sallymckay-lepage

Flemming, considering the state of my garage chances are I'll never find the original paper,

at least not on New Years day. (It was a good night)

Anyway to help clarify my thought today I found a fairly reliable <a href="http://

content.cdlib.org/view;jsessionid=hyfVcvo5HK4TNhHE?

docId=ft3f59n5wt&chunk.id=omca_727">web site</a>, which indicates how Lange and

Taylor would submit both their field notes, captions, written quotations and so on along

with the images to the FSA. Basically by comparing Langes work to Krugers I attempted to

establish a dialogue between the written word and the photographic image, a sort of

symbiotic relationship in which the text informed the image and visa versa. Okay now my

head hurts. I'll need to find the paper to give you a better idea of where I was headed.

Happy New Year all.

Sally

I think you need to investigate further the characteristics of signs and symbols in order to

argue one way or the other. I wrote a paper several years back, which really got me

thinking. In the paper I proposed and discussed the similarities adherent to the work of

Dorothea Lang (The Farm Securities Commission) and Barbara Kruger. Decades apart and

aesthetically different their work seemed to me to be driven in part by the same desire to

fuse text and image: not to present one form or sign differently or independently from the

other. Keeping in mind you can't read either the text or the images independently from

the social setting in which they were created the paper argued that you can't view the two

mediums separately.

You may also be interested in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=2123578">this image</a> and the discussion it created, thinking with words.

(I'm PT in this case)

Great question. Loads to think about!

Sally

......perhaps the question has already been answered?

Pause for thought.

Sally

........

So, to this end the POW forum is above all else a high profile forum needing

narrow comment guidelines in order to keep the abuse too a minimum.

Hmmm, then why chose to highlight content that will generate precisely the

kind of comments that the guidelines deem too controversial?

Sally

Mike said........'It's obvious (to me, anyway) that the originator of this thread is

more passionate about grandstanding on a controversial topic than having a

substantive discussion of that topic in an appropriate (and still readily-

accessible) venue.'

Mike first off I didn't realize the need to RSVP. Sorry but I am unable to make

it.:)

Secondly,I have only recently had the pleasure of talking with Christos.

Undeniably he is passionate. Any comments made by him though are his

comments. Please don't attack my motives based upon someone else's

response. As I have already been reminded by one member.....There is no

conspiracy.

Finally, the appropriate place to have this discussion has not yet in my

opinion been determined. My original post has less to do with philosophy and

more to the point everything to do with making good choices and at the very

least taking responsibility for the bad ones. Why can't we (for now)have a

substantive discussion right here? I have no problem with that.

Sally

I 'm sorry Andrew I just realized I didn?t reply to your last post?. I meant to.

To answer what was probably a rhetorical question, this site is, in my opinion,

first and foremost a place to critique photographs and learn from them.

However, I also think that in order to do that you can't separate the aesthetics

from the true soul of the work: it's message. To do so is like discussing the

typeface and cover of a novel without discussing the plot. It might keep you

busy for a while but ultimately you leave knowing nothing more about the

book than when you started.

Sally

Mary again thanks for the clarification.

So, to this end the POW forum is above all else a high profile forum needing

narrow comment guidelines in order to keep the abuse too a minimum.

Hmmm, then why chose to highlight content that will generate precisely the

kind of comments that the guidelines deem too controversial?

Sally

Lex, Hitler changed the lives of millions if not potentially billions of people. I

doubt Igor's photographs will have the same effect. I do get the message

though.

However, to borrow from your analogy, let's make George W. Time man of this

year. But we can't discuss the war, the environment, the economy, the Patriot

Act, the House of Saud, the hanging chads and the list goes on. And for god

sakes someone keep that Moore fellow out of the discussion. That would be

ludicrous won't it?

Sally

Knicki, the original question posed by the Elves......."Lots of beautiful images

in this photographer's folders. This one is perhaps one of his most gentle

nudes. We found the balance in the picture was worth commanding. The

composition is also very suggestive, as the shapes of the hills seem to act as

an echo to the woman's body shapes. A nude with some elegance. What do

you think?"

Call me wacky but did they not make the connection in the first sentence?

Sally

Andrew, Feminists from at least most western countries are I'm sure quite

surprised to hear that the sexual revolution hasn't happened yet. Suggesting

a Feminist embrace her sexuality is like asking a mime not be annoying, I'm

afraid it's too late.

Sally

Mike I'd hardly reduce Feminism to a singular and individual view point.

Besides my opinion isn't the issue. Let's stop beating around the bush. Would

someone please give me the goods on the past POW discussions? What ,did

some one die?

