Trailer Park Galm

Every cliche about trailer parks. It has Ben done and overdone before. The kid hung up to dry, however, is quie original.

Wonder how that was done.

What's a "Galm" is my first thought...I can't warm to this image. Obviously not in a trailer park - looks like a back yard. Where's the trailer? It is illustrating a cliché and that's OK, but as a photograph it has little that attracts me aesthetically. The even light makes it look as though it was shot in a studio, which I don't think helps it. I think if it really was illustrating inhabitants of a trailer park that might actually be interesting, even if they were not engaged in the clichéd activities shown.

According to google "galm" means...

So that's what this photo is about. How imaginative.
Or maybe it's a misspelling of "Glam" as in reference to trailer park glamour.

As someone who started out in early married life in my twenties as a trailer dweller raising a child, I never saw any of the objects or decor presented in the photo so I'm having a hard time relating and can only see this as a cartoon like homage to what appears to be urban grunge hillbilly culture without the meth and alcohol addictions. An out of touch homage at best.

In fact I look back to 1982 with a heart of romanticism on my life and the wife of my youth who is now an executive at AT&T sans yours truly and wished I'ld had a camera so I could tell my real story of trailer life. We actually lived in the exact same trailer model used in the 1953 "Long, Long, Trailer" movie starring Lucile Ball and Desi Arnaz.

Without a doubt, one of the most stupid photographs I've ever had the displeasure to view.

I wish I'd never clicked on the thumbnail. Can Photo.net return the two or three minutes out of my life that I wasted looking at this?

This is garbage...a complete waste of time, pixels, and bandwidth.

Looking through Kris's portfolio, I see there is an attempt at obviously staged photos and some degree of satire. I think the obviousness of this staging telegraphs that it is not trying to be anything but what it is and I sense it's exaggerated purposely, lighting and all, but that can only be a guess (which comes from the context of the photographer's other work). That doesn't excuse insensitivity, which the photographer's bio seems to address in its concern for acceptance of diversity, which I have no reason not to take at face value. So, perhaps this is meant as some sort of joke but just comes out the wrong way. I think there are possibilities in trying to take a cliché so far that it actually transforms it either into something meaningful or something ironic or something just plain funny. For me, this misses. Satire can be rich, but it's risky because when it misses it often does so with a very loud and unfortunate thud. And even the best satire angers a lot of people. Given the rest of what I see, and not knowing the photographer at all, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say it is a miss but not an intentional slur. Whether that matters is only for each of us to decide. Non-intentional but perceived slurs can still be quite hurtful. I can understand the offense some are experiencing here, and freedom of expression importantly works both ways . . . the photographer is granted it and the responders are granted it as well. And kudos for speaking honestly. If nothing else, this is hopefully a learning experience.

Sterotypes, yes, but all sterotypes have some basis in truth. In this case, the photographer took the sterotypes to the extreme, much like many sitcoms do ("My Name Is Earl" anyone). I don't find it offensive, and I doubt those who live in trailer parks would either. As far as the technical execution, I think it's well done, and Kris did capture many of the props associated with the stereotypical trailer park family. I didn't really take the little girl as being hung out to dry, but simply playing with whatever was available to play with. The idea of her being hung on the line is rather funny though. Perhaps a clothespin or two attached to her would have made the intent obvious (some of us need to be hit in the head with bricks, just ask my wife).

I'm not particularly a fan of posed situational photos, so don't really like it from that respect, but for what it is, it is fine.

I do not like this image. The idea of a photo illustration for the concept of glamorized "trailer trash" may be a good one but the execution is done in both poor taste and poor technique. It certainly shows little aspect of imagination as suggested by the heading.

I get the impression the photog has never been to a real trailer park because the staging doesn't follow even at camp levels. The hodgepodge of cliche elements are strewn about with no thought to composition. I think they may have been going for a "rich tapestry" feel but it just looks busy with no real eye follow around the scene. While the female model tries for some expression the rest of the figures are wooden and lifeless. The cut-and-paste girl on a line is exceptional in it's poor execution.

The whole sense is a like a bad joke not told well. I struggle to find anything to even offer as improvement other than scrap the set and start with a fresher concept.

Here's a link that will offer some context to the picture:
http://www.refinedrebel.org/2013/09/13/596/

I can see a lot of effort went into staging the set, but my immediate impression is that a few props were haphazardly tossed together to loosely communicate Christmas at a trailer park that neither communicates a trail park nor a studio set effectively.

The Photoshopping of the kid on the clothesline is also rough; her weight is enough to break the line yet she barely weighs enough in the photo to sag the line.

The man can be a bit more expressive to better harmonize the comical look.

Two words sum up my appraisal of this image - no go.

The man looks too patrician to be the stereotypical so-called trailer trash.

My dad lived out his last days in a mobile home park. He was tired of the hassles of home ownership and found

apartment living confining. He was looked up to by the community because he was an engineer. Most of the community

were blue collar workers, the sort people who are easy to poke fun at by the well to do. I, then a teenager, did so. My

father said: They are good people, only they never had the advantages you have had. This changed my life.

This photograph is not a picture of what I remember from my dad's mobile home park. I still say that this offensive.

