When I Wake up in the Morning" from Reuters

Coverign the war in Afghanistan:

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2008/03/21/when-i-wake-up/

An excerpt from the story: "More than four million people live in the Afghan capital, Kabul,

and the traffic is my worst frustration." Taken out of context, one might think the shooting

and bombing and all around death this photographer has chosen to cover, a career choice

mind you, is less disturbing than potholes in the road- probably from roadside bombs. What

is the point of this post?

Thanks - very interesting. Hard to believe the continual carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be interesting to be photographer over there, though I wonder if I would have the abilities to handle it all.

 

Not sure what your choice for president has to do with the article.

<a href="http://mediastorm.org/0020.htm">Counter Point</a>... t

"What makes a great picture ?" is the subject matter for everybody to understand by opening

the link of Ellis. He could have help us in that direction with a more carefully chosen text.

Wrong Forum, even after Ellis's McCain plug and MPorn-upon-waking was removed...should be in Street/Doc or Conversation.

 

Without intending to, it does show what happens after misguided commanders-in-chief (Vietnam and Iraq) abandon decisions to preening, deceitful hobbiests (Macnamara, Rumsfeld).

 

Does it seem to you folks, of a certain age, that photography from the Middle East has much less impact in the US, than it did during our Vietnam adventure? (yet there are infinitely more PJs today...has digi sucked value from images?).

Tom Meyer's link is perfect. http://mediastorm.org/0020.htm

 

Lance Corporal Miller, USMC and Luis Sinco, LA Times, have together produced a profound photographic work.

 

I wonder how many Americans have bothered to look and listen?

I don't think "digi [has] sucked value from images."

 

Values have been sucked from American society since the days of Vietnam, when the

citizenry cared more.

 

The draft made people more active, and images were allowed to be seen regularly by a

government that wasn't as restrictive as this one ("restrictive" is being kind) and news

media that weren't quite the entertainment factories they are today.

 

Many of my contemporaries who were political activists in the 60s and 70s are now busy

rewriting the history of those decades as having been selfish and self absorbed, instead of

realizing that that is just what they have become over the last 4 or 5 decades, not what

they were back then. They don't understand the difference between self-reflective and

selfish and they don't understand how the power they've given to the almighty dollar has

spoiled their souls.

 

It's got little to do with the quality of our images or the means by which they are made and

everything to do with the fact that, as a nation, we're asleep.

John you are of course right that a bureaucratic view risks to tells us that this is for my

neighbors desk - "wrong forum". Whether Afghan scenes can be classified as "street/doc or

conversation" is another question. I see a philosophical question hidden in the question:

What is a "great picture" of a somewhat dirty war ?

Fred, yes some of the activists of the 60s/70s are now moaning that they were wrong as youths, "mellowing" in age. But they never really counted. Meaningful action came earlier. Actions in 68' (demonstrations etc) were entertainments compared to the hard work that led to them, mostly forgotten today (e.g. SNCC, free speech movement, teach-ins etc). I think something important is underway online, and it will flower in the next few years. And in any case, most of the change that came in the 60s/70s was based on fear of violence in the cities (ie involved race). We only saw a little of what was in the works.

 

Anders, How about posting that "hidden question" directly, as a Topic?

Since when is this forum a place to spout your political views? Let's keep it photographic!

Franz, valid point. As you may have noticed, this particular thread started as a wobbly plug for a specific presidential candidate, was then edited amazingly effectively by moderators (introducing a charming new spelling error).

 

How about establishing or contributing to a Forum that you find more "photographic," or with something you construe to be "philosophic" here?

 

Incidentally, EEM's yellowing (more accurately "cream") has been reported by many, including me...the brightener fades quickly(within months in many environments): imperceptible unless one compares whites with paper fresh from boxes...Epson's said to have modified EEM recently for the better. That's "photographic" but not "philosophic," I guess.

I have a hard time dis-integrating any of my life's experiences. Life as experienced by an even somewhat balanced human being cannot be fractured except in the most practical sense... philosophically, what, that a person experiences, can be separated from their artistic endeavors? <p>Other threads posted here recently have borne this out: that the conditions and experiences of your life shape and influence all that you do.<p>In other words, I believe this is the <i>only</i> forum at photo.net that should allow political attitudes to flavor the photographic discussions. This thread stands as proof, as it probably would have done fine, even without the light handed edit it received... t

Frans--

 

Are you suggesting that photography and politics should be, have to be, or are somehow

separate? Sure, there's not much political about a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge or the

latest, colorful spring tulip, but try not being political when you're street shooting,

shooting documentary, or doing most any other kind of thoughtful photo making. Art

doesn't have to be political, but in great instances it is. Let's act like ADULT photographers

and understand that much of what we're doing comments on and affects humanity . . . and

that's political. Deal with it!

Fred,

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. The more separation between photography and politics the better. Personally, I'm sick and tired of the socalled social reporting on "the human condition" because more often than not such "reporting" is political activism in disguise by far left liberals. Is that too much of a political statement? Oops, I may be violating my own rules, but I need to clarify where I'm coming from. So now you know.

<b>Moderator's note:</b> As noted above, many forms of photography are inextricably linked with political viewpoints. To the extent that political discussions are directly related to that relationship with photography, they're are allowed on this forum. This is not, however, the place to talk about your favorite candidate, post rants about your least favorite politicians, or bicker about politics in general. If that's what you want to do, go somewhere else to do it.

Frans-- I'm gratified to know how you think. It's the not knowing (more the not

understanding) that gets us all into trouble. Putting out your honest views will always be

valued by me, even if I disagree with what you say. I can't have a dialogue, therefore any

kind of meaningful relationship, with someone who refuses to tell me what's on their mind

or in their heart. I do photography and look at it, not to see pretty pictures (usually) but to

express myself, my thoughts and emotions, and to be exposed to other's thoughts and

emotions. If Art or art of photography is reduced to saying nothing, then it is reduced to

nothing itself. I like a good controversy and I think Art is a good place for that. So, I think,

is a Philosophy forum on a Photography web site.

 

Now, to continue and be more concrete, if you could give an example or two of "social

reporting on the human condition [that is] political activism in disguise by far left liberals"

two things would occur. We could discuss it intelligently and we might actually find some

area of agreement. But, mind you, even if we agreed that that took place some of the time,

it probably wouldn't lead me to the conclusion that politics has no place in photography

or that it pertains to every situation or even a majority of them regarding social or political

commentary in the arts.

<a href="http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0803/the-photograph-that-shocked-america-and-the-victim-who-stepped-outside-the-frame.html">Case in point</a>... t

Seeing a photo and a story behind gives me more profound meaning. "The icon of Iraq war" or "The Marlboro Marine" photo is totally different. It's not only about that moment when he lit the cigarette like he was advertising because the photo looks to me that way. At first look I thought that is about very brave soldier and when I heard the story behind I couldn't have believed that he was suffering from PTSP disorder. Because this photo of his expression at that moment was so strong, promising and with hope.

 

Forman's photo and the story behind is like a black hole event in the peaceful Universe.

There is so much hatred filled with robust energy in that man with a flag. He looks to me like he is going to conquer foreign land - he is going to conquer someone's territory - he is possessing someone in a such a warlike manner. He is filled with sarcasm. Who is that man? I couldn't find anything about him in an article.

 

Thank you Tom. I find it very valuable.

"Since when is this forum a place to spout your political views? Let's keep it photographic!"

 

I agree; rather sophomoric, perhaps borderline ridiculous to start promoting political views here on PN.

 

And, what Mike Dixon authoritively states.