What I have been shooting for the last 10 years...

[ray .]

Yeah, he made it all up.

[Tony Rowlett]

Robert, with this thread alone you have made this forum a more interesting place. Two things: 1) your photos here are obviously successful, look at this thread; and 2) to remove this thread would be to water down the forum, wouldn't it? I plead with you to reconsider your request.

[Allen Herbert]

Reality, who needs it. Best go for the last supper version. Makes a lovely pretty picture. You can hang it on your wall, just to show you really care.

 

ps. I asked the beggar if he was enjoying his career. He said he was, it was a career decision he had taken at school.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Slightly off-topic: all this diss-ing of Diane Arbus. I and a friend came away from looking at an exhibition of her work here (Toronto) with the conviction that, in fact, she loved her "freaks" and in fact identified with them. Someone who I feel does what people here are attributing to Arbus, and Robert, is Avedon. When he documented the demise of his own father, one felt sorrow and empathy. Then he turned that patented technique on ordinary people and made them ugly.

[________1]

For Robert:<div></div>

[crackers_.]

I'm sure #78 is a close cousin too.

[robert_m_johnson]

This is part of the pict Bob T keeps talking about! # 78?? Tony, please kill this

post for me. I along with many other folks will now be part of PN history. Bye to

all the folks here that have a brain, the others, you know who you are...<div></div>

[tom h.]

Is it SO inconceivable that the level of ability Robert

demonstrates around here (on a sometimes daily basis) was

also brought to bear when he took (and shared) these

photographs? And if that's the case, doesn't it follow that they

should be viewed from that standpoint? (ie- he knows exactly

what he's doing?). Really, it's not rocket science.

 

Tom

[henk]

<center> <img border=2 src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1768495&size=lg"> </center>

No words ;)

[crackers_.]

Bob you're a decent guy, and it's not you. Third grade ridicule happens here far too often. Life becomes more difficult for the next photographer after a poor subject presentation for any reason - ambiguity, omission, or direct spite. Clean your own house before some jury or the Park Picture Police do it for you.

[terrypittman]

I also am a big fan of Diane Arbus and feel her work was very strong.

 

I feel she was very involved with her subjects and I think this is where I have a problem with Robert's images.

 

They do seem like impersonal snapshots which is surprising considering Robert's reputation for excellent images.

[Allen Herbert]

Photo crit on the internet, what a load of crap! Just leads to nowhere land. NW's, such a better idea!<div></div>

[________1]

�she was very involved with her subjects�

 

Mr Pittman where is your brain today? Robert stated he�s related to the first subject by marriage and has been working on this project for 10 years. How much more involved could he be?

[terrypittman]

I never said Robert was NOT involved.

 

I just said these images looked like snapshots.

[michael s.]

Some great photos are comforting, soothing, and easy on the eyes. Many others aren't. They shouldn't be. And some people worth getting to know are easy on the eyes. But again, many others aren't. And I can only imagine how much poorer I'd be if I had dismissed the people and the photos and the movies and the music and all the art and speech that wasn't easy on the eyes (or ears).

 

At photo.net, some of the participants get very brave when they have that Pentium in front of them. So be it. This is the internet. Robert, I'd urge you not to let it be ruled, or limited, by its shrillest voices.

 

Your portraits are helping to tell the stories of your people. Some of your folks, I'd bet, have a real shortage of advocates. If you leave, or quit telling these stories, they lose out, and so do people like me.

 

I'd like to see more of these pictures, and preferably here.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

The mistake of the nay-sayers in this thread is one that appears frequently on this site.Here's what happens: someone posts a picture(or three), someone who, examining the rest of his work, is clearly a talented and hard working artist who knows exactly what he/she wants and usually acheives it; presents a picture that is "difficult". Out of the woodwork come The Critics, who are in esssence saying "You shouldn't have taken the photograph like THIS--you should have taken it like THAT." I.e., the photographer should BE someone else,; usually a less talented someone else. How the hell can you do that? Why can't people--especially members of this forum, who are a bright lot and know each other's work--say :"This is what the artist wants me to see. I am going to look at this and try to see what he is offering, what there is for me to learn here"? Goes on all over PN; why the ratings system is meaningless to me; why the p.o.w. discussion is usually a bore. Some folks need to learn how to look at a picture and try to see what's THERE first, instead of trying to impose their own esthetic on it.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Oh yeah, this:the current issue of the New Yorker has an interesting article on Diane Arbus. The illustration for it is a picture of hers taken at a "home for the retarded"!

[skeeter]

john,

 

i think you've said it best.

 

mr. bender, who if not robert's severist critic is the most personal in his attack, makes the very mistake you refer to. for all we know, the picture he posted to illustrate his point was staged as a spoof or satire, instead of a deep, thoughtful reflection on humanity.

 

simultaneous with imposing his interpretation on this photo, he has

imposed judgement on robert's photos, assuming the worst because they don't suit his photographic tastes.

