jonathan_reynolds Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 First<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 Second. Sorry, this has to be oversize so you can read the sign.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers_. Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I hope she got paid $2 to pose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Jonathan, The photograph and your capton unfortunately dwell on an incorrect presumption: That fat people are gluttons. The problem of obesity is a complex one. I have only peripheral understanding of the role of genetics. I do know, however, that fat people do face a great deal of prejudice because they are presumed to be gluttons--that is guilty of one of the seven deadly sins. One of the true ironies of life is the obesity one finds among poor and low income people in rich industrialized countries. This apparently has to do with the relative cheapness of junk and fast food. One cannot be sure, but the lady in your photograph seems to be a low income person. I sense this from her clothing and shoes, though I could be wrong. In the US something like 60% of all people are overweight. In the UK--or so I've read somewhere--the pear shape is now tending to standard body shape. There was an article in Der Spiegel many years ago about obesive German babies. The other day French TV had a report on the fattening of the French population that is starting to adopt American eating habits. There is also an aesthetic question of what is fat or too fat. The women of Rubins and Renior are big. Marlyn Monroe was a rather big lady. In dealing with daily life I think it is generally good for the artist to stand back and record but not judge. We don't know why the lady in your photograph is big. Further more, it is none of your business. Have you ever read Thomas Hardy's "Life's Little Ironies"? Worth a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Monroe was a rather little lady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_meeker Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Interseting ironic image, to be sure. Alex, where is it that you have gotten the statistic that 60% of Americans are overweight? Seems a bit high. This sounds like the start of another "America is bad ,everyone else is great" thread. Let's concentrate on the merits of the photograph and drop the pseudo citizen-of-the-world stuff. We can read that in any newspaper, just pick your slant. Regards, Frank M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 i disagree that the woman looks like a low-income-class person. i was in carolina this past summer. the amount of food served to me when i went out to eat was unbelievable. i could have bagged half of it and had enough for lunch the next day. the day i left, i was treated to a 3/4 pound burger and fried pickles. yep you heard me, fried pickle slices. they were delicious, but i think my heart stopped working for a minute or two while digesting. i see young, overweight children all around me drinking pop...coke even, eating chips and cookies for snacks! what are these parents thinking? i see people going out to burger king or mcdonalds day in and day out because it is convenient, because they cant take five min's in the morning to make a sandwich and cut some veggies. it is true, that in some cases, obesity cannot be helped and is a serious glandular problem, but in most cases, it's purely diet/exercise related. laziness. people get home from work, order kfc or pizza and watch survivor. it's unfortunate, but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 <a href=http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/obesity_US.shtml>click here</a> "Approximately 127 million adults in the U.S. are overweight, 60 million obese, and 9 million severely obese." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_meeker Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Matt, Thank you. That is a Very revealing website. Best regards, Frank M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_freeman1 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Best you had left the title and captions off, the politically correct moralist are always lurking in the weeds. Having seen Monroe in person, she was not a large person unless viewed with sexist inclination...jf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisarguelles Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Matt, I completely agree with you. Here in Spain children are always inside McDonalds and similar trash-food places. Parent's laziness, I guess. And speaking of food, I've just scanned a related picture taken last saturday. This is the link: </p> http://www.photo.net/photo/1981830&size=lg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 Folk on this forum trade in morals in preference to photographs. OK, I started it with my (possibly ill-advised) caption, but my intention was as much humorous as grave. The second picture should have confirmed this. No-one got any pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absinthe Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Monroe was a size 14, quite large by todays standards where the ideal size is a size 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absinthe Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Also, fast food is much cheaper here in the states than healthy food. You can buy soda cheaper than water. Go figure. But it is all bla bla bla... the photos do not offend. The Glutony comment is uncalled for though... also... The second photo works much better than the first, IMO... it works without a caption. You get it right away. The first one can easily be missed... you sure do see the sign, but the connection between the person standing there & the sign is not so clear without a caption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Excuse me, everyone. There is a problem and it has to do not with prissy "policial correctness" but some basic ethical and legal questions. The ethical question and the legal question are related. It is not ethical to call someone a glutton in public--especially when you know nothing about this person. It is also libel. This supposedly humorous photo and caption can get the photographer and Photonet into legal problems if the subject happens to see this thread and decides to sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 OK, please would the moderators delete this thread or my caption, or do SOMETHING anyway? I have no wish to offend, legally or personally. For the record, I am a thin person, but it has much more to do with metabolism than abstinence. Perhaps the real irony is that I don't even like captions, but the system here on photonet provokes you to write one. Presumably an implied caption is legally fine, or does the offence lie in seeing and photographing a juxtaposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 One may use space(s) for the caption. BTW, I took no offense with your posting. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Jonathan...I did a series a few years back, wherein I photographed people in cafes. I too ended up with a number of images like yours...one of which was a photo of a young man sitting at a table, overwhich hung a poster asking 'is your lover STD's free?". Here's one way to tell if your being offensive, IMO. After I took the image I asked the fellow if he would give me a model release as I had plans for an exhibition. He agreed, thinking it humourous. Ask yourself this question...If you had asked the woman for a model release (which you should have even to show on photo.net) would she have given it? What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 The even greater irony in this photo is what's written underneath the huge announcement that got everyone worked up: "Come see the world map and new tactile display for blind people." ...Printed, of course, in little teeny letters! (Remember that "blind" also includes the "legally blind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Not that your day isn't already going poorly enough, but aside from the unfortunate caption, these types of shots are pretty cliche. The sign photo in your folder is better because of its more respectful view and sense of humor, and most of the other photos in your folders are better too, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom h. Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I think Jonathans' title on the photo is what may be a little unnecessary, but at the same time, tell it like it is- that lady sure looks like she's had her share of fried pickles, and the majority of overweight people are that way because they simply eat too much (doesn't matter where you live). In poorer countries, the majority of underweight people are that way because they eat too little. This isn't rocket science. It's a good catch Jonathan(may have been done before) but in terms of irony, it works great. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeeter Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 alex is confusing the impoverished around the world (subject of the sign) with the relatively well-off (by comparison) low income or poor in america. you don't see obesity in the truly impoverished in india, africa, etc, because the result of impoverishment is insufficient caloric intake. this is obviously not the case in the u.s., and obviously not the case in the subject in the photo. her income status has nothing to do with the irony depicted in the photo, and to me the caption does not even refer to the individual, more to society, especially the american society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Yeah, I think you're right. The photograph in itself (without caption) makes a valid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Well, my comment was initially in response to Tom Higgins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_scecina2 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 tom chandler wrote... "and to me the caption does not even refer to the individual, more to society, especially the american society." Why do you say that tom? The photo was taken in England. 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