More protests

[gaius1]

But difficulty and danger ARE considered valid measures of the value of a photograph. Ever heard of Robert Capa?

[mike dixon]

Yes, I've heard of Robert Capa. He's one of only a few war photographers whom I and most others have heard of. Did he face much greater danger than the thousands of other mostly-unknown war photographers?

[Alex_Es]

There are the cops with their clubs and guns watching out for

dissenters. Then there is the artsy fartsy gestapo ever on the look

out for anything that isn't Pure Art. The former maime, kill and

imprison. The latter assault the socially committed artist with

sneers, silly-clever remarks and stupid personal attacks pretty much

for the same reason (consciously or not) but under the guise of

protecting Art. I am not sure which is worse. The former goes after

you because your politics opposes the state. The latter fills you

with an intellectual poison that says in effect that if something is

political it isn't nice. Either way, it is proclivity to censor

that drives the phyical violence of the police thug and the sneers of

the artsy-fartsy aesthete.

 

It happens that Eugene was taking a chance because he was with the

protesters. An undercover policeman could have taken the same

pictures, albeit for different reasons. IWhatever, these photographs

stand on their own. They are very good. That is to say they are

beautiful. Not only that, they are unique.

 

I've passed through a lot of good and okay photographs in this and

other forums this week. Pets, pretty girls, subways, roadkill, etc.

I liked all of them in varying degrees. Yet coming back to Eugene's

photos I am awed as viewer and humbled as an artist. Here is

something special.

 

The photos of ordinary life that I saw this week--the sort I too

take--could have been shot at any time. There is nothing wrong with

that as ordinary life needs to be recorded. Eugene's shots are of

something extraordinary, a historical moment, something that is not

of humdrum every day. The father holding a photograph of his

disappeared son is not only a powerful image but also an

extraoridinary image. To anyone living in a rich and democratic

country it may seem unearthly.

 

Eugene is in good company. Walker Evans. Robert Frank. Henri

Cartier-Bresson. Eugene Smith. To name four socially committed

photographers off hand. They will last. As will Eugene.

[mike dixon]

<i>Then there is the artsy fartsy gestapo ever on the look out for anything that isn't Pure Art. . . . The latter assault the socially committed artist with sneers, silly-clever remarks and stupid personal attacks pretty much for the same reason (consciously or not) but under the guise of protecting Art.</i><P>

And there are those who label people with different tastes than their own as "fascists" and "censors" if they dare to express their opinions.<P>

No one has implied in any way that Eugene shouldn't have posted these images, nor has anyone attacked his character or bravery. Some people criticized the aesthetic qualities of the photos. (Grant did question the sobriety of people who praised the images.) You, Alex, are the one has made personal attacks against the character and motives of others based on nothing more than the fact they weren't impressed by the quality of photos that you insist are great.

[Alex_Es]

Excuse me, but once again Mike Dixon is a damned liar when attacking me. (In another post Mike Dixon claimed that I believed that anyone who criticized my work was an "idiot"--a lie that is easily refuted by going to my responses to criticisms in Gallery.) Please read what I wrote here carefully. I have made no personal attacks on any particular individual. I addressed no one personally other than Eugene (positively) though others have addressed me personally. I have expressed objections to ideas presented here which I believe are based on prejudices. I found it annoying that instead of intelligent arguements much of what was written here were cutesy-clever remarks against these photographs--some peronal.

 

I quote:

 

Grant: "are you all on crack....these pix suck...."

 

That's a personal attack on those of us who liked Eugene's work. No reason why he dilikes Eugene's work. Only the idea that any of us who like it are idiots. Mike Dixon apparently took no offense to this--anyway he has not attacked grant with the enthusiasm that he attacks me.

 

 

.[.Z: "Only to zealots" in reponse to my remark that photography is in some way political.

 

This is an unsupported generality that implies that anyone who uses photography for political purposes is a "zealot"--i.e. a fanatic nut case. This is a not uncommon attitude among aesthetes, though put more cudely here.

 

Here is .[.Z responding to, "It was pretty risky to take these pictures": "If danger or difficulty was a valid consideration in judging the artistic value of a photo, then elderly, one-legged, half-blind large format photographers ought to be considered masters of the form." This is an indirect attack on Eugene's character and bravery which Mike claims nobody is making.

