ray . Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 mumbo jumbo, gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 Keith, you're spinning your wheels trying to define a thing in terms of itself. At the same time you say you find my comments offensive without explaining why. Absent an explanation I have to assume this is a heartfelt emotional reaction, but not necessarily valid from an intellectual or moral standpoint. How exactly does being vulnerable disqualify these people from documentary photography, of which genre snapshots are a subset? If that's a disqualifying factor then we'd better stop photographing babies, kitties and puppies. And how exactly would consent from a presumably responsible party other than these individuals make it better? Or worse, for that matter? Suppose the individual still feels uncomfortable with being photographed despite informed consent from a guardian? How is this determined, short of splitting hairs? And how far are you ready to draw your line of moral umbrage? To the anonymous homeless? There's a popular subject for candid photography, so beloved of Leicaphiles. Is it okay because they seem okay, relatively speaking, lacking outward, obvious signs of limitations to their ability to give informed consent? Does anyone here need a reminder that many homeless people are saddled with emotional and mental difficulties, even if they lack the obvious outward signs of Down Syndrome and other disabilities? Somehow you seem to have transferred your sense of outrage from Robert's photos to my statements. That's fine; perhaps it's more comfortable for you. But I see no valid reason for outrage or offense at either. Robert's photos are innocuous snapshots; my comments simply verbalize the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 Yes Michael, these are be beautifully taken photo's. However, have you thought that Robert might have a different agenda. His relation was given poisen ( in his belief ) by the state to see what effects it would have. Legal murder. He is depicting the results. I don't think his looking for dignified photos, showing how well cared for these folks are. Looking at his previous photos on this forum, i'm sure his more than capable of doing similar work. "Look what they have done to my relation." That is my take on his photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 Pretty, and clever pictures, how very sweat and nice. Photography, to my mind, should encompass all parts of reality. Not just 'the noble savage stuff'. Perhaps, some harsh reality stuff, may convince some folk that they only need one big mac, instead of two. Sanitised, dignity stuff, never empties anyone's pockets...just gives a nice warm feeling. However, looking at the suffering of these folks, might.Or, any others for that matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_clark Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 Kieth, your sentiments may have been good, but I think it was the holier than thou, politically correct, self-righteous tone that provoked Lex's straightforward remarks. Robert has posted photos of relatives and friends, that have been taken as part of a project: why would he need any consent for that? I fully agree with John lo Pinto's remarks about needing to have some understanding of the perspective and aims of the photographer befor coming forward with less than helpful stinging criticism. It would be interesting to hear from Robert as to why he has photographed in the way he has. Looking at Robert's other work, these direct flash colour photos are obviously consciously chosen. So, why? Without Robert's input, we are left to come to our own conclusions. We can jump in like Michael, all guns firing, or we can think. I, personally, would never photograph any of my friends in this way - I find it too shrill and unflattering, I would want to create mood and atmosphere to do justice to what I liked about them. So it seems Robert has purposely abandoned that approach and gone for the harsher more direct look. Like Bee, I can see nothing normal in these characters and there seems to be no attempt to make them seem normal. The spotlight is on them. I can only think that Robert wants to bring attention to his friends/aquaintances and considers that more important than atmosphere or mood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_laban Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 Lex<p>The concerns I have raised stem from the respect and love that I have for my friends who have a learning disability. You and I are poles apart on this issue, with apparently no common ground. I have my values, you have yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 I have read this thread top to bottom twice now and considered most of what has been said. And I have to say that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Robert intended these photo's to look exactly as shown. Given his obvious level of talent (shown in many, many threads) how could anyone really come to any other conclusion? I also have no doubt that he was trying to make a point. I believe that Allen Herbert has it right in suggesting that Robert has a �different agenda� than Maximishin. It is unfortunate for all of us however that Robert chose to remain silent and not direct this thread towards a discussion that might have proved more useful to all involved. Good thread none the less, please don�t delete it. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Regret that I was away, so couldn't take part. Let's have some more like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I know that Robert has been photographing mentally disabled (is that the right form of words these days?) for a long time, and a year or so ago he sent me some pictures he had taken which were very different from these. Despite everything that has been said about Robert's talent and his presumed intentions, neither are evident here. The point about pictures is that they should speak for themselves as far as possible, not be wonderful because of explanations a posteriori. Michael Bender's response was arrogant and offensive, but not so far off the track, IMO. Maximishin's (correct?) picture is wonderful, with many cultural associations and a touch of humour and empathy. However, it may well not have been Robert's intention to take this sort of picture. IMO, Robert's pictures as shown in this thread simply fail to communicate anything. The style is not strong enough to make them communicate on their own terms - although one could invent a narrative to go with them. For instance, if these people were not surounded by all sorts of representational taboos, then this is the sort of snapshot their relatives would be taking of them. Straight, harsh, in-your-face pictures of people who have been pushed to the margins of society have their place and value, indeed, they are one of the main paths of documentary photography. I think it's too early to see what it is that Robert is driving at with these, but this selection fails to make a strong point of any kind, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted October 15, 2003 Author Share Posted October 15, 2003 Ok, here is a follow up to the images I posted. Camera: Olympus Stylus zoom f3.5 at 70mm with color negative film. I did look at the photo MB referred to and it appears to be a large group of men with Downs Syndrome. The range of developmentally delayed people who have retardation range from mild to sever. The people in the MB images fall into the mild range. Another group are those that are dual diagnosed with retardation and mental health issues. In the USA people with downs syndrome are full integrated into society and go to school from an early age with children without disabilities. MB refers to patients in sanatoriums. The people in my images are individuals, residing in a group home with a total of eight residents. They have staff 24 hour a day that assist them in their daily activities. When this house was closed 5 of the these folks went to live a house that was built as the owners dream house in an upscale suburban area. Three