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

These are a few images from an ongoing project of mine...<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

A challenging subject, Robert. Is all of this work shot with simialar composition and approach?

 

What brought you to it?

although no one will be that happy about it. Your photos are crap. You parasited on the helplessness of this people to produce this crap.<br>

The name of Arbus, a mentally disturbed nothingness is going to come up later in the discussion as well - she was as bad, but could carry out the task better photographically. <p>

To give you an example of how such people could be photographed,

<a href=http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=186273&ref=author&bd46a43dbf72bc104e152fad0ba3597d=db637c2d041360fa7d3cb40a02344140>

here is one image by a professional (published in "big" periodicals around the world):</a><br>

http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=186273&ref=author&bd46a43dbf72bc104e152fad0ba3597d=db637c2d041360fa7d3cb40a02344140<p>

One has to think and make oneself aware of the difference in approach - why Maximishin's photo is so strong, what makes is so in comparison to your offensive trash.<br>

This is tea time in a (state-supported) home for Dawn sindrome patients. First: this is a complex composition, rather than a shot of one person's deformity. The way the image is composed reminds very strongly of the Last Supper paintings (remember the Leonardo's similarly frontal view). The icon of Christ above these people adds another dimension, and the final point is the cheap wall clock above the icon and a crack.<br>

As a result, this image becomes a REFLECTION on humanity - we recognize humans behind deformity, what are the limits, where humanity stops and bestiality begins - on God and one's fate in life.<p>

Yours are the degrading beginner's single-element-in-the-centre-of-the-frame shots done for to produce the freak show.

A couple of corrections:<br>

"syndrome" and other typos<br>

I meant that Maximishin generally sells his images to first-class publications rather than that this particular image was published in some specially noticeable place - although the whole reportage was shot on assignment.

Bender, what would make you question Robert's very intentions in such an offensive and ridiculous manner?

I'm assuming you won't be dignifying that with a reply, Robert.

 

Tom

I'm afraid I have to agree with Michael (not sure about the parasitic bit though). These are snapshots, and the photo he linked to is in a different league.

"Your photos are crap. You parasited on the helplessness of this people to produce this crap."

 

Ahhh! A thoughtful and clever piece of criticism. Full of insight and wit. And then he goes off on some quasi-religeous rant about somebody elses photo and a God/fate trip. Talk about corny.

 

For myself I see no reason why Robert shouldn't show these people in a non-judgemental way, and without having to imbue the photo with a 'message'whether sublime, or crude like the 'Last supper' effort. In fact I think Robert should get up real close, with the flash and a wide lens and make the whole project 'in your face'. That is a photographic view, the audience can make their own minds up what the 'message' is for them alone. But what really gets me is the arrogance of Michaels patronizing comment that the subjects are "helpless", and that to treat them as photographic subjects demeans them. Not to photograph them would demean them, and treating them as helpless demeans them even more. Not wanting to confront the issue and advocating that a photo should be only a "REFLECTION" on humanity is simply to stick your head in the sand, but it does ensure you can stay at arms length Michael. A cowards solution.

Sorry, Robert's images are tougher.

Bender, Im sorry but your comment just makes me sick. You have once again thrown craps in words to helpless audience like myself.

I dare you to put a camera in front of those subjects and fire a flash off nad put it up here.

 

WHy be so judgemental? Im sure Robert has something in mind about his project.

I think it's a case of taking the constructive elements (if you think there are any)out of the crit and ignoring the emotive tirade.

I would assume certain things on Robert's reputation alone, before even seeing this stuff, that it was going to be done with a reliable level of intelligence.

 

I can't say the same for you Michael, either with respect to your past opinions or the sporadic few photos you've posted.

 

You are successful at being the center of attention, but, always by the easiest route and the lowest common denominator.

While Michael's response was offensive and uncalled for, I have to agree with the basic tenor. I'm afraid these pictures do nothing for me. They seem to me to be too simplistic for the subject. If anything, they re-enforce the stereotypes of such people rather than adding to our understanding. I've met several people suffering from such disabilities, particularly Down Syndrome, and they are often nicer people than many supposedly 'normal' individuals. Taking pictures that illustrate this is very difficult and I'm very much afraid that Robert has failed completely.

