Should "Lolita" be used to caption a documentary photograph?

[el_fang]

Some of you are probably aware of the intense debate surrounding Michael H.

Reichmann and his picture of a young Amazonian girl that he recently posted on

his website, <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/" target="_blank">The

Luminous Landscape</a>. The debate rages not around the picture itself but the

way Reichmann decided to caption it. What do you think?

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lolita-affair.shtml"

target="_blank">The Lolita Affair</a>

[mark u]

I think that if anything is debateable, it is Reichmann's insistance that the photograph be elevated to the status of "art", rather than as you suggest in your thread title, "documentary". The title is apt, and as apt as the title of this photo (the first I found with a search), titled "Courtesan":

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3325253

 

That image has greater pretensions to being art than Reichmann's (interestingly, shot by a woman, with several positive comments from other women). Indeed, it is possible that the "Courtesan" image is incorrectly titled, if the subject is merely a model, rather than a courtesan.

 

Reichmann's photo captures a moment and inherits HCB's maxim to that extent. Doubtless there are many cocooned in their particular social environments who find it shocking to consider that the girl is as she is and that such an image truly merits the title it has been given, and project their shock and surprise in unwarranted criticism of his choice. Had the image been of a convent girl, not pregnant, then a title of "Lolita" would almost certainly be libellous and factually inaccurate.

[Uhooru]

I'll take his thoughts...i don't think he's a perv, or its kiddy porn if that's what people are saying. Art, documentary all that aspect is semantical, really means nothing, I do think its a strong photo, the title focuses attention, because it brings up all sorts of things that are both attractive and uncomfortable to look at. Its a challanging photo, the girl has struck a pose that the camera suggests and the photographer insists was a deliberate provacation. It reminds me of Manet's "Olympia". A painting that set off a firestorm of debate in France in its time. It also demonstrates the power or whatever you want to call it of using words with pictures and how the 2 interact.

[vivek iyer]

It just shows a lack of imagination (or may be it does?) on the part of the photographer/titlist. But it may do very well to promote his tours and sales regarding that as cash laden 50+ men seem to go for that. Clever promotion.

 

Pathetic.

 

No art, no controversy.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Aesthetically it is an image with a lousy title.

[leslie_cheung]

Average shot and bad taste in title.

[leslie_cheung]

BTW I think MR elevated the shot from documentary to "art" after being confronted by a LS

member.

[andrew_lee2]

<i>Average shot and bad taste in title.</i><p>

Second.

[Spearhead]

I've got my <a href="http://www.spirer.com/People/slides/cottoncandysp.jpg">own type of shot like this</a> but I haven't elevated it beyond the category of "snap."

[mark u]

I wonder what those who consider the title inappropriate would offer as an alternative that conveys the essence of what Mr. Reichmann says he was trying to convey:

 

" it shows a very young woman (girl) posing provocatively. It was a candid photograph taken in a moment that passed all too quickly. She knew that she was being photographed and her expression and pose was clearly deliberate.

 

Because of her pose and expression I titled the photograph Lolita, having in mind the definition pretty much as provided by Wikipedia ?" Lolita is a slang term for a seductive, sexually attractive, or sexually precocious young girl". Seemed appropriate to me."

[ellis_vener_photography]

Why does a photograph even need a title? Is a photographer afraid that the viewer won't get the point?

[jonj]

Reichmann's photo isn't tasteful it shows the girl in a degraded posture. In the recent World Press photo 2007 book there is a photo of a 9 year old prostitute in Africa. The photo shows the girl for who she is and doesn't elude to anything but the facts of her life.

[vivek iyer]

It is just a child and it isn't a provocative posture as MR saw. It is a cultural misinterpretation.

 

MR can find lots of the stuff that he is looking for in Young street in the evening, right in his neighborhood. No need to make a tour to the Amazon.

[Spearhead]

<i>It is just a child and it isn't a provocative posture as MR saw. It is a cultural misinterpretation.</i><p>

 

I've got books with photos from the Amazon dating back to the beginning of the last century. There is not one single photo with someone in a pose like this. Indigenous populations never struck poses like this for anyone, and certainly didn't appear this way in photos whether posed or casual. Poses like this only appear with the arrival of prostitution and/or Western television. The only cultural misinterpretation may be in the mind of the child, that this is the way Americans pose,<p>

 

I've traveled in indigenous areas in Latin America, and haven't seen girls doing things like this. They do in the cities, where they are exposed to a completely different culture and a completely different future.

[david j.lee]

Dolores, i s a very common name in latin countries. it literally means "pains". the diminutive

for Dolores is "Lolita". like a michael is called mike.

