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

[Spearhead]

I never thought she looked pregnant.

[boris c umanso]

It would be interesting to know what would happen if I posted a long lens picture of

Reichmann in the doorway of his home with the caption "Humbert Humbert". I think I'd

pretty quickly hear from his legal team demanding to know what gave me the right to

imply he had a sexual interest in children. His captioning of the dismal snap of the child is

just as inappropriate.

 

The criticism he's received has nothing to do with an attempt to censor his "art" (it's

difficult to imagine work less deserving of the tag) and everything to do with pointing out

that making crass value judgements on those disadvantaged by nothing other than a

geographical accident of birth deserves our contempt.

[Spearhead]

BTW, if anyone wants to see great documentary work on indigenous people along the Amazon, check out the photography of Claudia Andujar and Valdir Cruz. Andujar (sometimes using the name Claudia Andujara Love) is a relentless crusader for the rights of the Amazon people, and has a terrific, if difficult to find, book on the Yanomami. Cruz has a much easier book to find, it's just $13 right now on Amazon, and it is a mix of uplifting and incredibly depressing photos taken with the Yanomami. Both books are of far more value than Reichmann's one photo. I'd also recommend Claude Levi-Strauss' book Saudades do Brasil. Levi-Strauss was an anthropologist, not a photographer, and he wasn't a Brazilian like Andujar and Cruz, but the historical value of his work, shot in the 1930s, is incredible.

[mike dixon]

I don't think she looks pregnant, either. I couldn't find anything in Reichmann's description that described her as pregnant, so I'm not sure that he's the one making that assumption.

 

I think his claim that calling the shot Lolita was not an editorial comment but just a title is crap. "Girl in Doorway" would have been a neutral title that let viewers draw make their own inferences (if they were interested enough in the photo to make the effort) about the subject. Calling it "Lolita" makes very clear implications about how Reichmann viewed the girl's intent. If someone labeled a portrait of Riechmann with the title "Jackass," I wonder if he would see that as editorializing or simply giving the picture a name . . .

[boris c umanso]

"I couldn't find anything in Reichmann's description that described her as pregnant, so I'm

not sure that he's the one making that assumption"

 

Mike, a bit of googling reveals that on the Lightstalkers forum someone who emailed

Reichmann

expressing surprise at the caption claims to have received this response from him:

 

"given the fact that she looks to be about 13 years old and is pregnant, can you think of a

better name?...I photographed this young woman (girl) standing in a doorway. Her

posture, smile and gaze are at once provocative and innocent, and her beauty undeniable.

This was not posed, though she was obviously aware that she was being photographed.?

 

Creepy in the extreme.

[mike dixon]

Boris, thanks for the further info.

 

I thought of a better analogy regarding whether a title is an editorial comment. Imagine that someone took Reichmann's photo as he was taking the photo of the girl, and titled it "Pervert." By Reichmann's argument, it would be nothing more than a title for the shot.

[Spearhead]

Heh, very interesting...

[mike dixon]

Just to clarify my thoughts on the matter a bit, I don't have a problem with Reichmann taking the photo--I don't see it as any more exploitive than most other photography. I don't have a problem with Reichmann calling it "Lolita" if his intent was to be provocative and get people to think more about the photo. I do have a problem with him then claiming that it's just a title and not an editorial statement. Such a claim leads me to believe that 1) his talk about art and provocation is just some words he's patched together from things he's read, and he doesn't really understand what they mean; 2) he's being disingenuous and cowardly--he wants to provoke, but he's not willing to take the heat for it; or (the creepy interpretation) 3) he's so certain that such a pose on a young girl implies some seductive intent that he genuinely regards that as a fact and not as his interpretation of the scene.

[phule]

Oh no, a word made me confused and sad. Let's ban the word so no one can be confused or sad ever again.

 

What a joke. That anyone would raise an issue of how a single image is titled only goes to show how truly pathetic and lost humans really are.

[boris c umanso]

Mike, reading Reichmann's comments I think it's safe to conclude he's just not a very

bright guy. He (ditto Rob) simply doesn't grasp that it's possible to both support freedom

of expression while simultaneously criticising somebody for their boneheaded actions.