 

those who know robert's work will probably agree that these are not his best images. robert recently shared with me privately a few black and white images from his project, and they were remarkable, and much more like robert's typically outstanding photographs in both content and execution.

 

robert,

you might consider posting a few of these for the many thread contributors to ponder.

 

i just don't understand why a forum so dedicated to artistic pursuit is crowded with such intolerance and lack of civility.

[jesse_hutton]

Robert,

 

I frequent this site very rarely nowadays, because it is usually far less interesting than this. You've really provoked an interesting discussion (totally unintentionally, I gather). Personally, I'd like to thank you for posting the pictures, because I've learned a lot from them, from my own reaction to them, and from reading this thread.

 

I don't know how you do it, but there is something very honest in them. To us, the viewers, the subjects are pathetic, especially for those who cry about the shots being insensitive, inhumane, and exploitative. You show the people as they are and you do it with courage (like a lot of your shots, that have now been deleted from your folder). In the pictures, they are neither happy nor sad, neither cowardly nor valerous. They are human like us. I think the pics are really good, and the more I look at them, the more I'm endeared to their subjects.

 

I only hope that the people who jumped on you for showing these examine their own reactions to them and feel with some shame how inhumanely they have treated the subjects by looking at them as they do (and how hard them must treat themselves and others on a daily basis). I can only imagine how one of the subjects might feel after reading this thread. And, why???... Because many people on this forum are fu*ks (like most other places). I wouldn't blame you one bit if you didn't return after seeing this display. I am glad I got to see some of your stuff here, though.

[lex_jenkins]

For chrissake, what a bunch of wanker, knee-jerk responses, from Bender's usual diarhhetic ejaculations to Keith Laban's self-dignification (sorry, Keith, I'm really surprised you found it necessary to repeatedly pronounce your righteous ire - I got it the first time), and many in between!

 

If these had been the same straightforward, direct flash snapshots of kitties, puppies and babies, would the pix have prompted anything more than yawns? Well, hang on...yeh, some folks would get all masturbatory simply because Leica gear was used. Otherwise, tho', the only difference is the subject matter.

 

Is there anything inherently wrong with taking snapshots of your friends, family members and aquaintances? Who gives a rat's ass what they look like or how they dress? How fatuous do you have to be to read a book into what's little more than a pamphlet?

 

As for that photo Bender thought was so terrific, what a pompous photographic turd that thing is. Using a bunch of uninformed human beings as props to make an ironic statement is about as heartless as an artist can get. Does the fact that it echoes the iconic style so beloved of Russians excuse the total lack of good taste and poor judgement? One thing you can give Bender credit for - absolute consistency.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying anything new. A. Kochanowski already said it sooner, more succinctly and with less vitriol.

 

The worst I can say about Robert's photos is that I'm not a fan of direct flash photos. But as direct flash snapshots go, they're good. If these are, or were, friends and acquaintances, you've done as well for them as can be expected from direct flash. The photo of Steven doesn't look much different from my grandsons after a meal.

 

If, on the other hand, you were trying to make some sort of statement or invite viewers to interpret these photos as anything other than cheerful snapshots, back to square one.

 

Personally, I don't believe this thread or any of the comments should be deleted. It's very revealing in some important ways.

[tapani_rauha1]

If you don't like the message, why shoot the messenger?

 

Robert Johnson has brought us a message that is disturbing.

Becoming disturbed is the right response, but don't blame Robert.

 

I'm sure Robert's critics don't really all believe that photography must be all 'positive'. Should all phototography just beautify and esthetize uncomfortable things to the point where we can simply say " what a well taken picture " ? Everything is not beautiful. There IS life outside of the photographic realm. Let pictures awake you to it. And if you are uncomfortable with that message, it is a sign for action.

[beatrice_flowers]

There's been some talk about 'dignity'. What if these people have a different sense of dignity, a different sense of 'normality' than we do? I could imagine the people depicted think they look pretty damn cool on these pictures. I don't know if it's so, but it seems a safe bet that these people see themselves differently than the way we do. In fact, they might think you and I are the freaks. Isn't that what 'normal' really means: resembling oneself?

[travis1]

I still don't see how anyone can look at the 3 guys above and feel anything but normality. Flesh and blood, mind you, someone's kids. Treat them the same. You go look in the mirror for those feeling repulsed, who are the real freaks.

 

If the 3 pics were of "normal kids", then what? Screw Robert again for using flash?

 

I feel a sense of warmth when I see these pix when they were loaded up. Robert truly saw them as normal people. You?

[beatrice_flowers]

>>> I still don't see how anyone can look at the 3 guys above and feel anything but normality.

 

 

Oh. Well, they're a long ways off of my sense of normality, really.

 

 

>>> Flesh and blood, mind you, someone's kids. Treat them the same.

 

 

Please. If we'd really treat them 'the same', they'd die of hunger. Or would you suggest we give them a job as Wall Street analyst?

 

 

>>> Robert truly saw them as normal people. You?

 

 

Get real.

[travis1]

Now we know who the freaks are. Ain't it great?