Elliot Erwitt at Republican Convention: What did he use?

[claudia__]

<a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/arbus/arbus_pro-war_parade_full.html">Arbus</a>

[andrew_somerset1]

Ellis, that may be so, but photojournalism labours under the misconception that it is somehow objective. If you don't believe that, head over to a forum filled with newspaper shooters (e.g. Sportshooter.com) and read through their archives.

 

The New Journalism threw over the notion that the news was objective and embraced a highly subjective approach. (Although it can be legitimately argued that the New Journalism wasn't new at all.) We've never seen a parallel movement in photojournalism. It begins from the assumption that a photo (although perhaps staged or fake) will be read as conveying reality. The idea of objectivity is central to photojournalism and where people cheat, they attempt to preserve the appearance of objectivity.

 

What's unusual with these pix is that they are not only highly subjective but they make no pretense to objectivity. Erwitt is putting his subjectivity on display.

 

Most newspaper shooters would be playing with their job security if they turned in work like this.

[james_ogara1]

Let's not make this all complicated, and tlak about objectivism, the New Journalism, and what Elliot Erwitt may or may not be thinking at a given moment.

 

This is about being boorish, and spreading one's partisan political views around with no regard for the PN community and, as I think most agree, without even much of a sense of humor or wit.

 

This is the PN equivalent of farting.

 

Imagine the person who posts a shot from the front row of the DNC, showing a developmentally disabled person, and eliciting the comment: "Well, Democrats are all retarded."

 

That is what we are dealing with here.

 

Clean it up, folks.

[andrew_somerset1]

Yeah, I've noted you're pretty good at spreading your political views around, too.

 

Funny how you object to attempts to look at this without reference to the politics of the moment. Why is that? Does it bother you that we might validate the original post by keeping it photography-related?

[james_ogara1]

Andrew wrote: "Yeah, I've noted you're pretty good at spreading your political views around, too."

 

Gosh, has it really come to this? The lowest form of moral argument, i.e., "You did it too" (variant: "He started it!" or "Mom, he started it!")

 

Andrew also wrote: "Does it bother you that we might validate the original post by keeping it photography-related?"

 

Bother is such an odd word. No, it doesn't bother me. Does it strike me an intellectually dishonest to dress up a fart (see my previous post) in a bunch of vague statements about photo-crit-speak? (one poor fellow even made a cryptic connection to Robert Frank).

 

Yes, it does.

[andrew_somerset1]

I haven't made political comments on this thread. I've actually been discussing photography. I don't really give a rat's f*ck about the Republicans and the Democrats. It's not my election.

 

Of course, you don't have to believe that, but I don't have to care.

 

That's enough mud wrestling with pigs for me, thanks.

[james_ogara1]

Andrew wrote: "That's enough mud wrestling with pigs for me, thanks."

 

Gosh, more incisive commentary from one of our leading minds. Gee willikers, it's so unfair when someone who radically quesitons even the possibility of objectivity gets upset when his objectivity is questioned.

 

Time to dip back into your Derrida, Andrew.

[andrew_somerset1]

I never claimed to be objective. I claimed to be disinterested in American party politics.

 

Work on that reading, though. It's a valuable life skill, and functional literacy is an attainable goal.

[james_ogara1]

Andrew wrote: "I claimed to be disinterested in American party politics."

 

I think Andrew means disinterested.

 

Note to the PN community. Andrew is a Deep Thinker. Don't be bothering him with questions about politics because he's above that sort of stuff.

 

You see, Andrew is one of those special people who sees behind the phony veneer of what we schlubs take to be reality. Just don't question his reality.

 

By the way, Andrew, welcome to eleventh grade philosophy! Heady stuff. Have you had a chance to read The Catcher in the Rye yet? Great read.

[andrew_somerset1]

James, you really haven't shared your views on this. Any views on the photography? Or is ad hominem all you've got left?

[james_ogara1]

Andrew wrote: "James, you really haven't shared your views on this. Any views on the photography? Or is ad hominem all you've got left?"

 

Thanks for finding such a nice way of saying shut up. I suppose saying you're wrestling with pigs is not ad hominem. By the way, didn't you say, several posts ago, that you were done commenting on this?

[andrew_somerset1]

Yeah, but I'm dumb enough to keep getting sucked in.

[james_ogara1]

Well, never let it be said that Andrew and I disagree about everything.

[andrew_somerset1]

I'm too smart to respond to that, James.

 

Oh ... damn.

[dean_g]

>"Imagine the person who posts a shot from the front row of the DNC, showing a developmentally disabled person, and eliciting the comment: "Well, Democrats are all retarded."

 

So James, might we infer this is a sly comment on the subject of this particular Republican photo subject?

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Guys,

 

These photos are fantastic. Those Repubs are getting the pictures they deserve. These photos remind me of the cartoons of William Hogarth. If you don't know the name, then you probably have seen the cartoons. They are from the late 18th century in England and were political satire. They showed these hugely obese figures, sometimes "John Bull" himself, sitting on a stool eating massive amounts of chicken and guzzling huge pitchers of beer, with some comment somehow pouring out of their mouths between slurps.

 

These photos are in that venerable tradition. The Republican party has become the party of unapologetic consumerism without a conscience. The image in most people'e mind of your typical Republican is an obese arrogant American plundering the world in the few short breaths they have before death (from a coronary thrombosis or diabetes or Alzheimers). There is a definite humor in the pictures, we don't hate these people, we are amused by them, and can almost empathise with their weaknesses.

 

America today is so much like the British Empire once was, arrogantly straddling the globe and inflicting its gunboat dimplomacy on the natives, should they try and rise up and shake of their expoitative masters.

 

My hat's off to Eliot, may I ever produce a picture of the calibre of those on the site you all so kindly referred me to.

 

Regards,

 

Claude Batmanghelidj

 

Trapped in an office in Tokyo writing drivel for the company store

[james_ogara1]

Claude (unspellable) wrote: These photos are fantastic. Those Repubs are getting the pictures they deserve.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. But hey why not just cut to the chase and say something really deep and insightful like "Republicans SUCK, Democrats ROCK."

 

Then somebody like me can write: Republicans ROCK, Dmeocrats SUCK.

 

Boy, that was a fruitful exercise in dialectics.

[pat_racey1]

my vote is that he used a canon 1Ds and a 15mm fisheye... there is no way

you could get that kind of distortion from a 21 Leica... Even though there is a

15mm Hologon for the Leica M mount, since it's an F/8 lens, it would be far too

slow for the use he was up to... My vote is Canon 1Ds or 1Ds Mark II with the

15mm lens...