 

Mike Dixon writes: " And there are those who label people with different tastes than their own as 'fascists' and 'censors' if they dare to express their opinions." And: "You, Alex, are the one has made personal attacks against the character and motives of others based on nothing more than the fact they weren't impressed by the quality of photos that you insist are great." In fact: I was attacking the sort of prejudices that Mike Dixon puts on me. Again: I attacked no one personally--I mentioned no one in particular--nor did I say that there is anything wrong with people whoese tastes differ from mine.

 

I was annoyed by the fact that certain people hated these photographs because of their prejudices against political art. I quote:

 

.[.Z: " Yes, let's think about politics and forget about photography. That's why this is politics.net, isn't it...."

 

This is expressing the narrow view that anything political isn't good art. In attacking this I said nothing about the character or motives of .[.Z. I did say that attacks like this are in themselves political, unconsciencely or not, and that they are ipso facto censorous because they indirectly demand political quietism. I imagine that .[.Z's motives are not outwardly political (so I surmise from the text) and that his objections to these photographs (implied but not concretely stated) are "aesthetic." Whatever, .[.Z's words hook into a prevailing "aesthetic" ideology--which is at its root political, like it or not. I said nothing about the character of .[.Z, grant or anyone else. I don't know these people and hence what their characters are. I know only their words leave much to be desired of.

 

I did not even attack the character of .[.Z when he made a peronal attack on me: "Please, quit while you're behind."

 

Did I say that other forms of photography other than what we see here was invalid, as Mike Dixon seems to imply? I wrote:

 

"I've passed through a lot of good and okay photographs in this and other forums this week. Pets, pretty girls, subways, roadkill, etc. I liked all of them in varying degrees. Yet coming back to Eugene's photos I am awed as viewer and humbled as an artist. Here is something special.

 

"The photos of ordinary life that I saw this week--the sort I too take--could have been shot at any time. There is nothing wrong with that as ordinary life needs to be recorded. Eugene's shots are of something extraordinary, a historical moment, something that is not of humdrum every day [life]..."

 

My attitude in a nutshell, which I assumed was understood: Do what you like. It is all valid. But if you are essentally an apolitical artist leave the political artists alone.

 

The cutsey-clever remarks here are offshoots of a ideology that exists wherever art is taught and sold: Politics cannot be art; art is above politics; art that is political is no good. (I have an MFA and can speak with some authority on this.) The result is that certain artists are unfairly put down and neglected. Result is that to be not thought of "being on crack" and not to produce art that "sux" artists too often will censor themselves. This is velvet repression in a democracy. Its main danger is that it is far more subtle than the purely totalitarian kind. The enforcers of this kind of repression use snide remarks rather than billy clubs. They injure the soul and not the body. In Belarus publishing photos like this can bring on bodily harm. But at least the importance of the artist's work is validated through repression.

 

I prefer dealing with snotty aesthetes rather than brutal cops, thank you. (Who doesn't?) But the snotty aesthetes do their damage and do need an occational kick in the pants.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> "Only to zealots" in reponse to my remark that photography is in

some way political </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Don't be a nitwit, Alex. You said that was true of ALL photos, then backtracked to say it

applied to MOST photos. Now you water down your original claim even further ... to

further your silly arguments with an ever-larger group of people.

[mike dixon]

[heavy sigh]<P>

<i>Grant: "are you all on crack....these pix suck...."

 

That's a personal attack on those of us who liked Eugene's work. No reason why he dilikes Eugene's work. Only the idea that any of us who like it are idiots. Mike Dixon apparently took no offense to this--anyway he has not attacked grant with the enthusiasm that he attacks me. </i><P>

I assumed your comment that, "The latter assault the socially committed artist with sneers, silly-clever remarks and stupid personal attacks pretty much for the same reason (consciously or not) but under the guise of protecting Art," was a claim that Eugene was being personally attacked. I now see that the socially-committed artist you were refering to was you. I stand corrected, and I concede that Grant's attack was relatively personal in that he insulted your taste. I would note, however, that he didn't accuse you of being a fascist and a censor.<P>

<i>"If danger or difficulty was a valid consideration in judging the artistic value of a photo, then elderly, one-legged, half-blind large format photographers ought to be considered masters of the form." This is an indirect attack on Eugene's character and bravery which Mike claims nobody is making.</i><P>