The work submitted to the POW must be assessed by the technique and aesthetic. As technical work, it follows the rules of good photography. The object is nicely framed. The picture presents a balanced distribution of positive and negative spaces. The rule of thirds is nicely applied, involving the main actors in the scene. The work presents an excellent balance between the cool colors and warm colors. The tone control is very good too. The sharpness and luminosity/brightness are very good.  As for aesthetics, we're looking at a work of art. Art is art. The evaluation of a work of art depends a lot on the evaluator's ability to understand the intent of the author of the work. In my opinion, the author's intention is to show, critically and with allegories, the way of life of the average American people. I think the kid hanging on the rope is an allegory of bad taste that undermines the harmony of the work of art. Any work of art must have aesthetic harmony. My suggestion to get the aesthetic harmony of this work of art is: 1) The kid hanging on the rope may be replaced by a puppy or a kitten rested near the tire. 2) On the rope, in kid's place, could be hung a Confederate flag as well to the taste of American southerners or a Texas flag or even the flag that is stuck in the box of beer cans. My rates: 6 for technique and 4 for aesthetic.

No funk shui.

I don't find this offensive. Some of my rural family, friends and neighbors lived in trailers. Heck, I lived in one for awhile. The theme isn't too far from reality for some folks.

I immediately thought of the great Coen brothers film "Raising Arizona", which had not only great visuals throughout the movie - the set design was perfect - but also one of the most memorable movie promotional photos (I preferred the version with the lawn chairs on the desert over the stylized movie poster with the desert stripped out).

But for this POTW, the satire falls flat because it's a cluttered inauthentic mess. Great concept. Exposure and lighting are fine. Just too much... stuff. Especially the mid-ground between the adults. And the arrangement of elements seems neither carefully designed nor random - just... awkward. Like the partially visible doodad (hummingbird feeder?) on the fence behind the woman's head. Why would a hummingbird feeder be there? Even trailer trash know better than that. And the overall composition and arrangement are neither symmetrical nor artistically asymmetrical. There's no flow or line. It just looks like a bunch of props that were shoved together from the sides into the frame.

But it doesn't have the organic sense of real life clutter that accumulates over time due to neglect and indifference. There's no funk shui.

I wanted to enjoy this as a bit of whimsy and novelty, but it just doesn't click.

Roldão: Displaying the lifestyle of average American people is a legitimate purpose for a photograph. So is providing satire. This image fails on both counts; if you doubt this, please reread Lex's comments.

And, by the way, what constitutes an average American person?

Roldão, I disagree with you on a couple of things.

In order to evaluate art, I don't necessarily need to have a clue about the artist's intentions. There may not even be an artist, and even if there is, a work of art will often go way beyond the intentions of the artist. Many works of art are not actually created but rather discovered or found. It's also possible that this is just a photo not trying to be and not succeeding at being art. That's OK. Not all photos are art and not all photos have to be seen as art or critiqued as art.

Secondly, there is no rule, written or unwritten, that says a POW "must" be assessed by technique and aesthetics. If I want to stick to the ethics of a picture, well then that is what I will do. That's not usually my habit and not what I did here, but if others want to assess a photo on other than technical or aesthetic qualities, that's their business and their right.

Entering this POW,my first impression was a " huge "clutter of elements that really was a work that I did not want to explor farthere.
But I gave it another look . The composition does not work ( for me)at all, the child on the rope is bizarre to say the least. If I will look at it as just a photograph, it has not anything to offer as a nice/ interesting way of life , for me as the viewer.

I don't find anything impressive about this. I like satire and poking fun but I can't see that this makes it on any level. Everything in the photo is too new, for one thing.

Well, I get the idea, this photo is supposed to be a joke or fun. And while individual elements work really well in that respect (I like the girl landing on the tyre), the overall assembly (I wouldn't call this a "composition") fails unfortunately for me. First, most of the elements do not connect visually (e.g. very simply, if the guy had a pink dot resembling the woman's chewing gum, there'd be a stronger tie between them). Second, technically there are some disturbing errors - e.g. the t-shirts have shadows, the girl hanging on the line does not - I really like the idea of the kid hung out to dry, but it feels too misplaced to be sufficiently authentic (even for the limited authenticity level required for a work like this).
Maybe, most reactions are negative because it's not entirely clear what or whom this photo mocks - is it trailer park people? Is it the whole American (or even western) society? Would it make a difference if we'd see celebreties or politicians in this jamboree?

You aren't serious, are you? Or are you deliberately trying to offend people?

Sure, throw in the Confederate flag and add yet another ridiculous stereotype to a photograph that's already bloated with stereotypical elements.

As a Southerner, I'm sick of people looking at the Confederate flag as a symbol of being some sort of slothful redneck (among other distasteful things).

I don't know which is more stupid. Your idea of adding a Confederate flag, or your thinking that it might somehow add a "tasteful" aspect to this photograph in the eyes of Southerners.

Looking at the comments above : offense, satire, stereotypes, stupid, not a picture of what I remember from my dad's mobile home park etc, maybe the reactions just tell us all that KrisD succeeded with what he was up to.
I agree, that KrisD could have limited the number of references and visual puns. One could however say that some of Jeff Wall's staged photographic works have the same social critic and overload as this POW, like this one.

There are many odd ways to judge "success." One popular one seems to be to generate a bunch of negative criticisms and then figure that true artists create controversy or disturb people. As I see it, though, there's a not-so-fine line between being ahead of your audience and rationalizing away valid critiques.

No-one "rationalizes away valid critiques" (who, around here, has been elevated to be the judge of validity of critiques, anyway - not me at least). My suggestion is the simple one, that also Fred can understand, if he is willing, that if KrisD tried to provoke with his staged photo, he succeeded.
How that can be considered as "odd", escapes me, but I'm not really interested in knowing the reason.

For the record, Kris is female.