Sally

Lex, the short answer to your question is yes. I do think men are "capable of

recognizing and responding to circumstances that affect women and making

a comment about it through his photography" . I don't however think the

discussion of said work is logical without some mention of feminist issues.

Sally

No problem Neil. First off I don't think the site feedback forum is the right place

to have this discussion. Furthermore, the philosophy forum isn't the right place

either. This discussion should be held in context below the current picture of

the week. But that ain't gonna happen because some people seem more

concerned with maintaining a 'civilized' community than they do with having

a serious discussion about a controversial issue. I fully admit my comment

veered from a straight critique of the photo. I don't, however, see how my

comment would incite an unfriendly response. Keeping the peace is no

excuse anyway for selective editing or deletion. But hey that's just my opinion.

So we are left on the back pages to vent! To answer your question Neil I

wrote this comment because I think the elves chose this image as a vehicle

to draw attention to Igor's other work, which I would have no problem with if

they weren't so drastically different to this one.

Because I believe strongly in self-expression I DO NOT believe anyone has

the right to control or edit the creative process. So, Andrew somehow you got

the wrong message. Just because I do not see the deeper meaning in some

of Igor's photographs doesn't mean I am suggesting he shouldn't be allowed

to take them. Oh contraire. But that is a whole other issue. I am glad you

asked for clarification Andrew. Not the kind of thing I want to be projecting.

Look don't you think it's odd to select a characteristically 'gentle' nude from a

photographer whose portfolio is heavy with images that depict women in

violent and degrading situations. Isn't it rather odd to set a discussion about a

female nude without allowing the participants to mention feminist issues

relevant to the necessary social implications, which stem from this kind of

depiction of women? Isn't it a little unsettling to think that somehow the female

form is just a subject: something to be looked at, dissected, used and then

somehow that treatment legitimized by being given a highly visible venue,

albeit through the back door?

My position is this.... why choose a non-descript photograph to highlight a

controversial body of work and then limit the discussion ?

Sally

Sorry Mary. I hadn't read your email before reposting. While I appreciate the

communication and I understand your position I still maintain that in order to

properly critique this image one must include some kind of social

commentary. Without it the image truely is reduce to what Grant in the

philozzophy forrem(funny Tom) resently said......'it's just a frikkin naked chick.

Enjoy it"........Need I say more?

Sally

Allan Bloom wrote in Commentary ,April 1987........There's one place, at least,

where the traditional balance of sexual power is still preserved- pornographic

magazines. Feminists are against pornography, he writes, not because they

object to its humiliating and violent depictions of women but only "because it

is a reminiscence of the old love relationship, which involved differentiated

sexual roles." (1)

A condition of rest.............current POW

I'm just plain mad at the elves for choosing this image. Why choose the least

controversial image in Igor's folder? Why remark at the photo's gentle nature;

perhaps because of the violence depicted in so many of the other images.

Sexually suggestive images taken by adults of adults for adult consumption is

a matter of personal freedom. I make no value judgements there. I do

however take issue with male photographers who shoot women in ways that

perpetuate the Neanderthal like thinking illustrated above.

There is no denying the technical skill with which ALL of the photographs in

Igor's nude and erotic folder were taken. He is an accomplished

photographer. However, I question the need for more close ups of freshly

shaven, slightly moistened, and perfectly positioned vulva. Not to mention the

insertion of pruning sheers, oversized photographic boxes, whips, chains,

scythe, rope and the ever-popular women on women pose.

I wonder what role the women played in the process other than subject?

The images are staged and don't appear to be the result of the women

interacting with their surroundings. After viewing the photographs I am no less

enlightened than before. I don't feel I've been changed in any way. If anything

I'm more steadfast in my resolve to point out the glaring assault against both

the bodies of women and their souls.

You are a talent Igor. Use your power for good!

Sally

(1) Susan Faludi, Backlash, The Undeclared War Against American Women,

1991

The above comment was posted two days ago, was in the thread this morning

and deleted sometime between then and now. I'm having trouble making

sense of that decission. Comments....anyone.

Sally

You go Carl.

Sally

Piet Mondrian, "Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art" ("Figurative Art and

Nonfigurative Art"), 1937*

Today one is tired of the dogmas of the past, and the truths once accepted but

successively jettisoned. One realizes more and more the relativity of

everything, and therefore one tends to reject the idea of fixed laws, of a single

truth. This is very understandable, but does not lead to profound vision. For

there are "made" laws, "discovered" laws, but also laws- a truth for all time.

These are more or less hidden in the reality which surrounds us and do not

change. Not only science, but art also, shows us that reality, at first

incomprehensible, gradually reveals itself, by the mutual relations that are

inherent in things. Pure science and pure art, disinterested and free, can lead

the advance in the recognition of the laws which are based on these

relationships. A great scholar has recently said that pure science achieves

practical results for humanity. Similarly, one can say that pure art, even

though it appears abstract, can be of direct utility for life.

