| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. `all photographs are accurate, none of them is the truth` R.Avedon
Asked by tom meyer
(K=2752) on 3/5/1999
|
"The moment {a} fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion. There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." "I can heighten through instruction what he (the subject) does naturally, how he is....these strategies . . . attempt to achieve an illusion: that everything . . . in the photograph simply happened, that the person . . . was never told to stand there, and . . . was not even in the presence of a photographer."
Are you able to apply this philosophy in the making of a portrait, or any image? Do you recognize the existence of this condition in your own work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
You are right(?). I look back in history and see and read where many regimes have used photography to their own ends. One day a certain politbureau member is standing on the podium and the next day he isn't there. China is the same way. And now the computer age. Things should start getting pretty interesting.
|
|
|
|
John MacPherson
(K=1342) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
". in the photograph simply happened, that the person . . . was never told to stand there, and . . . was not even in the presence of a photographer." This may seem like a facile response. It is not meant to be. I was reading Patricia Lee's recent question about "snapshots" and it set me thinking about the "honesty" of the 'snapshot'. And I am struck by the last part of your question. I often find myself in circumstances where for whatever reasons (eg: holidays) I wish to be actually in the images I take. Sometimes I am with other people and can set the self timer and run into the shot, and as I run I guess I must cease to be "the photographer" and become a happy holidaymaker. But often I am alone and need the presence of a figure (for scale or whatever) so set the self timer and jump right in. On more than one occasion I have been asked by a viewer who sees the latter images.... "Who took that picture of you?". And the question ALWAYS surprises me. Its as if I FEEL that it should be obvious it was a self-portrait. I am going to have to think more about this ....I keep getting a mental image of two mirrors facing each other and the reflections stretchinnng wwwwaaaayyy oofffffff to innnfinnnniiityyyyy! J
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
"The moment {a} fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion. There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
That statement alone is not "accurate." All photographs are NOT accurate. The statement cannot be applied to all types of photography as general statement.
ACCURATE:
1. Free from error. 2. Conforming exactly to the truth.
(Both definitions from Webster's 10th New Collegiate Dictionary.)
The statement itself in error since it is self-contradictory.
The history of photography is overflowing with examples that disprove the definition of accurate, and therefore, the statement (Rejlander, Henry Peach Robinson, Jerry Uelsmann, even Matthew Brady).
The innacuracies that masquerade as "accurate," or the truth, are one of the most complex, and interesting aspects of photography that can be used to add another dimension to the subject. I do it in most of my photographs. Some of it is color rendering, some of it is in framing or relationships between objects in the photo, some of it is in post exposure negative/positive or print manipulations.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
Maybe Avedon was using a different dictionary, mine (American Heritage Office Dictionary) only lists the first of the two definitions. In this case, it is easy to see how he could make this statement. A photograph refers only to itself, until one says otherwise, and then it is "accurate" in the "free from error" sense, but not "truthful" since a photograph has to be different from the "real" subject. While there are some very fine hairs being split here, I think that Avedon't intention is to make that distinction.
Given the first definition, accuracy only becomes an issue when someone makes a specific statement about what the photograph shows; in that case, accuracy can become a consideration.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
I said: Given the first definition, accuracy only becomes an issue when someone makes a specific statement about what the photograph shows; in that case, accuracy can become a consideration.
Whoops, I meant "truth," not "accuracy."
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
Fine we'll go with "free from error." What the hell does that mean in relationship to a photograph? That it's exposed & printed correctly? It's in focus? It contradicts the truth? It's an act that unintentionally deviates from the truth? It's not a mistake? The difference between an observed or calculated value and the true value? What is the "error" that might be involved?
Avedon's statement (in my estimation) still says absolutely nothing about photography or it's relationship to potrayal of truth, or even fact. A lot of photography doesn't deal with truth or fact or being an eyewitness. Many photographs aren't about tangible subjects, subject matter, or opinions.
The statement only relates to Avedon, his work, and his approach to his photography.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
What it means is that specific wavelengths of energy strike a media sensitized to respond to those wavelengths and a physiological reaction occurs that is oblivious to the interpretations of that phenomina by philosophers.
Now comes a secondary action performed on that photograph. It become the object of a photograph itself. A second series of physical interactions occur so that the "acuracy" of the image is reduced to the individual pixel. Each pixel is acurately photographed, but the truth? At this point the photograph as Avedon descibes it (and Winogrand!) ceases to exist.
I am much more interested in your responses to the question I posed after the Avedon quote, which was meant to be a description of a result I believe many photographers want to see in their own work. A personal invisibility that allows a "subject" of incredible power to speak with its (or his, or her) own image, rather than impose a heavy directorial hand.
I find it incredibly ironic that Richard Avedon believes this is what he actually acomplished. I can't think of a portraitist who brings more of him/herself to bear on a subject.
I want my subjects to convey as much of themselves as they can muster, without transforming into a cartoonish charicature (sp?) i.e. Annie Leibowitz Rolling Stone Hyper Portrait.
Is this contrivance, no matter how subtle, inherent in all "reproductive" art, and only more perceptible in portraits?...t
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
And can we please put the damn dictionaries back on the shelf? I would like to address the spirit and not the letter.
Next thing you know, we'll be discussing the meaning of the word "is"...t
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
I like the dictionary. Usage of language has become so inaccurate that in order to discuss the truth, we need the dictionary.