people went to live in a program called shared living with families that were willing to share their lives with them. David was raised at home by his grandmother until he developed medical issues that called for more intensive health care. MB, you seem happy with the living conditions of the people in the photo you pointed out, you should be ashamed! Some of you assume that my images are not flattering shots of these people? Don't kid yourselves... If you REALLY are concerned with the lives of these folks then volunteer at some level to make their lives better, don't let images of people that you have never seen let you think that have higher moral standards than anyone... And yes I am out of here! Keep shooting, and remember that REAL life is not always pretty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Robert,there's no reason for you to leave this forum. Definitely should not be due to this thread. It'll be our great loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted October 15, 2003 Author Share Posted October 15, 2003 OK, Full should read fully and sever should be severe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 , indeed, they are one of the main paths of documentary photography. Indeed it maybe, but the evidence is not always apparant. However, the nicer sanitized views, are always apparant. Regarding Robert's images, they have created 80 plus postings to date. To create contention, interest,thought,should be sole object of these type of images. Well mannered images belong in another place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 At last, the truth comes out. The real reason why some took umbrage at Robert's photos is because they somehow intuited he hadn't used a Leica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Still stuck in blue.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I've tried to read as much as I could from what was stated above. I think Rob Appleby is right on the money, the photos are not up to the standards of what I've seen from RMJ before, the simply look like snap-shots to me, albeit the subjet matter is a strong one that evokes emotional responses from deep inside. Robert, your apparent involvement/feelings for with people with learnning disabilities are not translated into the photos you chose to post here. The project is certainly worth while and important, I think. It is just that these particular photos aren't "interesting" in pretty much any way. Keep it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 I'm amazed that people see fit to draw any conclusions at all on the basis of 3 images taken from 10 years work! <p> <i>However, it may well not have been Robert's intention to take this sort of picture.</i> <p> Gee, whatever gave you that idea?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Exactly what you said Ray! Funny thing is, the more I look at these pictures the more charming they become. I think it involves accepting people as they are, as they actually look. The p&s snapshot + flash format is what Robert *chose* for these three pictures. No it isn't as pretty as it could be or as arty as it could be. That's because, uh..the photographer *chose* this format for this subject. You can't/don't wanna connect with the images; buy y'self a Robert Doisneau calendar........ Robert gone from here is an enormous loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 I've waited to comment in this thread, Robert, because I'm not sure how I feel about your pictures. I won't say that they're not up to your best work, because I'm not sure that's the case - they may be a passionate and commited attempt to transcend your best work. On the other hand, I won't say that they accomplish fully what you set out to do, because I'm not sure of what that is.<p> Direct flash is effective in putting a subject in your face, absent coyness, discretion, sentimentality. If that's what you intended, certainly you've succeeded. <p> Your pictures remind me, in a way, of those made by<a href="http://www.musarium.com/stories/vietnaminc/large.lasso?-SkipRecords=1">Phillip Jones Griffiths</a> of children deformed by use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. <p> His pictures are effective because they appear to be highly sensitive while utterly lacking in sentimentality. I think he managed this by careful juxtaposition; in virtually every frame, a deformed child is pictured alongside a non-deformed figure who is part of that child's life. And, he shot them in b&w using available light.<p> Your pictures, shot in color using flash, seem to say: face it, this is who they are - and they leave the viewer to there. And while that may be a laudible intention on your part, it maybe doesn't take into account enough the psychology of the viewer - the requirement to help him find his way.<p> I'm not telling you to lose the color or the flash, necessarily - or to emulate the techniques of Griffiths; I'm merely pointing out why I think these pictures get the reactions that they do, and trying to give you food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 "Your pictures, shot in color using flash, seem to say: 'face it, this is who they are' - and then they leave the viewer there."<p> is how it should read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Leaving here is entirely Robert's choice... I'm sure most of us will burn out on this place eventually. Robert may just need a break... understandable and probably a very healthy idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanne_newton Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 I don't like being preached to and told what to think...photography is a very powerful medium, and whoever doesn't know that hasn't studied it closely enough. Not that I'm an expert, but I have given these photographs my attention, and I have read everyone else's views as well, and yet again I'm about to put myself on the line....well here goes. I think that these pictures are very insensitive. They strip their subjects of all their human dignity and insult me by suggesting that I need a closeup in- my- face view in able to feel anything for the situation of people afflicted with physical/mental handicaps/challenges. Yesterday was World Day for Down's Syndrome. Robert posted but did not seem aware of this. The point of this "day" ...to help the public to recognise the difficulties these people face, in trying to live and realise their potential to the best extent possible. And to help the public to see these people in a more positive way than just as freaks. Now all I'm saying is that I would have liked to know a little more about David, for example...he looks like he has been forced to sit there and looks a little confused about the whole thing. He has my sympathy. Why do people post their work expecting only soothing comments? How could anyone expect these pictures to be received with indifference ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 >>> However, it may well not have been Robert's intention to take this sort of picture. Gee, whatever gave you that idea?!! >>> Well, Ray, because they're crap, while Maximishin's are not. So either Robert is no good at taking pictures (and everyone here agrees that he is second only to Cartier-Bresson), or he is trying for something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 He's trying something else. And many don't like his new style in these images. But he CHOSE to take them like that, so he did WANT to take them, like that. Perhaps his pictures didn't work for some. I doubt he was asking for aesthetic critiques of his pictures. Nonetheless, anyone of us could say these are craps. You had the right to. Perhaps Robert wanted to portray reality in his own unique way? We can certainly judge his images here, but not him as a person. Let's see what we can do for these people instead, shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 <i> doubt he was asking for aesthetic critiques of his pictures </i><p> I think he was, or, more accurately, was looking for effusively positive ones. 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