michael_b.1 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Just for my personal information:<br><br> Are all posts systematically deleted by the forum moderator (or somebody else) if they contain pictures showing anti-war demonstrations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_schmid Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 That's correct. Otherwise forum members, while sitting the whole day in front of their PCs, would observe that there are anti-war demonstrations all over the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bender Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Sounds interesting. As a man trained to be a scientist (physics), I prefer to ascertain the truth of a statement empirically. I'll post a couple of images from today's (22 March 2003) protests in LA in a couple of hours, but for now, let's try one from the previous peace marches: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Scroll down and you'll see "No words:Words" which has quite a few peace demo pictures. They do provoke heated discussion, however, and people do get out of hand. Couple of weeks ago we had a bigot jumping in until he not only got the thread deleted, he got himself deleted. Maybe some one (or ones) got carried away on the thread you're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bender Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Was that bigot, by any chance, Rob Appleby, one of the best photographers here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 He was using a pseudonym taken out of an Ian Fleming novel. Siegfried Krumm or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bender Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Then let me post <b><a href=http://home.pacbell.net/vedmed/march2/march.html>a few more here.</a></b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Rowlett Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Yes. I am a robot. I delete threads at whim. Especially those that contain pictures. Pictures are unAmerican. Pictures are unWorldly. I delete. I delete. I delete. Backups? We don’t need no stinking ba #.’ _ , J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_schmid Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Tony - please could you delete this thread now, otherwise our supposition would not be proved ;o) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert knapp md Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Tony, I agree. This thread has the feel of a political rocket ship about to take off!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Micheal, please don't bait this thread. There is a serious question here. Some of us are trying to stay within the bounds of what Photo Net is supposed to be about (really Tony, I am trying). I have seen comments about images and threads being deleted. The one that I can agree with the "pruning" of was the "Respectful" thread. I responded with "pro-war" images since it was felt by some that any "anti-war" or "political" image should not be allowed to be posted. I also made commonest that were deleted in response to commonest made about censoring images. I see no problem in the deletions because Tony was trying to keep the thread in context. Now a questions for Tony: What are the rules now? For some us of social/documentary photography is of interest. For myself, I am trying to gain skills in photographing something else rather than buildings and landscapes. Maybe its is time for a Forum for those of us that want to discuss the impact of photography on our perceptions. Are we moving to no comments about the images that we see here? I know that world wide the war issue is a hot button. And many of the debates are seeming to go in circles now. But the larger issue is, do we not allow for reasoned comment on these photos only? What about images of AIDS victims, or prostitute street kids of Thailand and Brazil, or any number of issues that one can find objection to? Or are we turning into a Forum that will only discuss which M body is best, or which Summicron 50 is best, or any numberless repeated topics that deal with gear only? I know that if I posted an image here I expect that there might be comments that I do not agree with. In the "Respectful" thread commonest were made about "abuse" of the child. Addressing those concerns seemed valid to me. The posts that were going into the validity of the war were not. commonest from a powerful picture should be expected. As with an image I posted here with a "full-figured" statue and a similarly posed "full-figured" woman - I would not have objected to someone criticizing me for "humiliating" the woman. For that was one of the things that caused me pause in posting the image. Thanks Tony, for letting ask these questions. Hopefully you will find OT, and this thread OT so that we can reasonably talk about something other than the Leica MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_b.1 Posted March 23, 2003 Author Share Posted March 23, 2003 First of all: my question was serious.<br><br> Tony, it was not my intention to offend you.<br><br> That brings me to another question:<br> This is a photo-forum and not a political-forum, isn´t it possible to delete only single comments (if they are to political) and not the entire thread?<br><br> If I want political discussion I will certainly find other forums more apropriated.<br><br> Best regards to all of you, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Micheal, The thing that came up in the "Reflective Words" thread. Tony did delete messages that he felt were OT for that thread. The problem in that thread was that some felt that the image alone was insightful and should not be allowed. In that thread I suggested that they put up images that felt portrayed their feelings about the issue, and posted some that I thought they might find acceptable as an example. Evidently that must have sparked some heated comments. Regards, Chip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Rowlett Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Photographs posted in/as "No Words," "Some Words," "Whatever Words" threads are just fine. I think I speak for the majority here when I say that the photography is good, even the "anti-war" stuff. I will add that discussions <u>about the photograph and what the photograph portrays</u> is perfectly OK. Now, here's the tough part: <b>You can hold a discussion about what a photograph portrays without espousing your political beliefs.</b> That last part is what people are having a tough time with. It's the soapboxing that's getting deleted. I admit, that last part is not only tough for those participating, but it's also tough to moderate. But I don't think that I've recently pruned a thread when its participants didn't suspect beforehand that I would probably do so. I don't think I have surprised anyone. Backups? We don’t need no stinking ba #.’ _ , J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_b.1 Posted March 24, 2003 Author Share Posted March 24, 2003 OK Tony, now it's clear for all of us I think.