Untitled

Krishna - I have no idea how these images are chosen. I'm just as much in the dark as you are about the process.

 

The picture is interesting from the point of view of composition. Other than the main subject though, if find the background rather dull and drab. Perhaps this is the fault of scanning or printing, but judging on what is presented on my screen I wouldn't rate this image very highly.

 

As part of a photo essay it might be a much stronger work than it is as an isolated image, which is the way I'm judging it here.

Comment "The man looks as if been added digitally, because the surrounded white smoke had gave it a touch of a Photoshop."

There is this thread developing among POW followers that says that images made in exotic locales are being given more weight than the others.

One commentor even named images of India as having been chosen a little too often.

What in the world could these people possibly think an images location would have to do with the judges decisions?

Granted we are not all going to agree on every choice, and I'm sure there are some terriffic shots that have not been chosen, but where is the reason?

Judging photos, art, films or ice skating is subjective folks. This is not a precise science that can be measured in exact numbers.

Agree or disagree, spite, jealousy and hurt feelings do not make for sensible comments.

Who knows how anyone chooses a winner? I've seen what I'd consider the best photos in judgings given honorable mentions, while someone's very sweet, but mediocre snapshots of their kid wins the cash and prizes. When was the last time you agreed with the Oscar's choice for Best Picture? Go figure.

Is any of this really all that important?

 

I am not a professional photograher, not even an amateur one - I found your web site in a feature in U.S. News & World Report. However, after visiting the web site, I felt the need to respond to the comments regarding the subject photograph. I think this is a great photograph, and perhaps there is a little "professional jealosy" in the criptic comments submitted.

I agree with BArts second post, go off and count the "foreign" photographs vs. "non-foreign", and it will be clear how silly the "too many foreign" comment was. Though I must admit that there have been a rather large proportion of photographs chosen from India. Personally, I love travel photographs, but I'd love to see and old English Dairy or a "true" american "backroad".

 

As for Douglas's comment, I also believe that the "smoke" could very well be dodging or burning, but what it looks more akin too is "eraser burn". I wouldn't be surprised if the photographers scanned in this image twice, once "exposing" for the background and once for the man. Then layering the images, they erased one layer, only they didn't get everything (I have done this so many times, I know how difficult it is to (often you don't notice the stray eraser marks until the image hits "publication" in either print or production.

 

K

This person simply posted a photo and is being told (by 2/3's of the people here) how much the photo sucks. Most of the comments I see (and there are one or two exceptions) are so ill thought out as to be meaningless. "I don't get it." does not add anything to the discussion and makes one sound like an ignorant dolt. Sort of what my Dad says about Picasso. Who cares if you don't get it? There's nothing to "get" (except an imagination perhaps). And all the people complaining about the "exotic locations" are so ridiculous . . . what do we want to see your cousin Ned in Disneyland? Your Aunt Mable's tupperware party? Your brother Seymor's barmitzvah!!! Well then post one and see if it wins (90% of you have nothing posted). I suspect that being typical Americans whose most exotic destination is "Dollywood" you just simply cannot understand the allure of exotic and distance locales. Well fine but don't knock Phil for choosing something that appeals to his taste for adventure and the exotic and just concentrate strictly on the compositional and technical merits of the photo. Sheesh!

 

As far as it being intrusive, good point (the first ten times) but you don't know that for sure. The photographer may well have had permission so until you know don't rush to judgement (hmmm, sounds familiar).

 

Anton, it was interesting to read your thoughtful comments on the photo of the week (Benares). Later, in this second posting, you mention the people who complain about photos being selected for being in exotic (Indian) locations. If you notice the two posters who did discount the exotic aspects are, like I am, from India. I doubt very much if we have Uncle Neds or Aunt Mabels or have been Bar Mitzvahed ! :-)

 

The point is, that to us its not exotic, just home, so the picture should not be chosen or praised for "exotic" potential, merely because it happens to be exotic to some (American, presumably) photo.netters.

 

My own point was that this is a photograph that almost all Hindus would find either sacrilegious, or deeply disturbing, as it is obviously instrusive simply for having been photographed where it has been. To them (and many others) a crematorium is a place of death and private grief. It is plausible that the man in the picture with the unusual expression on his face is a grief stricken relative.

 

Paul & Patriz's other photographs (one of a corpse, and the other of a woman obviously shouting at the photographer in anger for lifting the camera) confirm that their's is not sensitive documentary, but rather the crass attempt of tourists at producing "meaningful documentary photography", in the worst wanna-be way.

