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

<p>Dear Fellow Photographers,<br /> I'm coming across a lot of photographers bashing other photographers work. Granted we are here on a united cause of producing images so I don't see why we should be bashing or diving each other.<br /> There are instances where political differences (Trump vs Bernie / Hilary) for example where you have photographers of a certain political background mob other photographers from another political background. Or at least subconsciously dislike another person and use any ammunition they can foster to spread hate, spread dislike towards a certain person. Not all of us are clean of this endeavor either but after seeing some of these dramas I think it's wise to stop judging the photographer's backgrounds and just simply viewing their art as is.<br /> I wanted to get everyone's opinions on how to actually resolve a conflict or what ticks you guys about what other photographers are doing.<br /> Sales people are very good at this tactic of creating a problem that was never there to begin with. But upon creating that problem, it causes fear & anxiety to their target and somehow the victim will be inclined to buy or follow the suggestion. The problem gets created when someone creates it. <br /> A rhetorical scenario is as follows:<br /> If a photographer (Adam) were to create an album series consisting of colored people (for example Hispanics) and market that album as purely as that theme and there was no problem to the Hispanic people consenting first in appearing in these albums.<br /> Is it ethical that an outsider photographers (Jack) who may perceive Adam as a competition & driving away business/sales from them (Jack) and out of jealousy convince the Hispanic people inside this album to back off the project because of the photographer's political background? How is it Jack's business to do this? Is this border lining invasion of privacy or harassment? What proof is needed to charge when the people inside the album will not testify and they're convinced that Jack is correct and that Adam is a bad influence? <br /> To further define, if for example the photographer's (Adam) background is a Republican and is voting Trump, and then you have other photographer's like Jack pointing that fact and saying lies that "this photographer wants your family & Hispanics to be deported, don't support his work and have your images taken off"when clearly that's not his beliefs. Obviously the people involved in the album aren't politically savvy or knowledgeable but will be susceptible to the suggestion from Jack and end up retracting their work. What's more is that possibly Jack and his friend Tom, Jerry and Greg also are in a united cause of ensuring that Adam's work doesn't get published by stalking Adam's social media pages and work.<br /> <br /> Further, Jack will also blackmail the people's images inside the work and get them to disassociate from Adam or else they will be perceived as a "Mexican hater" in the community. For the unpolitical savvy, the people appearing inside this album will believe.<br /> It seems that Jack, Tom, Jerry and Greg are in a vendetta not against Adam but against Trump. Because they hate Trump so much, they take it out of Jack it seems.<br /><br />We can also flip the cause where it's Republicans going against Democrats. The fight is endless.<br /> How does one resolve a conflict like this? Has anyone experienced anything similar? How does one deal with these types of people?<br /><br />Is it normal for a person like Adam to lose business because other photographers have insights on his political backgrounds and points out his support towards a party? On one instance, it can't be defamation because the fact is true. On the second instance it's pretty much slander. As in the original client of Adam wouldn't have not known his political background until someone pointed it out and then the client decided to make a decision then and just stopped looking at the work.<br>

It seems that Jack, Greg, Tom and Jerry are on a vendetta and are spending way too much time focusing and looking at Adam's work rather than producing images. There's really no resolution it seems. <br /><br />On another instance, if one person has wronged another person a settlement can occur such as repairing the damage. In political circumstances, Greg, Jack, Tom and Jerry's settlement is having Adam out of business.<br>

<br /> Thoughts, comments and feedback much appreciated.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You'll probably get a lot of different opinions on this. (As an aside, this could be a thread ripe for being shut down. We used to have an Off Topic forum, but because some of it ended up being bitter political fighting it was shut down. If people address the question, rather than the politics, it might be okay.) </p>

<p>Personally, I prefer to judge someone's work by their work alone, not what I know of their political or religious beliefs. But the devil is always in the details. Does their work serve as propaganda for a point of view that I find demeaning, harmful, or hateful? If so, I might be less likely to divorce myself from their beliefs. I do not think it would be right to smear someone's work by exposing their political beliefs and painting it in a negative way. If I like someone's photographs, then I don't really care who they support politically. To point out a belief or political stance merely to take away from, or destroy, someone's business? No, I do not think that is right. But we are talking in such vague generalities here it is hard to decide.</p>

