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

Since this is an election year in the USA, shouldn't political

discourse also extend to photography on every level? What are the

benefits and drawbacks?

Photography is a useful political weapon. You can and will gloryfy what or whom you like and show your contempt of what- or whomever you don't like without noticing it. I'm no more interested in politics. It's sure everything will become worse so why should I interfere? I believe we shouldn't have more political discussions among photographers, but every photographer who happens to talk to politicians and wannabees should claim his needs. Like freedom to photograph in army and subway. Government subventions on film and paper like the German Democratic Republic had, freedom to emigrate with more cameras than one can carry, lower taxation and customs on cameras and so on.

I don't know of any requirement that artists keep themselves neutral or deny their opinions (political or otherwise). We all have some political direction that we lean towards or principles that we adhere to and that might well influence the direction that our art takes. It can be a legitimate forum for stating our values.

 

Certainly art has been used for disreputable purposes such as the anti-semitic posters produced by the Nazis (and it is the ideas behind those works that are contemptable; not just the art itself.)

 

Just as art can be used to highlight important social issues (such as the photographs taken during the depression showing the effects of poverty) which can have positive political effects.

 

Art can be used to tell important truths just as it can be used to tell disgusting lies. The photographer (as the creative artist) bears the responsibility for the message that they transmit.

I try to remain as neutral as possible in my photography, so that when people see my work they think "that's how it really was" and not that I've manipulated reality so that my own views color the photograph.

But that's just me, other are sure to have other opinions. Photography is supposed to be capturing reality...

Should a writer reveal political leanings? That's the same question.

<p>

Photography, like writing, can be a form of communication.

Most of both isn't particularly political. I

don't expect the person who writes a technical manual

to be overtly political, nor to I expect the product

photographer who illustrates the manual to be political.

<p>

I expect journalists covering election campaigns and similar

stories to try to feign appearance of being objective, but

I know that the very nature of the beast prevents total

objectivity. They can't cover absolutely everything,

and they have to edit the the subject down to fit the

space available. When they decide where to aim

their camera, which photos to toss and which to

publish, or how many words to write about a given

story, they are making political value judgements, whether

they want to or not.

<p>

Some people don't make any pretense of being unbiased, and

it's important and sometimes refreshing (and sometimes

disgusting) to see their work.

<p>

I'm glad we live in a country where people can use writing

and photography to advance their political agenda. It's

appropriate to photograph the horror of war and crime,

the beauty of nature, the pride of free people, the

despair of poverty, etc. to help give context and

feeling to issues.

<p>

It's also important for the people to understand that

few complex issues can be revealed in a photograph -- most

political photographs appeal more to the emotions than

to the intellect. Photographers can easily show that

violence and poverty are bad, but most of us already

knew that. It's more difficult to illuminate the

way toward the precise legislation and policy decisions

that will truly reduce violence and poverty.

William Faulkner said something to the effect of: All good stories are autobiographies.

 

If your photographs don't express your politics, you're not doing it right.

 

However, if you have to beat people over the head with our ideas to make sure that they "get it", you're not doing it right either.

 

One of the most political and powerful photographs that I have ever seen is a small black very thin hand in a well fed white hand. It doesn't need a caption. It doesn't need an explaination. It doesn't need to be pushed on people while they are eating at a nice restrauant.

 

There is so much shoddy thinking going on now-a-days that it is hard to escape it. Moreover, we are forced to subsidize much of it against our will.

 

Some of these: "listen to me, because I am 24 and have experienced everything and have found the one true truth and every format everywhere should be used to deciminate my wisdomn to those less enlghtened" can be a bit grateing sometimes.

 

I sometimes think that people use Photo.net to post their political ideas because in person, where people can size up their success in life, no one will listen to them.

 

About every other Saturday, I go sit at the feet so to speak of an 80 year old WW2 veterian who also has about 50 years experience in the photography business. I never fail to learn something interesting and helpful. Sometimes twice. However, I know who he is, where he has been, his personal intergerity and what he has accomplished in life. Therefore I can easily judge how to value his ideas.

 

There was a famous New Yorker cartoon that showed two dogs sitting at a computer. One dog says to the other: "the other thing about the internet is no one knows that you are a dog".

 

Why should I, (or anyone else on Photo.net), care who some stranger, who for all we know be sitting at a computer in a correctional facility, thinks should be the next president?

Art which has any significance at all usually has political content or context. This seems obvious to me, and maybe I'm missing something in the question. Whether it's your election year is immaterial.

should? theres no such word

<i>Whether it's your election year is immaterial</i><p>

not to me, to you maybe</p>

 

<p><i>should? theres no such word</i></p>

 

<p>yeah there is. but not for grant...he's special

should as in, there is no answer that someone should or should not. its up to each individual to make that decision.

You quote out of context, so I'll try again. Good art is usually political. This is true in election years, and it is true in non-election years.

<i><blockquote> Good art is usually political. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Much great art is non-political. Where are the politics in a Klee painting or a Calder mobile?

You can read and enjoy TS Eliot without any awareness of his political or anti-semitic views.

I vote we should not say "should".

Per M. Z: "Much great art is non-political. Where are the politics in a Klee painting or a Calder mobile? You can read and enjoy TS Eliot without any awareness of his political or anti-semitic views."

 

Political art may be one genre, but any art can be viewed within the political context; art may not show an overt political purpose but still have valuable things to say about issues usually considered political.

 

Where are the politics in a Klee painting? I would challenge you to look into that very question and give us an answer. You can't find the answer if you don't ask the question.

Just choosing to do "art" or having the resources and time to do it is a political issue if you want to see it that way.

Seeing as Klee got his ass kicked out of Hitler Germany for his 'degenerate' art, I'd suggest his work was political.