 

Normally, I prefer to make comments on a picture related to the photographic elements of the picture alone. But in this case, because of the offensive nature of the subject, I will just say that I think taking pictures at any kind of private, painful moment requires more care and subtlety than the photographer has exhibited.

 

As for the insinuations that have been made regarding the exoticism of the POW entries, I understand that there are photographs and books that have survived and flourished solely on their exoticism, but it is important to remember that this is not the same as saying that any picture from a foreign locale that does not meet your tastes has been chosen for its exotic qualities. That is a cop out - without knowing the photographer and the situation in which the photograph was taken, it is reckless to make such offensive generalizations.

 

The pictures I have posted (there are only two - Im slow with uploading, sorry) are both from Japan because I lived there for several years. For me those pictures are not exotic, in fact, they are pictures I took precisely because they reminded me of things I saw almost daily in the city in which I lived. Sometimes a picture of a foreign locale that may look like a victim of exoticism to some is as ordinary a scene to the photographer as Aunt Mays Tupperware party.

 

About the picture: Worthless. this is just a snapshot taken by a curious (but not involved) bystander.

 

I come from the India and around varanasi, This is a photograph is of a person mourning the death of his parent AT the location of the funeral. I thought it was the most distasteful photograph I have seen, until I looked at the rest of the portfolio and saw a picture of the pyre.

 

To Samuel Dilworth:

Do you have any idea about what you are talking about? your whole "essay" shows your lack of understanding and a narrow point of view.

 

A few questions to the Photographer:

Would you like me to take your picture at the funeral of your parent or a loved one?

 

Did you secure a model release?

 

Did you bother to ask him what was happening and if photographing was appropriate/accepted?

 

Did you ask him if you could take his picture?

 

 

Ah! just as I thought!

I often get annoyed at the side-tracked comments of people commentating on others' comments, but then the thought occurred to me: maybe this is part of the point of POW having similar themes. Whether intended or not, it has certainly brought out a lot of discussion about photographers' integrity and how they view and respect their subject. Something I find interesting is seeing photographs from several people who have shot the same subject at the same place, and the different perspectives those photographs will show. The photographs we take are often a reflection of ourselves and how we view the world around us. Maybe what all this is bringing out is making us THINK about our subjects, not merely viewing the scene for its artistic quality, whether we've got the scene composed properly or the exposure just right--but what we feel about the subject. Does it have an impact on the person behind the lens, or just for those viewing the finished image?

 

Sometimes a photograph isn't taking a camera and composing a piece of artwork by recording how the light reflects off a subject, sometimes it IS just a record shot....a record of a split second in time of a view and a happening.

 

About the photograph itself (getting down to the nitpicky evaluation of photograph)--I find the background to be a bit too busy, my first impression is that it is a bit washed out. But as a record of a time and place, my eye wanders around the image, the more I look at it, the more detail I find, the more of a story that it tells.

Alot of comments re: this photo are really astonishing to me. Of course there are always those who find R. Frank, Friedlander, J. Koudelka without merit (not to put this photo in that category, but rather in that school.) I expect better, more thoughtful commentary here.

 

I think that this photo needs to be approached on both technique and subject. As far as technique goes it looks reasonable -- nice isolation of foreground/background through focus, decent exposure, etc. However, on closer look it does look as though there has been a fairly heavy handed amount of dodging and burning. I would have preferred to see the background burned more heavily ( but more seamlessly to have the subject stand out.

 

Ahh, the subject. Although I find that the expression of the man's face is beautiful and moving, I fear that it is plain dumbstruck grief. In that way, I don't see any difference between this photo and any taken by a journalist who has camped out to milk the latest disaster -- except that it is more exotic than the mother of a slain high school student. The beauty of the photo is at the expense of the photographer's intrusion at a private time. Pity.

 

The rest of the photos in the portfolio are worse, as they're very static documents without this photos power.

It my understanding that the photo of the week.Was to select a interesting photo every week.And have aplace where visitors and community members. Could comment on the technical points of the photo. not a place where we could gang up on the photogragher and attack his/her taste, judgement or morality. This is not the place for such comments.

 

In response to Edward's post - "Perhaps Anton's latest idiot comments aren't so far fetched afterall." - Well thanks for the - er -compliment Ed! I didn't realise that I was so prolifically idiotic, considering this was only my second posting, but I guess I am so terminally stupid that it has already become a pattern. Neither did I know that we should all stand in fear of your judgement.

