Blend in, be anonymous...

[tonmestrom]

<p>Ilkka, Luis already answered your question (as in another time, another perspective).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No, it is not. Means are important to many people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>true, although that depends on the emphasis anyone uses. Means to an end and all that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The club question is just socializing. It is chat and unlikely to be a trenchant inquiry going to the heart of one's photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't know about the demographics over at your place Don but here it's a lot more than just socializing or mere chat.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think you are also implying re photography 'nothing is important but the end result".<br /> Do I read you correctly?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did overstate it a bit to bring my point across but essentially yes. In the end the result is all that matters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One sign that SP (and Documentary) is alive is that it easily eludes those who would try to cram it into a small cage, which some apparently prefer. One size does not fit all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>SP may be alive but over the years it and its importance has undergone a great change. Look at the hyped Vivian Maier photos for instance. Aesthetically very nice but its greatest importance lies in the historical and sociological aspects of her body of work (besides which it's a nice story as well). Those two characteristics have become less important over the years due to both the new media and the inundation of images that goes along with it.<br /> To some extent (if not an equally large one) the same applies to the field of Documentary. Sure, there will always be room for both but I fear only in a ever incresing niche kind of way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wish the effect on our perception when these things come to light did not occur. It is a good reason for a photographer to be forthcoming on the matter from the gitgo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not saying I disagree Don but here's a question. Would it have mattered or have led to less outrage if Serrano's <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HQzL67cB21I/TawsU1lw_NI/AAAAAAAAC_w/X3Lcsv3GVew/s1600/andres_serranopisschrist1987.jpg"><strong>"Piss Christ"</strong></a> where found to be covered in lemonade instead of urine? Or was the implied statement that goes along with its title be enough?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Ilkka, Luis already answered your question (as in another time, another perspective).</em></p>

<p>I'm sorry? Which question is that?</p>

<p><em>true, although that depends on the emphasis anyone uses. </em></p>

<p>What I meant is that people (in general) do care about the difference between theatre vs. real life, fiction vs. fact, photograph vs. drawing and so on.</p>

<p><em>Would it have mattered or have led to less outrage if Serrano's <a rel="nofollow" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HQzL67cB21I/TawsU1lw_NI/AAAAAAAAC_w/X3Lcsv3GVew/s1600/andres_serranopisschrist1987.jpg" target="_blank"><strong>"Piss Christ"</strong></a> where found to be covered in lemonade instead of urine? </em></p>

<p>It's not an example of documentary photography so it is not subjected to the same questions. Sometimes artists do get into trouble about their process e.g. Jill Greenberg's End Times. </p>

[don_essedi]

Ton: "Don't know about the demographics over at your place Don but here it's a lot more than just socializing or mere chat."

 

I was responding to "the famous question when entering a photo club" and so took it as a generic situation of a first aquaintance, not about any specific circumstance in any specific club.

 

I wrote: "I think you are also implying re photography 'nothing is important but the end result".

Do I read you correctly?:

 

"I did overstate it a bit to bring my point across but essentially yes. In the end the result is all that matters."

 

Well, in the end, the end matters, and might be all that matters then, I'll agree. But 'nothing is important but the end result' is a faith-statement, a doctrinal point that the heresy hunters on photo.net like to trot out. We could make up a catechism of their beliefs and rules. The doctrine I get tasked on is 'It's the photographer not the camera that takes the picture' when, apparently, I've supiciously demonstrated too much interest in kit for the inquisitors' tastes, and so my casual inquiry is scruitinized for Error, each turn of phrase treated as a Falsehood to be condemned. The Primes Nazis have their 'zoom with your feet' doctrine. No matter the photographers who would have to zoom with their canes or wheelchairs; they demonstrate total cluelessness about event and nature photography (which photographers understand the meaning of 'you can't get to 'there' from 'here').

 

"Would it have mattered or have led to less outrage if Serrano's "Piss Christ" where found to be covered in lemonade instead of urine? Or was the implied statement that goes along with its title be enough?"

 

The reaction to it doesn't interest me much. I have not read any critique of it that recognizes it is a classic (one might say 'orthodox') Catholic crucifixion -- and I am referring to the piss. Whether or not Serrano made it such with deliberation or with some other intention I am mildly interested in -- mainly because if he didn't, if he had another agenda. He's just lucky.

 

Doesn't matter if it is lemonade or piss, really.

[don_essedi]

Ton, I didn't quite respond to your question about Piss Christ. "Would it have mattered or have led to less outrage if Serrano's "Piss Christ" where found to be covered in lemonade instead of urine? Or was the implied statement that goes along with its title be enough?"

 

 

The photograph is visually weak because it requires a text card to stop the viewer from turning the page or from moving on to the next spot on the wall. Its impact depends on the photographer's language, not the image he invented. I assume (I don't know anything about its reception, but I can imagine...) I assume "outrage" refers some outcry from religious individuals and organizations -- in which case lemonade might be seen as a trivializing of their beliefs. Eliminate the language at its reception and one has an interesting shot, but ultimately a page-turner.