I think you're expecting the pictures to answer questions for you. I don't know that was their purpose.

 

What sterotype are they reinforcing, if I may ask?

The stereotype that such people are a freak show. The image that Micael pointed us at shows these people with the dignity they deserve, Robert's pictures remove that dignity.

 

This type of point and shoot, flash on camera stuff isn't flattering at the best of times. In this case, I find it unpleasant. This is my opinion only, others clearly have a different view.

harvey, life often isn't 'flattering' for many people. To flatter in this case just skirts the issue and is patronizing. But to see them as a 'freak show' is a conclusion you and Michael have come to on your own. The dignity of the subject in this instance has nothing to do with santitizing their existence and appearence in the cause of making middle class viewers comfortable with the photo's. In fact the contrary is true. Making pretty pictures throws their dignity out the window and masks the support they need, if they need it, to maintain a meaningful life.

If anything Robert's photos make me wonder how bad things might be for these people. The photograph Michael links to makes me think they're not in that bad a situation, they're more or less alright, and I don't have to worry about it.

The problem with these pictures -- is that it carries a very misleading message. While the subjects probably couldn't care less on the emotions it might generate, but these pictures whether its done correctly or incorrectly have a direct emotional response. I think the purpose of these pictures should have a valid meaning in the first place before deciding on whether to press the shutter. And then evaluate whether the response is what the photography is after before posting it.

Aesthetically, from a photographer's point of view, these images <b>are</b> "crap". I'm not going to comment on the moral issues raised here but will leave that to my wife, who has considerable experience in working with and photographing people with a learning disability.<p>Hi, I'm Keith's wife. I have worked as an art therapist with people with a learning disability for 30 years. <b>Together</b> we have used photographic images as a means of recording people's history, a way of communicating thoughts and feelings and as an integral part of the therapeutic process.<p>I feel these images by Robert M Johnson are intrusive and offensive and do nothing to promote the humanity of people with a learning disability - people who are already disenfranchised and misunderstood.<p>I realise that these images alone cannot convey the reasons why the photographer chose this particular subject, or what his message was. <b>Without this explanation</b>, I feel they are voyeuristic sensationalism. Even with an explanation there is a danger of them remaining voyeuristic.<p> I wonder how involved these people were in the process. Did they give their consent to be photographed? Did they give their consent for these imagages to be shown on the internet in the way they are being shown?<p>Human Rights apply to <b>everyone</b>.

"But to see them as a 'freak show' is a conclusion you and Michael have come to on your own"

 

I think that the previous answers show that I am not alone in my view of these pictures. And how else do you expect me to come to a conclusion? I thought I made it clear that I was expressing my own opinion, not pretending to some lofty moral position.

A great furor. How about the idea that the subjects may like the photos? Maybe they don't get a lot of people wanting to take their picture, and perhaps they appreciate the effort and enjoyed receiving a copy. Conjecture on my part, but it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable that the disabled might just have the same level of appreciation for their own portrait as the average person, be it high or low.

 

The presumption that merely photographing the disabled is exploitative is patronizing. To speak for them and decry objectification is to assume they have been victimized without knowing if that is true.

 

While these photos don't do much for me, more photos of the subject, more in context, would give more depth to the group.

First of all: what the hell is going on? Has Robert EVER given us a reason to doubt his integrity? This is what these people look like! I also have experience with developmentally disabled folk He's my brother-in-law, and he lives in a group home with others like him. They range from Down's Syndrome to advanced Alzheimer's to Greg, who has conversational abilities. I can easily imagine these pictures of Robert's on display in Greg's house. I think the residents would approve of and enjoy them. What they would like is for us to see them as they are: a bit of drool, a little dishevelled, but still loveable huiman beings. Robert Bender: perhaps your first language is Russian; perhaps you have a blood-sugar situation, I wouldn't know. But you need to learn (you have also claimed to have High Intelligence, so you CAN PROBABLY do this) how to express criticism and disapproval in a mature way that directs the attention of the reader toward what your point is, rather than at your personality, which is what we all end up discussing sometimes.