 

So we are all capitalist imperialists looking to subjugate the world just because we appreciate a few photos from India? Get a grip. As someone who has "been all over the world" what was your reason for travelling? Were you in the Peace Corps, the military, a diplomat, or were you perhaps guilty of a little colonialist exploration yourself? Or is it perhaps more likely that people who travel (like you and I) are usually MORE aware of if only for being respectfully curious about other cultures, and thus, if I may be so bold, less enthnocentric? Is that so idiotic to suggest?

 

Now a story: When I was in Sumatra a man on the small island I was on passed away. My friends in the community invited me to the festivities to observe the local Batak dancing celebration.

 

Therefore, although I observed no smoldering corpses, I don't think that it is so far fetched that the photographer may have had permission to observe and even photograph the proceedings, especially if they were acquainted with the family. I don't doubt, as Mani says, that "almost all Hindus would find (this) sacrilegious", but if the family gave permission, can you blame the photographer?

 

And Edward who called this man in the picture a "noble savage"? I think it was you. I have seen many robed aesthetics and perhaps they still fill me with a sense of awe and reverence. I don't regard them as savages, but perhaps I should cultivate a more jaded perspective on people and places that are less familiar to me?

 

As to the issue that we chose pictures from an American perspective as being 'exotic' but to Indians it is just home. Well everyone in Asia commented on how strangely hairy I was so I feel your pain. Everyone is exotic to someone, and since this sight is run by Americans, I hope that you don't feel uncomfortable while recognizing our interest in your culture. Appreciate it because trust me there are far too many that aren't interested.

 

If people were exposed to and hence more aware of and hence sympathetic towards what actually goes on in "developing nations", including the commonality of death, then they would perhaps be more concerned about the exploitation that this one little photo seems somehow to exemplify.

 

Which leads to yet another "Apocolypse Now" irony: The "Heart of Darkness" ends with a conversation in which the protagonist, upon returning to England, shields the "Kurtz" character's fiancee from "the horror" of the reality of Congolese life. Conrad (a world traveler) was making a sad comment on how the British (ie. Westerners) at home remain blissfully unaware of the conditions in other countries and the consequences of their own lifestyles on persons abroad. If you know anything about Nike, Shell Oil, and a million other international organizations that exploit cheap labor or politically helpless people you would know that they too would not like anyone sharing pictures of unfortunate foreignors with an American audience. Much better to see happy pictures of Michael Jordan frollicking with Warner Bros. characters than "depressing" photos of Indonesian children paid 40 cents a day to construct $100 shoes.

 

And Edward, don't be fatuous; as you know perfectly well, it IS typical of Americans to never leave the country. 95% of yanks don't travel abroad. No exaggeration. How many even know where India, much less Thailand, Malaysia, Tibet, Bhutan or Indonesia, is? 1%? Which is perhaps why we elect a hyper-imperialist who has never been to Europe much less Asia to be in charge of this country.

 

Well I digress.

 

PS -

1.) In rereading my previous post, I was a bit harsh on the other commentors. I was being a litte reactionary but being Italian, I'm prone to that sort of thing. Sorry.

 

2.) There are many beautiful places in America that I have been. I was being slightly facetious regarding Dollywood and Aunt May's tupperware party. I take many pictures of my own family which I will kindly share with you if you wish.

 

3.) Maybe the joke's on us: I suspect Phil chose this subject to rile us into heated discussion. As someone pointed out a technically adept picture of Disneyland would qualify equally for this forum. It is evident from the discussion this picture has spurred more thought and healthy dialogue than Mickey Mouse ever would have.

 

Thanks for a lively discussion. Peace to all. Happy New Year.

 

I disagree with Micheal Ryan that one shoud post commnets on the POW only but not reflect on other issues related to photogrpahy. In fact, the comments for this week's POW are far more interesting than the POW itself.

I am happy with the way the discussion has turned in to. Interesting to see Edward and Anton lock horns.

The entire discussion has brought out moral and ethical issues of photography. I hope the judges pay attention to these comments and keep "exotic" aspects aside while choosing the picture of the week.

 

BTW where is the photographer, paul&patriz. I wish he came forward and said his views.

