Untitled

It falls right in with your "documentary" style and your recognition of irony and pathos.

 

It is a straightforward and direct shot like so many of yours.

 

The lighting even adds to a sense of spirituality or at least innocence.

 

It is a really well-done photograph.

 

As a creative shot of your two grandchildren, I can see it being precious.

 

Because it has such documentary quality and potential, its falseness is troubling.

Without burdening you too much, could you explain the "troubling" part. Do you mean because somebody might take it as serious documentary? If that is the case, what would the harm be in that? I kind of made an effort to make it look like a serious shot, as opposed to a just playing around type of shot. Are you implying that if it made someone think about the abuse and cruelty that humans engage in against both children and adults, that it would be a bad thing? Not debating, just curious, as you know I'm always interested in your thoughts and respect them greatly. Thanks Fred.

I think provoking the kind of thoughts you're talking about is a good thing. You often do it successfully with your photographs.

 

But I do think photographers, particularly documentarians, bear a responsibility. I know you well enough to have assumed, immediately upon seeing this, that it was probably your grandchildren. That took away any power that a documentary-like statement would have had, for instance if you had gone out and found actual poor children suffering and empathetically recorded that. Reading through the comments also troubled me. "Charm" was mentioned. An obviously tongue-in-cheek reference was made to child discipline. You, yourself said you were glad most people associated fun and play acting with this. I think the message and purpose is confused. Were you having fun with the kids and is the whole thing cute or were you trying to make a serious statement? My personal opinion is that there is enough of each aspect in this to detract from both.

My dear, it is the connotation it brings to the viewer. we knew it is your grandchildren, but still the connotation is there if we want it or not.

 

Your grandchildren are adorable, and real good collaborators with their grandfather ;-))

Fred, having followed Dave's work for a while, I never took this shot as a serious documentary shot. Just about all of his work is tongue in cheek, though there always seems to be some serious under current for those who wish to see it. Obviously the two kids are not poor children locked up in a child labor camp, their appearance is way too 'western world' for that. You say the message and purpose is confused. Isn't that the way most issues are, though? Very little black and white in this world of ours. Below are communist children - Vietnamese. They don't have the liberties we do, they live in a communist country, they ARE poor, yet they sure look happy, don't they? Yep, it is a confusing world and sometimes a little satire and fun helps us to deal with it. Anyway, that's how I see it. B ;)

I agree with you that very little in this world is black and white and much is confusing.

 

I know and respect David enough to feel comfortable bringing up the issue. I think it's important for all of us to consider how seriously we take what we put out there as photographers and what meanings our photographs may carry.

 

I doubt I would have made my thoughts known if David had not already mentioned his feelings of guilt surrounding the image.

 

I also think there's a difference between addressing the confusing aspects of an issue and participating in the confusion. I am still troubled by the setup here. I don't see the charm and I don't experience the serious aspect as real, just manufactured. That is not my experience with most other David Meyer photographs, which I find to be true and genuine even as they are ironic and satiric.

David: I never took this seriously. She is obviously panning for the camera, and they are well nourished, well dressed children, in what is obviously an abandoned facility. Probably a tour? No doubt your grandaughter wants to stay with you-you're probably fun!! good work, as usual..(I had originally thought they were your children-and was going to suggest you leave them there for the next 12 years, to save yourself aggravation)...your work speaks a younger tone than your being a grandpa...lauren

Thanks to all of you for your further contributions. I love this sort of give and take. I'll admit that I'm still struggling with how this is being read. I said at the outset that I was relieved that others didn't seem to feel that it was too emotionally cloying (for lack of a better word). I said even though it was set up in fun, and that I knew there was nothing documentary about it, there was still a very unsettling nature to it, and I still feel very much that way. I don't know if it is the depiction itself, or if it is the emotional investment in its subjects. Probably both. Nevertheless, even though I accept the lighthearted aspect of it, I also see a deadly serious side to it. After all, the fact that an actor does a good job is not held against him/her. I can look at this image, and get very frightened about the possible scenarios it represents. Those who expressed a rather comic approach, were well received on my part, because I was glad that they thought it was fun and games. I first feared that I might have stepped over the line.

 

So how to take it? I still don't know. The one thing I'm still not quite understanding with Fred's comment is if it disappoints because it is so obviously fake, or because it is real in appearance, but a fake in reality, thus becoming a lie.

"because it is real in appearance, but a fake in reality, thus becoming a lie."

 

That would be close to my take, although put a little more bluntly than I might.