<p>I find it sad that we live in such polarized and highly sensitive times. It seems like you can't swing a short stick without hitting someone, of any political persuasion, who becomes offended or outraged by something someone else did or said. But that's as far as I dare take this subject on this forum. </p>

<p>Wow this is powerful!<br>

"To point out a belief or political stance merely to take away from, or destroy, someone's business? No, I do not think that is right."<br>

I agree to this. Especially if the business is a livelihood!<br /><br />Thanks for the headsup. Let me know if you had any suggestion on how to better portray this topic.<br>

Point being is other people trying to take away from & destroy someone's business.<br /><br />What is the counter to these types of people?</p>

<p>Why?<br>

Because the majority of the people today have the "I am better than you" and do not respect the abilities of others.</p>

<p>Mr. Nick? Can we see some of your images? Joined six days ago to post about some fetish images, and now we're on to "colored people"? Are your example figures actual photographers under pseudonyms, or did you make them up for the sake of controversy?</p>

<p>I appeal to you that this is not for controversy but asking for a resolution of this conflict. I didn't post anything 6 days ago or post about fetish. I'm not talking about colored people either, I'm giving a rhetorical example. I'll post my recent work when I get a release from the images from the models. Until then, I'm posting here.</p>

For me, it's all fair game as long as it doesn't rise to slander or libel. If I like a photographer's work I don't mind someone

informing me of their political views. I can then research it for myself and decide for myself whether it affects how I view

their photographs. I can decide for myself whether and how to separate someone's beliefs and personality from their

work. I can still like someone's photos even if I disagree with them vehemently on politics.

 

 

I sometimes find it helpful in bridging gaps. There have been times when I've learned an artist I like has very different

views from mine politically and that can make me realize that folks with very different beliefs can still have great worth to

me.

 

 

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. Having to deal with those kinds of contradictions

and that kind of murkiness makes me a better person. Knowledge is power. But it's important to process it for myself and

not let someone else's opinion of a photographer as a person become too persuasive before I have a chance to check it out and

decide for myself.

<p>What are some of your favorite work pieces of Leni Riefenstahl?</p>

<p>Fred -- I was going to mention Leni Reifenstahl but I thought it would walk perilously close to Godwin's Law. ;-) But seriously, that is an example of what I had in mind.</p>

<p>"I didn't post anything 6 days ago or post about fetish"<br>

Well, in fact, you did.<br>

http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00dt1X</p>

<p>That's not 6 days ago. That was on April 16, more than a month ago. Secondly, that's not fetish content. I was asking about a Russian photographer. Please send me a message and please do not derail the this topic. This could've been settled via message.</p>

<p>Sorry. It was a month ago you posted about the fetish pictures. Can we still see some of <em>your</em> pictures? Can we get a real-world example of this hypothetical "conflict" of yours? You know, the guy who gets grief for pictures of "colored people". Otherwise, the correct answer is, "Who cares? If this ever actually happens, then I'll look at the people and work that is involved."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I think it's wise to stop judging the photographer's backgrounds and just simply viewing their art as is."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There you are. You have answered the question. What else needs to be said. <br /> <br /> But notwithstanding that, I will just add the following to try to clarify my point. Those who wish to diminish another will always find some way to (try) to do so. A photograph is just what it is. No sentences (unless a title is included), just the image. The nationality of any photographer has little if any importance. One might guess at the political, social, religious, or other background of the photographer, but the image ultimately speaks for itself. Most viewers I think will likely see it that way. I have an admiration for those photographers who may make statements of social importance with their images (the Depression photographers, Cartier-Bresson, etc.) but who maintain some stance of objectivity and non-partisanship.</p>

<p>Also, we no longer have an off-topic forum, so I would suggest that indrectly discussing either the US election, the controversial Work Law ("Loi de travail", 2016) in France, the murder of native girls in Canada, or any other topic with political content, might best be left elsewhere. Just my opinion, without negating the importance of politics in one's life. Do you not think that we can become sufficiently debative of aesthetics or the philosophy of photography here to satisfy our sense of personal values and opinions?</p>