 

I do agree that it is a little too busy and the eye tends to wonder about to see what the photographer's trying to convey to his viewers. I would pick an object and in this case looks like the guy and would tend to blur out the background more and making this a stronger image.

thanks for the comments..the good and the bad.

for those who looked in the portfolio,the black and white photograps is my work,paul makes the color-pictures.

we lived and worked the last 6 years in india and traveled the country since longer time.

i spend many months roaming around in varanasi as a reportage-photograper.i worked in hospitals in calcutta and bombay as a volunteer with the dying

people.

about this POW..the man in the picture invited me to photograph the whole ceremonie and had no objection to make this public!also for my other pictures(see portfolio)i had the permission.

i don't shoot as a tourist,the way i always work is to stay with the models for houres,days,sometimes weeks,they trust me that i have no intention to hurt them in there emotions.

they understood it is a reportage about varanasi,

so..this IS varanasi!

i wish you all a happy new year and thanks again for the time you spend on the comments of this image.

PATRICIA

 

i liked the comments on the comments..it is a funny discussion.of course this is the intention of photonet..

by mistake i made some of my color-pictures from the pyre public in my portfolio,i apologises for this to those who find it distasteful.(it is deleted)

patriz competed in a international exhibition for freelance photographers with here pictures and was highly recommended as a reportage photographer.

she traveled alone as a young woman around india for years and went to rough times to shoot pictures from a culture that she find fascinating.

she loves and respect this beautiful country and to the hindus who are defended i ask you to understand why she choose varanasi as a subject..

it has absolutely nothing to do with sensation!!

it is about live itself.shanti.

PAUL

Regardless of how/why the photo was taken and how much time was spent with the subject(s), I agree with what edward rieux said about the praising of exotic photos on POW:

 

³Despite what others have crassly suggested, I am not jealous of all the photographs from south asia selected for POW but rather troubled by them. Written into these pictures and their selection is the imperial rhetoric of colonization. India was colonized by the british long ago--do we really need to continue this tradition of exploitation by praising yet another exotic photo--this time one that native Indians would find distastefull, disrespectful or even sacreligious? Besides, I am not sure how much photonetters can take of looking at pictures of impoverished women and children, of "noble savages" dressed up in long robes and such.

Perhaps Anton's latest idiot comments aren't so far fetched afterall. I have been all over the world but have never visited Ms. Parton's themepark. I assume that most of the other "typical Americans" on this site haven't either. Maybe Phil can scare up some photos of the place. As foreign and unfamiliar as they undoubtably are, I promise not to call them exotic.

 

-- edward rieux²

 

When at least two someone elses mentioned the film¹s ³Apocolypse Now²¹s famous tag line...

 

³The horror... the horror...²

 

I feel the same way - but about the prevalence (on POW) of these types of bland ethnographic record shots...

 

³The horror... the horror...²... of yet another ³exotic² ethnographic cliche¹d documentary/reportage snapshot. And yes, I do agree there are a disproportional amount of shots from India here in POW. But what dismays me more is that these/this shot(s) rarely transcend their cliche¹d subject matter. What offends me is that this (POW) seems to be the hall of pictorial cliche¹s, of Kodachrome (or in this age, Velvia?) sunsets, ethnographic people snapshots, etc. If you are going to shoot a cliche¹ how about a new angle on it instead of the brooding Mary Ellen Marks eyed man in grief snapshot/documentary type shot shown here instead of just an easy photogenic target of a person in grief (whether he allowed the shots to be taken or not).Is it just me or do some others see this too? - this shot has all the photogenic intrigue of an accident photo but at the same time shows little else beyond ³here¹s the (fascinating/photogenic/intriguing situation) subject matter.² There is sight here but there is little ³insight² that goes beyond just a mere record shot with some kind of artisitic seeing/interpretation of the²easy target² subject matter. There is subject matter (which may or may not be highly chraged for some for vaious reasons) - but no ³content² (interpretation/something to say about that subject matter). All the photographer¹s work with the Peace Corp and the dying is more than admirable, and the fact that she establishes a long(ish) term relationshionship with her subjects is an added plus, but that still doesn¹t change the effect of and the mode that the subject was seen in - no effect (on me as any kind of photographic statement other than ³here¹s the shot/subject matter²) and snapshot mode of an ³exotic² subject. Technical matters aside (and who is to say, having not seen the original photo, how well the scan does justice to the print or negative), photography, to me at least, is more about seeing in the interpretive sense rather than mere recording.Anybody can make a pleasing yet boring snapshot of an interesting/photogenic subject and come out with a half decent photograph if the photo is reasonably well composed/exposed. But that¹s still half a photograph. I will give credit where credit is due and applaud the photographer for capturing the ³moment² of the cow coming down the ramp, but this decisive moment, even with me knowing that this is a cremation and how Hindu¹s consider cows ³holy² still doesn¹t make any statement in particular to me. Its interesting moment is just eye candy but says nothing to me about the man or his situation other than this is what happened at that particular moment - no interpretation, no commentary on that man and/or his life or the situation and/or grief that he finds himself in at the moment (even though his expression of grief/intensity is also well recorderd, recorded, but not commented on in any way in the shot). But a photograph is (or at least can be) more than just a pointing finger (a camera making a record shot of a collection of unrelated yet intriguing shot elements) but a smoking gun that has fired off some kind of emotion or insight, not only by pointing at the subject, but *about* the subject and back at the photographer through that photographer¹s interpretation of the subject. Photography, to me, anyways, is about seeing from the inside out and more than just a mirror on the subject but a window to both the photographer¹s and the subject¹s soul/essence. And I get none of that here (from this shot) - I merely get an ³exotic² cliche¹d snapshot/record - not a photographer (or a photograph) with a particular point of view on its subject. I guess (at least some) mere reportage snapshot photography (that stands like a silver eyed fly on the wall, silent and without comment(ary)) doesn¹t do it for me...