No, it's a rebuttal of the claim that making photos under dangerous circumstances automatically imbues the images with aesthetic quality. That is not a personal attack on anyone.<P>

<i>In fact: I was attacking the sort of prejudices that Mike Dixon puts on me. Again: I attacked no one personally--I mentioned no one in particular--nor did I say that there is anything wrong with people whoese tastes differ from mine.</i><P>

So you weren't actually accusing anyone in this thread of being a fascist or trying to censor Eugene's work?<P>

<i>I was annoyed by the fact that certain people hated these photographs because of their prejudices against political art. I quote:<P>

.[.Z: " Yes, let's think about politics and forget about photography. That's why this is politics.net, isn't it...."<P>

This is expressing the narrow view that anything political isn't good art.</i><P>

No again--it is expressing the view that just because something is political doesn't neccesarily mean that it's good art. It's <i>your</i> claim that people criticized the images because they hate political art; the people who made the criticism claim only that the images aren't good.<P>

<i>The cutsey-clever remarks here are offshoots of a ideology that exists wherever art is taught and sold: Politics cannot be art; art is above politics; art that is political is no good. (I have an MFA and can speak with some authority on this.)</i><P>

Oh, well, I guess that settles it. So even though no one in this thread actually actually made <i>any</i> of those claims, you know what they're really saying because you have an MFA. Oddly enough, I see quite a bit of art that would be considered political hanging (and selling) in galleries and art centers. But I don't have an MFA, so I only present this as one person's experience, not as an authoritative statement on how things really are.<P>

<i>The result is that certain artists are unfairly put down and neglected. Result is that to be not thought of "being on crack" and not to produce art that "sux" artists too often will censor themselves. This is velvet repression in a democracy.</i><P>

Eugene's photos were criticized. He offered them up for review on a photography forum where that is a common practice. And he has gracefully accepted and responed to comments both good and bad. I think you insult his commitment and passion for his subject when you suggest that he'll stop presenting his view simply because a few people on an internet site said they don't like this set of shots.

[varjag]

<p>Wow. Normally I wouldn't interfere into heated debates, but since my name is often mentioned in the arguments perhaps I should clarify my position.

 

<p>Regarding the value of my photographs: it is indeed varying, but none of the shots is really awful. Certainly as the author am deeply biased, but by glancing at some portfolios of people who were postive about my work suggests that they know a thing or two about photography. Of course same can be said of the folks who think they're nothing special, but OTOH none of them finds the photos awful.

 

<p>I personally think at least one shot is quite good ("Staning for the son"), though I almost missed it: the look of the man has forced me to return, but his twisted fingers, the wind bending the printout, and a good chunk of the facial expression were gone. If it were taken a few seconds earlier, the image wouldn't need any comments or even the explanatory title (yep, lame excuse).

 

<p>Should circumstances be taken into account when evaluating a photo? I think so, albeit they shouln't constitute the primary criteria for judgement. I have a number photos better than the #10 here technically and aesthetically, yet few of them carry comparable emontional impact. Or take for instance "White/Colored" by Elliot Erwitt: does anyone have a problem with the man's face being blurred beyond recognition, or with distorted perspective of the right wall's corner, given the incredibly powerful message of the photograph? There *are* uncontrollable factors after all: people move, some don't want to be photographed, camera shake gets unacceptable a stop earlier when police is approaching you, et cetera.

 

<p>Regarding the dangers: I don't think there was a direct life threat. Mistreatment by police was possible, but I can stand some amount of physical pain; perspective of legal prosecution when the police through loudspeakers classified the happening as crime in progress was more worrying, but they had more important targets. All in all it was a tolerable risk, miniscule to what e.g. reporters in Iraq or Palestine have to deal with on daily basis (Umm.. hope it didn't sound too self-congratulatory). The subjects of my report were in far greater danger: some people on these photos are now behind the bars.

 

<p>All opinions, suggestions and critiques expressed here are appreciated. I tend to agree that too much emphasis was made on banners and posters, reducing the impact for people unfamiliar with Russian language. Not entirely sure though if all photos in a series should be able to stand on their own: isn't an otherwise average photo serves well when it helps to convey a story?

 

<p>In any case, folks, please try not getting overly emotional and do not bash each other too hard: the world is full of places which could happily do it for you :)