<br><br> Thank you,<br> Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 "You can hold a discussion about what a photograph portrays without espousing your political beliefs" No this does not appear to be possible. These threads are becoming collections of anti-American rhetoric. One after another. It is getting more and more offensive. There are people coming out of nowhere to spew their vitriol. Sorry to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Tell the truth, Eliot. You're not really "sorry to say." You seem quite the happy warrior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Okay, the rules have been spoken. I raised the question before and I'll raise it again. Are these rules strictly aesthetic or are they to enforce someone's poltical point of view--meaning one which is pro-war? The question is not implying this is the case. It is raised as a request for clarification. It has to raised under the circumstances. If dissent is not tolerated here then who ever controls this site should simply say so. If this site is completely neutral then it must be understood that certain photographs will engender poltical concerns. All right, let me try an experiment. Let me try to discuss a photograph by Michael Bender in a purely analytical and neutral manner as required under the rules. This is the photograph where a protester is holding up a sign with a picture of a presumably Iraqi girl which says "Don't Kill me for my oil." The composition of this photograph is perfect in my view. It centers on the most arresting of the protest signs registered there. The sign shows a picture of a little girl, presumably Iraqi, with the caption, hand written in big letters, saying "Don't kill me for my oil." The photograph is an effective photograph as a work of art in itself; but more importantly it is an excellent piece of reportage. It is as reportage that I wish to discuss this photograph. Most importantly, this is not simply a picture of a picture. The background is crucial to the success of Michael Bender's photograph as the central image itself. In fact without the background the central image would not quite as important as it is within the context of the background. What is this Michael Bender's photograph about? It is about the power of effective argument. It is, if you will, about verbal and pictorial rhetoric. Look at the slogans on the other signs and then look at the central image again. Can you honestly recall any of the slogans on the signs in the background? I honestly cannot. If you remember any of them can you say that they moved you in any way? I must say for myself that they did not move me, except, perhaps, to reenforce certain ideas I might already have. This photograph is a powerful contrast to the other protest signs. It disturbs one directly as the others do not. Why? The thought of our bombs killing or hurting a little girl like this should disturb anyone with normal human feelings whether he or she supports or opposes the war. The slogan is extremely effective in its implication that not only is Bush's war for oil but that it is so heartless at its roots that the people behind it do not care about little girls like this. The protest sign can be easily disconstructed. Who know if the little is Iragi; and even if she is there is no proof she lives in Iraq. The purely emotional message is predicated on the little girl being cute and is, therefore, question begging. If you were looking at an ugly little boy, say, would the "blood for oil argument" be more palatable? And one can go on. As being a sign addressing the emotions it is no different from any other protest sign. Protests sign require short and easy messages that the viewer will respond to quickly. What makes this sign different is how effective it is, whether you like it or not. As such it reminds me of another sign with a picture of a little blonde girl who was killed by US-Nato bombs in Yugoslavia. The caption read: "This is not Milosovic." That the little girl in the photo was dead, unlike the little girl in the photo under discussion, put another twist to protesting war. But a sign with a live girl is no less effective than that of a dead girl. One wants to keep the live girl alive; one mourns for the dead girl and feels anger over her death. Both appeal the complext emotions that convince many people to oppose wars. In sum, this is an effective photograph as a work of art, as historical document and as a case study of the art of persuasion. So, Tony, how does this suit the rules as you see them? I would also like to see you write a critical examination of this photograph by applying the rules as you write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 "You seem quite the happy warrior." Warrior yes, happy about it, no. I've been on this site for about 1.5-2 years and for a long time all of my posts were confined to Leica photography. I don't know exactly when it started, but there have been an increasing number of gratuitous anti-America/anti-Bush type posts which bother me, probably more than they should. I'll engage in spirited debate, but too often this just turns nasty. To tell you the truth, I'd be happier if there were nothing of a political nature here (there are so many other places for that), but I understand that people have strong feelings about current events and want to express them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Sheesh... Deletions happen. Life goes on. Why worry about it? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 I'll add to Alex's comments. The other aspect of the image that struck me was the chainlink fence. It seems to signify the separation of thoughts between the protesters and those that feel the opposite way. Very fitting for some of the discussions that we have had here on the Leica Forum. The woman holding the main poster in question at the same time seems distant and contemplative. I am also drawn by the composition. The signs at the top provide a nice balance; with the protesters around the main poster providing a source to draw the viewer into the main subject. The man (who appears to be a skinhead) adds some energy to a rather static scene. His body and face are the only elements of "action" in the image. Overall a strong communication of emotion. Well done Micheal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Brad, I think that the feelings about the deletions is why some are, and some not. Also there are those of us that try to stay within the bounds of what Photo Net wants from the postings. Because some can't control their political feelings, some threads turn into a flaming mess. And the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. It is disheartening to some to see efforts at thoughtful responses go off into the void of the internet because of that. I responded about this issue,because I see this Forum as a living, growing entity. Without thoughtful, and hopefully helpful comments on what I would like see develop then that growth of spirit and free exchange of thought will die. I have learned much from this forum. And not just about the hardware of Leica. Not just about what makes a good image. Not what side of the political fence someone comes from. But also about the world at large. Since so many of those in the Forum are not in the US, we are able to grow our knowledge of the world we all share. And that makes the Leica Forum what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 eliot, guess you weren't much of a michael moore fan after his oscar speech on sunday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Matt. Didn't he write a book about "Stupid White Men..." or something like that. An autobiography no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Actually, Steve Martin's line about Moore was great. He said there were a couple of teamsters waiting backstage to give him a ride in the trunk of their limousine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now