 

As for me, I want to see a tastefully done sensitive portrayal photograph of the cow¹s Bar Mitzvah celebration at Dollywood - with a McDonalds (over how many served?) sign in the background that shows by the cow¹s twisted expression the cow¹s inner turmoil at being caught between two cultures, the spirituality of Judaism and the consumeristic insanity of American culture - to make the shot more acceptable and pleasing and ³exotic² to the powers that be we could dress it up in an Indian robe but have its Yarmulke (sp?) be a designer one from Ralph Lauren. We could call the shot¹s title - ³L¹Cowyim!² (it means ³To Life!²) in Cowish/Kiddish) ;-). Some may think this tasteless of me, but at least a photo (idea proposed) in bad taste is better than a photo with no flavor at all. And, yes, I¹d like a ham and cheese sandwhich with a vanilla malted (tofu and non-dairy of course if you want to be kosher about it) to go with that cheeseburger/this in bad taste photo idea please, hold the pickles (sorry, for my faux paux, I forgot that this shot wasn¹t about about Burger King... or maybe it is in a more metaphorical way...)...

 

(For those who want to go PC - but Power Macintoshes are always better ;-)):

 

By the way, to any Jews who may be offended by my non-PC humor, well I come from a Jewish background, so bite me - literally (but I have to let you know that if you bite me that I am non-Kosher and taste better with Thousand Island dressing than with potato kinnishes... :-)). I suffered through a Bar Mitzvah and a littany of tasteless Jewish comedians (from the Poconos and beyond) so now its your turns... :-)

 

If I have offended any Hindus and/or cows in this post I have to say - I still stick to my ³guns² - I want a shot that ³mooooooooooooooooooooves² me more (emotionally) about (point of) ³voooooooooooooooooiewing² life than on the level of just showing its stark ³exotic² ³photogenic² subject matter.

 

As for offending the home of the big red and white (and blue happy sunshined skied) clown (no not the White House or its current residents but that other place with the St. Peter¹s-like arches of hamburger heaven and cheeseburglar hell) - I promise to eat all of my many happy meals next time so Santa will think I¹m a good goy(im) so in the spirit of MasterCard and Visa Santa (who¹se real identity is Ed McMahon) can max out my whilst leaving me many presents and a letter (from Publisher¹s Clearing house telling me that I, yes, ³I,² may have just one $1,000,000) under the burning Chanuka Bush or is that Gore - now where did I put those dimpled ballots?

