyone says, we need more context. I notice that Mr. Johnson hasn't posted anything aside from the photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure of how to judge Robert's photographs.

 

The photographs are disturbing. They do not try to somehow soften Downs syndrome. These photographs are not soft focus. They are not in a more comfortable black and white. They are horrid color. What they show is agony and helplessness. The suffering is ugly. This is in the nature of suffering--I mean real suffering, whether it is physical or mental.

 

I have to confess I do not like these photographs. I do not like them at the gut level because I am repelled by what I see.

 

This is not valid aesthetic or social criticism. It is a subjective and amorphous reaction. It is very unlikely unfair.

 

Outside of my gut level reaction, I am disturbed that these photographs seem to dehumanize the subjects. The people in these photographs are defined by their disabilities. I find myself asking whether there is more to them than what we see here.

 

Saying this, I do not believe that it was Robert's intent to dehumanize or degrade these subjects. He tells us that he has spent 10 shooting these subjects. This is not simple wham-bam street shooting. Robert indicates that he has devoted his life to his subjects. This leads me conclude that his intent was sympathetic.

 

Robert seems to have gone out of his way not to beautify his photographic work here. The photographic technique used here seems to be deliberatly amateurish. This is very different from Robert's other work.

 

I feel that in this case photographs are not enough. I'd like to hear Robert's narrative on the subjects he has photographed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photos which are in your face, not the noble sanitized version. Sort of like looking at a soldier with his guts hanging! Not the noble version of him looking through his gun sites, drapped in a flag. The question to ask is what set of photos move you to help your brothers in distress. There's a thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate and agree almost entirely with Alex's thoughtful comments. My only difference is that I don't think one has to apologize for one's emotional response: if photographs evoked no emotions of any kind, we'd dismiss them as boring. Emotional response (even a very distant 'aesthetic' response)is part of the relationship between the photographer and the viewer. If the photographs appear unpleasantly voyeuristic to a substantial part of the audience to whom they're addressed, that's part of their impact. If they seem to define the subjects by their disabilities, that's part of their impact. The photographer should know this. What we usually assume is that the photographer does count on this relationship, especially in 'documentary' work, & does take some responsibility for the impact his or her work will have.

 

Now, however, we see a postmodern trend to gather the images and abjure such responsibility, claiming that's part of their 'art.' For example, we have a major show in SF of photographs of Asian sex workers, by Reagan Louie. They're large prints of technically very competent work, especially from the standpoint of lighting. But beyond that they're quite boring & seem to 'say' or 'mean' nothing. Presumably the claim is that this is art because it engages the viewer's puzzlement.

 

I don't know whether or not Robert has such lofty artistic ententions (pretensions?). But I do know it's part of the viewer's normal role to have an emotional response.

 

If the pictures were made to display to the Forum, then I think they're unpleasantly voyeuristic. If they were intended for another audience - gallery viewers, the subjects themselves, etc. - then it was probably Robert's mistake not to say so, so we could evaluate them in relation to that context (as best we can from our own positions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With no narrative or feedback from the photographer, I do hope that the administrators of photo.net and the moderators of this forum are confident that the people depicted in these photographs have given their <b>informed</b> consent for their images to be shown on photo.net.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know, if anyone of us posted a photograph of his children

shot in such a manner (flash on camera, center focus, cut off

parts in the frame etc.) we would be dismissed.

 

This kind of photography is the type that could be done by

anyone with a point and shoot (if they had the courage to be

there to photograph and the courage to choose to photograph)...

I give points for courage and none for photographic talent... intent

is something not shown in the photos either. What is the

purpose? I don't agree with the vitriolic response "crap!"

Shows more about the responder than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, while i don't find the photographs are particularly 'special' to me, the critique

being referenced here was far worse. I won't argue its validity or accuracy, but it

seems that civilized people can/should endeavor to communicate their feelings in a

more sophisticated manner.

 

Looking at the pictures posted herein, though, reminded me of a portfolio by another

photo.net member.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=218763

 

THESE images, the last, in particular, are far more sensitive, poignant, and touching.

A different way to treat the subject matter, but this series reaches me, while the

others seem a bit exploitative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea, suggested above, of requiring a subject's "informed consent" is preposterous. Should one seek informed consent of people on the street? How about crowds? Better yet how about children? Babies? The suggestion presupposes that there is something inherently wrong or shameful about the subjects, and that they might not want their photo taken because of it. People on the street might not like it, either - should one always obtain consent?

 

I am not suggesting that I would support hidden cameras in public restrooms, for example. In such a situation there is a presumption of a lack of consent, i.e. a desire for privacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"The suggestion presupposes that there is something inherently wrong or shameful about the subjects, and that they might not want their photo taken because of it."</i><p>The suggestion that I find the subjects shameful or that there is something inherently wrong with them is quite simply the most offensive comment in this entire thread.<p>The fact is my wife has worked with people with a learning disability for over 30 years and I have got to know many of these people very well. I count myself extremely fortunate that many of them have become very close friends.<p>People with a learning disability are often vunerable to exploitation and we should all ensure that everything possible is done to prevent this happening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have asked Tony to remove this post. FWIW, David was an in-law of my wife.

Joe was fed radiation in his cereal as an experiment by the government years

ago. If/when you see these people in public treat them with the respect they

deserve. We can all get back to picts of our kids/cats and dogs now. Life will

be easier...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be a shame to see this post removed. Here we have captured some of the best (and worst) that a photography discussion board has to offer. We've seen the photos, debated the merits of their technical execution, explored the photographer's rationale for the project, examined our own reactions to the subject and it's relationship to broader social issues and much more. Not bad for a few "simple snapshots".

 

Robert, please reconsider your request to remove this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

 

You are missing the slapstick aspect of this kind of photography(check Diane Arbus for example). If you love the joy and lust for life these people have, SHOW THAT DAMMIT! Flash is -unless you learn to use it really well- reducing these kind of images to nothing but, well... ugly people.

 

Someone close to me has a little sister with Down syndrome, so i am a bit sensitive to this subject, no personal stuff or whatever intended.....

 

Greetings,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition,

 

I dont find them bad, you should show what these people are about, their love for eachother, fun and games, their quircks and naggs or whatever you call them. Just as long as you have fun with them, they will have fun too, and that will show, trust me...

 

With fast film and fast lenses youll do much better then with flash, its too much awkwardness for people who are not used to being around handicapped people.

 

And yes, all people who think these pictures should be deleted are just feeling awkward and confrontated with something they would rather not know or see...

 

For that a cheer mate, dont let em keep you from doing anything you like.....

 

Greetings,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe was fed radiation in his cereal as an experiment by the government

 

But he is happy now. Lets all take some nice photos of him being happy. Hmm, lets think, some clever camera angles, for a start. Then some nice photos of him smiling when he gets his hand outs. How about a nice noble photo, window light, in his best clothes.

 

Of course these folks are so happy, and looked after, we really don't have to give them a thought....do we?<div>006D4a-14828584.jpg.5b8467f0b269f47533142a4e74956243.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...