Art shows us that there are also constant truths concerning forms. Every

form, every line has its own expression. This objective expression can be

modified by our subjective view but it is no less true for that. Round is always

round and square is always square. Simple though these facts are, they often

appear to be forgotten in art. Many try to achieve one in the same end by

different means. In plastic art this is an impossibility. In plastic art it is

necessary to choose constructive means which are of one piece with that

which one wants to express.

*Herschel B. Chipp, Theories of Modern Art, A source book by artists and

critics,1968.

Lisa, I think Mondian said it much better than I ever could?.."objective

expression can be modified by our subjective view but it is no less true for

that." A tree, whether out of focus, inverted, or painted blue is always a tree

and not an abstract representation of a tree if the viewer is able to recognise

the tree as a tree. Whether you call it a tree, un arbre , un albero, uma arvore,

un arbol, ein Baum, or een boom, it's still a tree. Similarly whether you call it

an abstract, ein Auszug, un abstrait, un estratto, um sumario, un aexacto, or

een samenvatting, it's still an abstract. (Please forgive any mistakes in

translation, as my abilities are limited to the use of Sherlock on my computer)

I appreciate your thoughts Lisa. I just don't agree that the definition of abstract

is subjective, and all-inclusive to the point of being rather meaningless.

Sally

With all due respect, Lisa, if categorization is primarily based upon an

individual's perception and not upon accepted norms, then why bother having

categories at all?

Sally

Ah geese Carl, did you have to do that? Your idea holds great merit I'm just

not sure I'm the one to pull it together. However, come to think of it photonet is

blessed with dozens of people whose work is consistent with different genres

that would be excellent examples for clarification. Perhaps one possible

method would be to solicite submissions, ask for help from the Pnet

community. Once a prescribed limit has been met then choose one photo that

best represents each style or category . As per the operational and

maintenance aspects of where to display the photos and how often to change

them that would be up to Brian and the others. Obviously there are bound to

be crossovers and work which doesn't fit ideally in any category. What 's

being suggested isn't without its problems. It is however a guide that could

potentially help some people to make better choices when selecting a

category for critique.

Next time I'll offer a solution along with my criticism. See, I'm learning too.

Sally

For he love of God would someone please accurately define the word

"abstract" leaving little debate as to its pertinent characteristics. I may need to

get a life but I am never the less slightly irritated by the constant misplacement

of photos up for critique. At any given moment half the images categorized as

abstract are in fact NOT abstract, not even close as a matter fact. Non-

representational work is just that, not referring specifically to anything

concrete. I may be alone in my irritation in which case disregard my tirade but

since we are fortunate to have categories making our viewing easier perhaps

we could utilize them properly. Quite frankly it just looks bad.

Sally

Peter...a simple solution to your current problem....refer to your rating in your

comment.

Sally

Ah... but what fun is there in low balling a photo to cause someone gieif when

the credit isn't forth coming? Maybe the ratings without names is not entirely a

bad idea? We'll see.

Sally

Great question Keith! Here's what I think....

Self -doubt provides the desire and the need necessary to take chances and

be creative. If one's assuredness about one's work is unchallenged then no

desire strong enough exists to prompt further creativity. I am of course

assuming the creative process to be one of development and not one of

production following a given model.

I would suggest self-doubt to be destructive when one allows it to censor the

work, meaning altering or adding or omitting something to suit a need

prescribed by someone or something other than the creator herself.

The ratings game is precisely what draws the crowd. Remove it and watch the

number of users decrease. I make no value judgements as to the merits of

keeping or cutting the ratings....I'm only suggesting the sites exposure will

drop.

Carl, I think the very sucess of Photo Net answers your question .The majority

of the users want ratings, enjoy the game and are somehow sated by the

controversy embroiled within the experience. Is this the best forum it could

be? In my opinion no. But , change the dynamic to better suite one specific

group and change the experience entirerly. I don't think there would be

enough of a vaiety of interaction to support a system such as you are

suggesting. Eliminate the casual , non paying , and untrained member and

risk turning the site into a copy of any number of other "art speak" sites.

While professional opinion and insight is indeed valuable, it can be sought

out and found in other places. I for one enjoy the querkiness and am willing to

put up with the crap that accompanys the fun.

Competition, tempered by reason, also promotes excellence.

I would suggest, however, dropping the highest and the lowest ratings on any

given image, whereby eliminating the extremes. A small measure but could

serve to promote better use of the system. Just how I see it. :~)

Sally