[Uhooru]

Seems to me a photog gets a little noteriety, and people are ready to throw him and his photo under the bus. Kind of sounds like general sour grapes to me how some are so easily dismissive of someone else's work. Haven't seen many if any photos as interesting around here. Title's a bit hyperbolic to say the least. Given the setting, its a pretty strange photo. Makes me think, that's all that matters to me.

[spanky]

The trouble with titles is that they can lead someone to a conclusion that the photographer wants rather then allowing people to reach their own. I sometimes title my pictures...it's part of the fun for me.

 

This picture reminded me of the one below I took at last years Gay Pride weekend. It disturbed a few people who thought he was a prostitute (and he may well have been for all I know).<div></div>

[boris c umanso]

"sounds like general sour grapes to me how some are so easily dismissive of someone

else's work"

 

Yeah, that's gotta be it. Straight down the line jealousy. Absolutelsy f@#$ all to do with a

sense of dignity and decency. I stand corrected.

[Uhooru]

Was I correcting you Boris?

 

Not bad Todd, too bad, he's so camera shy. Words and pics isn't a new concept they're used all the time and the two always interact, or should, otherwise why use them together? I suppose it depends on how it works or if it works. I usually don't title my photos, but sometimes I do and sometimes for my own reasons. You could call this "Priscilla of the City" and by the way, your subject is posing whether you posed him yourself or not.

[mark u]

For an introduction to the highly varied sexual and other social mores of some Amazonian tribes (and a reminder that external cultural influence did not start with American tourists, Coca Cola and TV) read this:

 

http://www.dhushara.com/paradoxhtm/warrior.htm

 

It should really be no surprise that marriage and sexual activity often occurs with the onset of puberty, or even before, in societies where life expectancy is short.

[boris c umanso]

For an introduction to the charming, if slightly dull, Danish port of Aarhus, read this:

 

http://www.visitaarhus.com/

 

It has absoluttely nothing to connect it to the issues raised by this thread, but as Mark U

has added a totally irrelevant link I thought we could all do likewise. I stayed at the

pleasant Scandic Plaza the last time I visited, but apparently the Hotel Royal is also very

nice.

[vivek iyer]

Yeah, Boris. Although, the current Pope thinks otherwise,

some facts are here:

 

http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=357&Itemid=36

[boris c umanso]

For those without the inclination to click on Vivek's link, it refers to the recent papal

denunciation of Lego and pickled herring. His holiness, Pope Adolf XVI, recently declared

that the people of Denmark are: "Satans ambassadors on earth. A vile bunch of devil

worshipping, fish munching, death metal loving, modern day vikings."

[sprouty]

If I hadn't read the title, I would have thought she was scratching her back or stretching. It strikes me as odd to interpret her pose as provocative.

[vivek iyer]

"..I would have thought she was scratching her back or stretching. It strikes me as odd to interpret her pose as provocative."

 

My thoughts, exactly, SP...!! This is why I said it was not a provocative pose and I concur with what Leslie has said.

 

Boris, :)

[boris c umanso]

Is there any truth in the rumor that Hollywood is planning a musical remake of Herzog's

Fitzcarraldo

with Reichmann in the Klaus Kinski role and Paris Hilton replacing Claudia Cardinale?

Could be interesting.

[Spearhead]

If you actually look at documentary work in the Amazon jungle, as I suggested, you will see that the pose struck is culturally highly unnatural. I realize that doing some research is not what people on web forums want to do, much easier to opine without taking the time.

[vivek iyer]

Jeff, With all due respect, your suggestion is one interpretation based on your knowledge that may or may not be complete.

 

Some may have read a lot many more books and might have had a lot more personal interactions- however, if the perspective had been different, the impressions and the interpretations would be different as well.

[Spearhead]

It's not that difficult to look at some reference works, a few photography books, maybe even read about the area. I've been doing this since I became interested in the subject as a teenager. Visiting helps, but isn't necessary since it's easy to see the visuals and understand the history, particularly the more recent logging activity that brought prostitution to the area.

 

Regardless of how complete my knowledge is, it's far better than no knowledge generating pure conjecture. And it wouldn't take that long to become educated.

[vivek iyer]

That is interesting.

 

No documentary photos exist (prior to MR's capture) where an Amazon subject scratches her/his back?