<i><blockquote> Political art may be one genre, but any art can be viewed within the

political context </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Onlt if you define "political" so broadly as to lack all meaning, or at least the meaning

quiche was referring to: as regards to political election time. Remember, I was responding

to a claim that "Good art is usually political." That's nonsense.

<i>"You can read and enjoy TS Eliot without any awareness of his political or anti-semitic views."</i>

<p>

Good point - discovering what lay behind Eliot's poetry sure changes our opinion of the man, but (assuming no re-interpretation of lines) makes little difference to the text.

<p>

And there's the thing - it's frequently only 'after the fact' that a political interpretation is 'given' to a work by others. So much of Klee's visual art was about musical themes, about colour, about personal visual responses to a place or a concept. But we can be thankful - if he had not been labelled 'degenerate' we might not have taken so much notice.

<p>

Mondrian's art became overtly political in that he wanted to influence the behavior of society. But who'd think it today from just viewing the paintings?

<p>

And, just to kick the can around a bit ... anybody into religion? Religious photography? Want to see one of the finest collections of visual art and sculpture on the planet? Go to the Vatican Museum of Art. Politics, religion, football ... strong motivators, aren't they.

Well, religion has been interchangeable with politics ever since Moses smote the Philistines, and probably for a few millenia before that.

<p>

.[. Z suggests I <i>"define "political" so broadly as to lack all meaning"</i>, and I'll counter that mine is the definition that matters. Klee was a threat to the 1930s Nazis, as much as Frank Zappa was to a 1960s redneck. Great art disturbs. It creates new boundaries, and it threatens the established order. The Nazis banned jazz and that naughty priapic 12-bar music. Does that make jazz political? You're damned right it does. It confronts and rejects their stinkin' dog-ass National Socialist values, and that's political. If you're as old as me, you'll remember what Country Joe McDonald had painted on his guitar.

<p>

A corollary is that most significant artists have been progressives, and a few have been radicals. Sure, there's exceptions, but it's just hard for me to imagine Minor White listening to The Rush Limbaugh show, and spitting tobacco juice into a coffee can.

<p>

What is political is a way bigger question than which millionaire Bonesman is in your White House. I concede that one leads the other by 30 - 40 IQ points, but your November ballot is a crap shoot. And I choose my words carefully.

How silly can one get.<p>

 

Here's a link to one of today's efforts.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2513405">Coyote Valley in the Morning<a/><p>

 

Here's another link, to a second piece I did today.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2513580">Matthew</a><p>

 

Now why would one have to realize all that one can about my geopolitical religious leanings before one is allowed a chance to look at today's personal efforts?<p>

 

After one is sufficiently briefed on my value system of what I consider to be right, wrong and socially acceptable, then and only then should they be allowed to click the links to today's posted efforts?<p>

 

The point of my above, whether it's photojournalism, or art, we all have a bias that can creep into our images but are the images being shown about our personal politics or the vision of the world that we're trying to share? Are all images about political discourse? And just because it's an election year in the US, does that mean the rest of the world has to suffer:)<p>

the word, religion, is too general a term....what matters is what one feels, despite the name

Klee was a threat to Nazis? On which planet? the fact that a non-political artwork is disliked

by someone with a political POV does not make it political art... unless you intend to use

this illogic to brand all art everywhere as somehow nebulously political.

I guess it depends on the context and what you are trying to achieve.

Also it has to do with your persona. I Being outspoken and opinionated have and do enjoy creating political photos. Others being more reserved and or passive may not ever do this or even care to.

I certainly wouldn't think you should try to achieve a political twist or touch to every image you take. Unless of course you're a photojournalist working for a publication with a specific message. Those photographers that base their careers on a certain point of view obviously feel strongly about what they do. It can be interesting and is a useful tool to people who choose to utilize it in the right context. But really how is a photo biased? Isn't it just our own interpretations and perceptions that make it that way? Not everyone would feel the same way about a particular photograph. Certain conservatives would argue that a picture of a dead soldier or something is biased. Simply because they would think it's suggesting that the war is wrong. Or a liberal may not like a picture of Bush reading to school children in a classroom. A liberal may argue that

it makes him appear that he cares...when he has actually cut education funding. Others may feel those pictures were just reportage and not biased at all. It's just showing the reality of what has occured in front of the camera at that time.

So I think there is obviously a fine line between what one may think is a "Politically" biased image and another would deem just capturing something. Then again I suppose we could argue whether your internal beliefs would make you more apt to shoot something like that and or avoid taking a particular shot altogether? Or we could argue that many photos are actually STAGED events that are purposefully used politically by politicians and obviously photographers!

We judge these types of images by thinking we know what the intent of the photograph was... but we can not always be certain how much was intended and how much is our own opinion or imagination can we!

.[. Z, if you 'dislike' the music, you turn off the radio. If you 'dislike' the art, you leave the gallery and go for a beer. But if you think something is seditious, or treasonable, or dangerous, you ban it. Or you chase its author to Switzerland. That's political.

 

Creativity is seen as a threat by authoritarians (even including one or two sainted municipal politicians on the eastern seaboard). We could go on ad nauseam about why that is, but it's one source of political context for art of all kinds.

 

Even if you disregard that, many (not all) of the 'mainstream' greats had a political subtext to their work. I don't need to enumerate these, do I?

A bunch of fascistic idiots upset with modernism's 'davaluation' of traditional values is not

the same as an artist making political work, aws much as you might think it does. It is

absurd to believe that "Good art is usually political" -- you're just saying that ANY art can,

at any date in time, be deemed political by dint of reactions to it. There's no politics in a

calder sculpture, no matter how much you try to read into it.