 

Flame away, but I stand my ground, and I don¹t wish to get in a heated debate about my comments, or the photograph itself, I just want to say what I see (or don¹t see) in this photograph and where and why I think it succeeds in some areas yet fails in others. So wohoever want s to argue with me will/should have a very interesting argument with themselves :-). As that wise sage of tv (and movie star according to Saddam), Bart Simpson, once said (don¹t) ³have a cow, man² - or was that O.J.in ³Naked Gun² (or real life)?

i saw your homepage and was really amazed..very impressif work you have there..wauw!!..top level!I RECOMMEND!!

about yours and edward's comments on patriz' POW or "exotic" photo's..i can not interely agree with you.

when you live in that country,it is not exotic anymore,you become part of it,it is the same if you would shoot a picture in your back-garden. Colonisation?? my god..we live in the year 2000 now!...we live on planet earth..don't we???i found your work from a high artistic level,if you are not offended by a litle joke..the colours are really EXOTIC!

in my view.. there are only pictures,wherever you shoot them.take patriz' picture for example..it opend a discussion like never before on this side..more about everything around the picture than the image itself...for some people morally distasteful for others it thatch the soul, that's the beauty of it!

all humans live in there own reality and be confronted with there own emotions wich gives them his or her views of how they feel and see things,thats the only way to discover the truth..actualy it dos not exist,and your pictures are a living proof of what i mean..so?by the way..i don't know anything about photography..this is just my opinion about relativity.PAUL

Thank you Paul for your kind comments about my work.

 

You said:

 

"..i can not interely agree with you. when you live in that country,it is not exotic anymore,you become part of it,it is the same if you would shoot a picture in your back-garden."

 

Ok, I'll agree that India, since you've been living there awhile, its no longer "exotic" to you, but I still must maintain that it is my current belief that pictures from India are favored here precisely because the Americans who run this site find foreign lands and India in particular "exotic."

 

You said:

 

" Colonisation?? my god..we live in the year 2000 now!...we live on planet earth..don't we???"

 

Actually its the year 2001 (boy time sure does fly when your crossing milleniums...) :-). Yes we all do live on planet Earth (I have it on good reprot though that I'm from a different solar system (somewhere left of Antares but before the interstellar exit for the M31 galaxy, about 5 parsecs from the nearest mall/(up)Chuck-E-Cheese) but I'll leave that secret up to my High Commander or The Big Giant Head (characters on "3rd Rock From The Sun" TV show), but I'll be willing to meet you at least half way and say that since I've never lived in India and don't know what its like now, that I should withhold my judgement as to the level of its current colonization. However after so many years of Brittish rule, it would be surprising (to me and it seems to me some others here) that a "colonial mentality" might not be reasonably attributed to the/any photographer who took the picture (whether the photographer has that mentality or not) - if I have done this in error (or for any other reason), I apologize.

 

You said:

 

"i found your work from a high artistic level,if you are not offended by a litle joke..the colours are really EXOTIC!"

 

Actually they are not as "exotic" as the original scenes I photographed ;-) but I understand your point, anyway.

 

You said:

 

" in my view.. there are only pictures,wherever you shoot them.take patriz' picture for example..it opend a discussion like never before on this side..more about everything around the picture than the image itself...for some people morally distasteful for others it thatch the soul, that's the beauty of it!"

 

I Agree...

 

You said:

 

" all humans live in there own reality and be confronted with there own emotions wich gives them his or her views of how they feel and see things,thats the only way to discover the truth..actualy it dos not exist,"

 

You said:

 

First you say that human beings have feelings to discover the truth and then you say that the truth doesn't exist. Don't you find this to be a bit of a contradiction here?

 

You said:

 

"and your pictures are a living proof of what i mean..so?"

 

Actually I'm the one that's living but my pictures are meant to be my artistic representation/"interpretation of the way I see an independent truth(s)/reality. They are more proofs of the way I opinionatedly see/interpret an independent reality, not proof that that reality doesn't exist objectively. To get a better idea of where I'm coming from in general behind my photography (my mindset) you might want to have a look at both my interview and my art statement on my web site (bring lots of paper to print out the interview - its a book unto itself ;-)). But the above capsulizes what/how/why I take my photographs anyway.

 

You said:

 

"by the way..i don't know anything about photography..this is just my opinion about relativity.PAUL

 

-- paul &patriz"

 

I know next to nothing about photography ;-) but I am trying to teach myself more so we're in the same boat, if not exactly on the same wavelength (but close). Except for Einstein's theory of rleativity in Physics, I personally think that there is/are an independent truth(s) to reality, which sometimes may or may not be verifiable by the mind of man (depending on the individual truth(s) in question) - but that wont stop people from making theories/opinions about both the verifiable and unverifiable parts of reality.

 

What I find interesting about photography in particular (and Art in general) is that a photographer/artist can make photographic interpretations of their perceptions of that stand alone truths, and, as you mentioned, each viewer will add to that their own take/opinion on that photographic (or any other medium) representation. Interpretation (photographic or otherwise like writing, painting, etc.) and the audiences interpretation of that interpretive statement (photograph, book, painting, movie, etc.) is where it gets really interesting for me..