Why can't I ever get this kind of conversation going on one of my photos (hint, hint, people!)? David, I need to borrow your grandchildren sometime.

Granted, it is real in appearance (I'm taking that as a compliment, even though I don't think you meant it that way), and it is a fake. So why is that so terrible? If I take a picture of a rose, and up the saturation, is that the same thing? I understand that if I were a newspaper photographer and used the image to illustrate abused children, that that would not be honest journalism. But why does this image so wrong in your mind? Simply because it might mislead someone? Isn't all art a lie within which we try to find truth? I'm not trying to engage you in debate so much as trying to understand your reaction. Please bear with me, because I'm sometimes a bit slow.

I've been really fortunate in that respect. Fred is an awesome intellect, and generous with his knowledge.

"I understand that if I were a newspaper photographer and used the image to illustrate abused children, that that would not be honest journalism."

 

Honesty is the standard I apply not just to journalism but to all photography that I take at all seriously. That is the key here. I don't see honesty in this photo. I don't see honesty in oversaturated landscapes or flower photos either, so your analogy is apt.

 

Perhaps it can be better illustrated with a couple of examples. Look at the nudes on PN of John Peri and then look at the nudes of Gary Treadwell. Peri's are fabricated images, cold and emotionally distant. Treadwell's show a connection between subject and photographer, a meaningfulness of subject totally lacking and absent in Peri's work. Of course, Peri is the more popular, which shows, to be truthful, that my perspective is the minority one.

 

What Peri's work is lacking, for me, is that it is so staged and so uninvolved. It is *merely* a presentation, not Peri truly giving of himself and not Peri drawing on the actual humanity of his subjects. What I see in your photo here, regarding the more serious questions, is staged and uninvolved. Involved, for sure, in the lives of your grandchildren, but not directly involved in the subject matter you appear to be addressing.

 

What would move me? It would be for David Meyer to address such a subject as child neglect or abandonment or imprisonment directly, just as David Meyer relates to old trucks and old motels and old streets and old buildings. I don't see you going around the side of your nicely kept house and stripping the paint off in spots so you can take pictures of worn walls. You go out and you find those old walls and you connect with them in their environment, you feel them, and you find their meaning and you convey that meaning to me through your photographs. That's what you need to do in order to move me with a subject like poor or abandoned children. This photo brings the matter up. That's not enough. That's just a reminder. If you want to move me, give me something real. Take a chance. Show me you're willing to confront it like you're willing to risk what you risk sometimes to get other shots you want.

 

Or don't. This is a tall order for any photographer and a grand task. I've not done this kind of documentary photography myself, although I do pride myself on taking some chances. But I think hinting at such deep truths and feelings by this kind of image is simply pretending. It's like the old adage, "write what you know about." Your audience (if it is, indeed, an audience that compliments you by having high expectations of you) wants to feel your feelings directly and intimately and wants to experience your genuine connections to your subject matter. If they are content with this as an image showing your connection to your grandchildren and a day spent in theatrics, fine. But it seems to me to be hinting at something more than just that playfulness. I am moved by the photo of your granddaughter playing hopscotch. I find that genuine and unself-conscious. I feel it as a real image of a doting grandfather and a playful child. Here, I feel there is more depth and meaning you might be searching for in terms of an approach to your own social and political awareness. I know you have deep and sincere feelings about less fortunate kids in this world. I am encouraging you, if you so desire, to find the real thing and not to create it in an easy world of play acting. Don't make us *think of* unfortunate kids. Make us *feel* what you feel when you think of or experience unfortunate kids.

Okay, I think I see what you have been trying to say. I'm not going to argue the point. It has merit. And it provides a standard which I'm not sure I can attain. But it is tasty bite of the good fruit of knowledge which may be difficult to digest but provides nourishment nonetheless. Thanks for being so helpful in explaining your thoughts. BTW, your example of Mr. Peri expressed my own feeling about his nudes quite perfectly. I won't go into that. The other fellow I am unfamiliar with, but will check out.

This is good David. Despite the humor and the fun your grandchildren express in playing the scene, I think I understand the reason why you felt sad and a little guilty after doing the picture. I think I would've had the same kind of feeling, yet it is a very nice, humorous shot. It's funny how the kids take away the sad part of it and make it all fun.

Thanks. I think it's a highly contextual image. Everyone knowing me and the circumstances takes it in a light hearted manner. However, if for one moment I allow myself to imagine any reality in the situation, I become somewhat emotional. I would be heartbroken if anything like this ever became reality.