<p>For me, the main trouble with Bernie Sanders is that he is so far to the <em>right</em>.</p>

<p>However, I am a great fan of Wagner, and I dislike von Karajan because of the mushy sounds orchestras under his direction made, not because he was NSDAP member #3,430,914 (Godwin's Law?).<br /> If being progressive or regressive is a disqualification for "liking", then we'd probably be limited to a very short time window in our choices, after all.</p>

<p>Nick Nick, there's a very informative and well done documentary about Leni Riefenstahl called <em>The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl</em> that gives a good introduction to her and her work. The things of hers I then went on to see in whole were <em>Triumph of the Will</em>,<em> Olympia</em>, and part of <em>Underwater Impressions</em>. I preferred the scenes shown from <em>Triumph of the Will</em> in the documentary than seeing the whole film which went on a bit long for me and got a little repetitive. <em>Olympia</em> is awesome in its capture of the human form and athleticism, its evocation of beauty, and innovative camera work, even though all the more horrifying when one realizes the deeper subtext behind it and the influence of the master race ideology on it.</p>

<p>I have never believed someone's photos, films, or paintings must stand alone. Often they do, but so much can be gained in the viewing experience when various things about the artist are known. Photos and art also live within the context of an era and the life of the person who made them. Seeing <em>Olympia</em> with no knowledge of when and by whom it was made and seeing <em>Olympia</em> with knowledge of when and by whom it was made are two very different experiences. Knowing the filmmaker's politics and allegiances most certainly is pertinent to watching and understanding and assessing the film, IMO. I find, certainly in this case, it gives a much fuller picture of what the film is and what some of its deeper and awful meaning is, even while beautiful in some measure. Knowing Riefenstahl's place in history broadens the aesthetics of her work into the realm of politics and humanity and certainly makes for a more complete picture when looking at her work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If a photographer (Adam) were to create an album series consisting of colored people (for example Hispanics) and market that album as purely as that theme and there was no problem to the Hispanic people consenting first in appearing in these albums.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

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>Joined six days ago to post about some fetish images,</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Note that the poster did not take the photos. The poster doesn't appear to have posted photos and using a fake name further hides the agenda. This probably isn't a post from a photographer, this is troll-like behavior.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>this is troll-like behavior</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is an unfortunate unsubstantiated accusation, and is preceded by the quotation of something demonstrably false, since the info generated by PN itself says the poster joined over a month ago. If Jeff determines for sure this person is a troll and that his presence here should be terminated, let him ask that that be done, in private. If that is not determined definitively, I'd sooner see Jeff's post retracted, by Jeff. Besides which a troll (a moniker I'm not willing to buy into here) is only as good as those willing to be trolled. If a troll can, on the other hand, be engaged by those who will base a constructive conversation on an OP, so much the better.</p>

<p>Fred, I think you may have misunderstood my comment that a photo is a photo and it is not a text about it or a text on the person who made it. When we have to be told something about the image or the person who made it before we experience it (like some museum or gallery texts with images at exhibitions) we are denying ourselves a fresh experience and are making ourselves open to an influence that the photo itself does not need, at least on first viewing. A film which you arec instead discussing is similar. I don't need to know about Xavier Dolan to appreciate the film that tonight won him the Grand Prix and a lesser one at the Cannes film festival in Frsnce, athough quite apart from his film I think he is an interesting and attractive person and that might interest me on another plane and perhaps explain after the fact some things about his art. The same for a photographer, but I would rather experience the photo or series of photos before delving into his persona or history of motivations. I think he or she asan artist might prefer that, in any case.</p>

<i>Obviously the people involved in the album aren't politically savvy or knowledgeable but will be susceptible to the suggestion from Jack and end up retracting their work. What's more is that possibly Jack and his friend Tom, Jerry and Greg also are in a united cause of ensuring that Adam's work doesn't get published by stalking Adam's social media pages and work.</i><P>

 

I don't know why you would presume that people involved in the album aren't politically knowledgeable and are susceptible to suggestion. They're the ones who have had direct experience with the person who photographed them. If the person who photographed them treated them with respect, why would they immediately turn against him because some strangers post crap on the internet?