[leslie_cheung]

Mark, imagine some stranger photographed your little girl in a similar pose with 100 -

400mm and probably from a good distance then titled her "Lolita"...honestly, how would you

feel?

[david j.lee]

....actually my mom was named Maria de los Dolores Covadonga. of course everybody called

her "Cova", but one of her oldest friend was Lolita, which we refered to as "aunt Lolita". i

remember her as always looking like a very old lady.

[leslie_cheung]

Dave, I think Dolores actually means sorrow, not quite the same as pain.

[david j.lee]

nope. dolores means "pains" or "aches" if you like. in mexico and in spain and any other

spanish speaking countries, "dolor" means pain "dolores" means pains. i should now, i am

mexican and spanish is my everyday language.

Leslie, i am sure there's a woman's name for sorrow in spanish. let me look for it. we

already have "Angustias" ( anguish ), "Remedios" (* remedies ), and one of my favorites,

"virtudes" ( virtues ). all of them very common down here.

[derek_stanton2]

The guy whines about "morality police." And bitches about an argument that something he

has done could possibly be 'inappropriate. He's somehow infallible, because audience

perception can somehow differ from his intent? He still has a responsibility toward society.

I'm not at all bothered by his title. I'm bothered by his arrogance and lack of sensitivity.

 

Even if Reichmann didn't make a "mistake" in his title, there's no strong argument against

not acknowledging it could still be 'problematic.' Is there some issue of 'artistic integrity'

at stake? He can't merely change the title (as if a photograph needs anything more than a

caption)? Methinks this is all part of a ploy to push himself into a larger environment. It's

his "Mapplethorpe/Bullwhip" or "Serrano/PissChrist."

 

Whatever.

 

I, for one, am glad there are Morality Police. Some people don't seem to be able to police

themselves.

[david j.lee]

i agree a 100% with mr. reichmann. i don't see anything wrong with the image or the tittle,

even though i don't like tittles on photographs.

[Spearhead]

Serrano had many awards and gallery shows prior to Piss Christ. He was made famous far more by some wacko politicians than by his own efforts. Similarly, Mapplethorpe was exhibiting and publishing before his well-known bullwhip photo. Presenting these as analogies to Reichmann, someone not known for exhibitions and important stature in the art world, is the ultimate red herring.

 

"Morality police" don't "police" anyone. They are noisy, useless people who oppose art that they somehow don't approve of. They come from the part of the universe that has no respect for art at all, only an interest in stirring up anger at artists. It's interesting that they so easily take offense at titles, judging from the examples presented.

 

The problem with Reichmann's photo is the title. It is documentary without it, documenting the massive changes introduced by American TV and economic forces in the jungle, as I mentioned above. If he had titled it a bit more aptly, or not at all, there wouldn't be any response at all.

[mark u]

"imagine some stranger photographed your little girl in a similar pose with 100 - 400mm and probably from a good distance then titled her "Lolita"...honestly, how would you feel?"

 

Already answered before the objection was raised:

 

"Had the image been of a convent girl, not pregnant, then a title of "Lolita" would almost certainly be libellous and factually inaccurate."

 

If I had a teenage pregnant daughter who posed coquettishly at an unknown photographer in view from a public place, I think my concern would be with her behaviour in the first place in getting pregnant and with the person responsible for that, and secondly in apparently not having learned the lesson. But then I would hope that her upbringing would prevent either occurrence.

[boris c umanso]

"If I had a teenage pregnant daughter who posed coquettishly at an unknown

photographer in view from a public place, I think my concern would be with her behaviour

in the first place in getting pregnant and with the person responsible for that, and

secondly in apparently not having learned the lesson"

 

But there's nothing to indicate that the child in Reichmann's dull snapshot actually is

pregnant. He appears to have made that assumption on the basis of nothing other than a

slightly distended stomach - there's no suggestion that he spoke to the child or her

parents. You don't need to be a specialist in tropical medicine to understand that there are

many other possible explanations than pregnancy.

 

A lot of photography (like many other things in life) is inherently exploitative to one

degree or another, but the image of a bunch of seedy, uninformed, old western guys,

cruising the Amazon while leering at "Lolitas" through their 400mm lenses turns the

sleaze factor up to a Spinal Tap eleven.

[leslie_cheung]

No one knows if she was pregnant as Boris stated though she doesn't look it to me. If

anything, she looks like she hasn't hit puberty yet. Furthermore what if she was pregnant?

Does a girl that looks like she's ten be possible of consent anyway? I think this says much

less about the character of the young girl but of the society she lives in and the exploitative

photographer who captioned the image as "Lolita," and didn't let the photo speak for itself.