 

Einstein said it best so I'll leave (well... almost) on his words/this note...

 

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"... (and this from a scientist whose life was about the search for truth! :-) And the only thing I could add to Einstein's quote is that even though "Imagination is more improtant than knowledge" to make sure you bring enough film to record that imagination (Astia, TMax, Tri-X, HP5 Plus, Velvia, Kodachrome, etc.).

 

3Photography without a mind is like Kodachrome without sunshine2 - LL

 

Lewis Lang (Yes that1s my Photography/Kodachrome quote of myself directly above ;-)).

 

P.S. - The full title of my commentary had to abreviated in order for me to post this comment without error so here is the title in full, thanks...

 

Mulder and Sculley Hot on The Trail of Alien Santa Claus - The Truth Is (Way...) Out There - But Sometimes The Interpretations (of our own experiences with/opinions about an objective truth) Are Even Further Out There... :-) :-)

Either I'm drunk or Lewis Lang is, but anyway...

 

You know what? The type of photograph that you describe (cow's inner turmoil at being caught between two cultures, etc. etc. etc.) is what I would call a clichéd photo. Everyone is doing that today -- have been, in fact, for the last ten years. I generally don't like photographs which are massively complex in execution and subject matter, yet only show two simplified and often exaggerated viewpoints (like the one you suggest). I realize you only give this as an example, but your argument seems to be that this photograph is too superficial for your liking, which I can't really understand, given the fact that it has been interpreted as various ideas from ridiculously wrong (mine! :) ) to near enough the truth (a couple of the Indians who commentated).

 

As for colonialism, youre kidding, aren't you? India has been an independent country for half a century, is self-governed, has a huge trade network, is developing at an incredible rate, and will become the most powerful country on earth in the not *too* distant future. Great Britain has about as much say about matters in India as it does in China... or the rest of the world, for that matter.

 

Colonialism is dead and buried, matey, but had it not taken place, the worlds people would still be bickering about which berries are better for curing raw-meat induced diarrhoea, not whether or not Macs are better than PCs (although I admit they may have been smart enough to see that of course Macs are better).

Gee,what a discussion!This is not a schoolphoto,so

if you like it or not,it is in the first place a

work of art,it is a expression of an artist,judge

it that way.I had the opportunity to look at her

work on a big international photo-exhibition in

Belgium.Her photo's where among the best shown there and the national Press agreed whit that,it

was outstanding!Don't make a fuz about technik,

sharpness,color or subject,judge it like it is,a

great work of Art! Greetz,Gento.

With the quality of ilford, you should have no problem with a plain print. You can try print it in a more contrast paper, and inverse your dodge and burn method for better result and accuracy.

All the B&Ws in this portfolio have superb composition - a real fluidity of movement that makes me want to start again. I don't know whether the finished pix were darkroomed or photoshopped (I suspect darkroom) but the only quibble is that some of the dodge&burn is a little heavy handed. Photoshop would fix that and make these really fabulous display prints.

The image is interesting, I do like the angle, but it is underexposed and could use some burning to more separate the man from the surrounding. I am very much intrigued by his gaze.

 

To Mr. Dillworth

Colonialism is dead due to the fact that it is far to costly to maintain and usually makes you look like a group of thugs holding an entire country hostage.

 

So today it is referred to as neo-colonialism!

the economic and political policies by which a great power indirectly maintains or extends its influence over other areas or people.

 

Or is it only my imagination that Nike and many others are able to receive cheap labor at 15 hours a day, 7 days a weak, and with laws in China which make it illegal to form labor unions. I don't think that I need mention the link between the lack of democracy in the Middle East and the huge amounts of Oil (blood) money that makes bits way to the West. I don't give billions of dollars to Israel, Egypt, and Turkey, but the American government does. Respectively ... Theocracy (Israel - As fake a democracy as the one found in the United States) - Autocracy (Egypt - Mubarak doesn't hold power alone) - Turkey (Military Junta - might as well be with the number of times the military has dissolved the government)

Like it - blurring is a little confusing though - comments about the background may be valid - not convinced though. Try and ignore the ignorant comments made by some such as Edward . . . who clearly have nothing constructive to say. Edward, keep your comments to yourself old boy, OK? Nice effort Patricia.