<p>"Nick Nick" sounds to me like a francophone individual of questionable background is trying to steer up a dispute with a mostly anglophone hangout of photographers called Photonet. If he had used his original name, it would, at this place, look like : ".... ...." . Jeff, seems to me to have caught the origin of the poster.</p>

<p>By the way, I disagree with Arthur's defense for photos seen in a vacuum. Photos, like any other artistic expressions, have <em>contexts</em> - but of course it demand an extra effort when looking at photos.</p>

<p>Arthur, I believe I did and still do understand your point and happen to disagree with it, but am glad to hear your further explanation.</p>

<p>In the case of Riefenstahl (and many other photographers, film-makers, painters, etc.), I have seen their work only after I know something about them. That's just life. It happens sometimes that you hear about someone and then look at their work.</p>

<p>Sticking to Riefenstahl in particular, I do think her work needs the influence of my knowing about her. Without that knowledge, I miss out on something important and see her work in a vacuum and don't get the full thrust of it. IMO. What she would prefer "as an artist" is irrelevant to me. As a matter of fact, though I consider her an artist of some magnitude, I'm kind of happy to do whatever she would <em>not</em> prefer.</p>

<p>I don't think anyone is just an artist (and I suspect you don't either). We are all more than one thing. And I find nothing at all unjust or less fulfilling artistically about knowing things about artists in advance of seeing their work.</p>

<p>There are so many influences on me when I experience art, from how it's presented to knowledge about the artist to my mood at the time. I am in charge of how I manage all those influences and to what I extent I can view the art and want to view the art more or less objectively (or subjectively). Trying to limit knowledge of the artist in advance doesn't necessarily serve me.</p>

<p>I will be influenced by the curator who puts an exhibit together. Does that mean I must encounter photos and artwork before ever seeing them in an exhibition, before they are ever lit by someone who is not the artist? Did I encounter Picasso or Van Gogh before I had heard they were great and seminal artists, which likely seduced me to some extent to appreciate them? I knew from the time I was a kid and long before I really had a sophisticated appreciation of art that Van Gogh had been severely depressed and cut off his ear. Does that standing out in my mind forever compromise my appreciation for his painting? I knew some of what motivated Wagner in his massively gestural, soaring music before having ever heard a note of Wagner and am glad I did. It has always provided a context in which to appreciate his music and doesn't lessen my appreciation of his music.</p>

<p>I know of Polanski's unlawful sexual encounter with a 13-year old, so I think of him negatively. And I am OK dealing with that as I see any of his newer films. I don't wish I didn't know this about him so I could appreciate him "as an artist" differently. It is what it is. I get to judge his actions in the past, his film today, and deal with whatever that gives me in total. That's a real-life experience and art is part of real life for me.</p>

<p>By the way, Arthur, there are times I do encounter photos and art without knowing a thing about the artist. Those are probably rarer but still great experiences. I'll take art any way I can get it. It's all good. Sometimes I'll be glad for the lack of advance knowledge. 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>

<p>"Seeing more" than just the photo in an artificial vacuum, is indeed the key. I cannot imagine Arthur not being in agreement with that.</p>

<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>True enough, Jeff, but I heard the phrase used by a lot of decent folks in the early 1950s who preferred it over the alternatives. Even the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People"><em><strong>NAACP</strong></em></a> still has the phrase embedded in its title, as you well know.</p>

<p>So, though there is no doubt that the phrase has been used by racists, I am sure that the phrase itself is not to blame. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Bond"><em><strong>Julian Bond</strong></em></a> and his wonderful legacy come to mind.</p>

<p>Although I avoid the term and advise others to do so in common parlance, I don't think that we can necessarily infer anything about anyone's intentions for the occasional misstep on these matters. As LBJ famously said, "Just when I learn to say 'Negro,' they change it to 'black.'" Now we are forced to use seven syllables in order to clearly establish that we are not to be numbered among the racists.</p>

<p>It's a minefield out there.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>