Seriously, I can't agree with your view here, nor do I think it's what Avedon was saying. Subjects that speak for themselves I don't bother photographing, because there is no point. A good example was what I saw when I visited the incredible pre-Columbian city of Monte Alban in Oaxaca. There is no photograph that can be taken of the place that can be anything but a meaningless attempt to depict it. What I see in great photography is taking things, often everyday things (and I guess I include people as "things" here) and making them into something that really says something. And in the process of selecting the things, and then choosing how to photograph (and print) them, I have transformed them into something that sings. It doesn't take a "heavy, directorial hand" Tom, it takes a vision that can translate to other people.
I would agree that Liebowitz overplays it, but it is because she is doing portraits for pop magazines. When she isn't photographing for Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, and whatever else, she seems to have a very different approach to her work. I'm not saying I enjoy her stuff, it's not really anything I find interesting, but she isn't monotonically egotistical. (Good thing I have a dictionary for those big words.)
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
"I think that here lies the sense of literary (and photographic, twm) creation- to portray ordinary objects as they will be reflected in the kindly mirrors of future times; to find in the objects around us the fragrent tenderness that only posterity will discern and appreciate in the far off times when every trifle of our plain and everyday life will become exquisite in its own right- the times when a man who might put on the most ordinary jacket of today will be dressed up for an elegant masquerade."
Nabokov, Aguide to Berlin
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
Paging Tribblake! Paging Tribblake! Oh Tribby! Fresh meat!!!
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/6/1999
|
Tom here is a photographic quote that I like better from Clarence John Laughlin, "Everything, no matter how ugly or commonplace has secret meanings...everything" I think Mr. Laughlin said it better, and if you buy into either Avedon's quote or the one above, then the responses on the Art & Politics thread should have been a little more reflective of this attitude. Your question (second part)...does it relate to me and my photography? Damn well told it does....we are subjective thinkers (whether we admit it or not) and while you might like to keep yourself out of your photographs (IMHO) it ain't gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/7/1999
|
"While you might like to keep yourself out of your photographs (IMHO) it ain't gonna happen."
It's not that I believe I have no presence in the portraits I make, It's that I don't wish to create the image of a person, that is more about the process of making a photograph than it is about the person photographed. Whether it is through manipulation of the processes or manipulation of the subject.
This is my approach to portrait and landscape. It can be applied to still life, but I feel the nature of still life and figurative works is more suitable to metaphorical treatment i.e. fictionalizing and/or redefining into symbols or icons. But this is my approach.
Avedon seems to believe that he enhances the resident characteristics of his subjects through His Prodigeous Talent (caps intended). I believe he elicits responses to his own stimuli, and calls that insight. And furthermore believes his efforts to be invisible. This is what I referred to as ironic.
I will concede that portraits of celebrities who have "personas", that is, created personalities, can be heavily fictionalized They can be "created" in a very obvious manner, and still be very "accurate" portraits. But "truthful" is another matter.
Howard, show me the inconsistency you reference more precisely. It's hard to critique your own stuff (or edit your own exhibits).
I believe that different types of subjects require different approaches. I do not approach still life, portraits, and landscape with the same desires or treatments.
And I agree whole heartedly with your Laughlin quote However, his pictures are about his secrets. I don't care for his secrets, about which there is not much to speculate, he wore them on his sleeve. I prefer secrets to be just that, secrets. Hinted at rather than labeled, containing mysteries as opposed to captions.
I would not dream of defining Leibowitz by her work for The Rolling Stone. She is an incredible talent. That body of work is overvalued in her career (and I don't mean financial value).
The dictionary is prominant in my house, and well used. But to attempt to find the meaning of the word "Truth" by consulting Websters 15Lb International, will not bring satisfaction to those who seek it.
"Subjects that speak for themselves I don't bother photographing, because there is no point." ...Even if there's no one to hear them speak? What if you are the last or only person to see these eloquent subjects. What if Atget felt that way about Paris? I'm sure Ansel Adams found Yosemite quite expressive, as well. You see places and things of great power that I will never see and bring back eloquent messages for me. My loss, Jeff, when you turn away from those things. I visit every link you send me ...t
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/7/1999
|
Tom, you say that you don't care for Laughlin's "secrets" and that is entirely my point...Laughlin's photographs reveal the man behind the camera...they are subjective (as are all works of art) by their very nature...by saying that you don't like them, you are revealing your own subjective (and personal) predjudices...but at the same time describing a reaction to Laughlin's perspective...an artist could not ask for more. The viewer doesn't have to like or enjoy what we do..but to walk past the work without any reation says the image failed completely. Avedon, is a wonderful example...I don't like his stuff..I feel it is contrived and overfull of Avedon's soaring ego...but to Avedon's credit I don't ignore his efforts. Art is about artists...the subjective, personal, emotional connection to the subject is what attracts or repulses us. If the artists is able to elicit a response, negative or positive, the work is a success on a minimum level at least.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/7/1999
|
Tom said: i"Subjects that speak for themselves I don't bother photographing, because there is no point." ...Even if there's no one to hear them speak? What if you are the last or only person to see these eloquent subjects. What if Atget felt that way about Paris? I'm sure Ansel Adams found Yosemite quite expressive, as well
There are things we may not see, but that doesn't mean we should take photographs that remove the life from them, because they are so much bigger than what the image can be. And Atget photographed temporal subjects - many of them would/could not be seen by someone else. And, I think, he did make them into more than what they were as physical objects.
But Adams is a good example in this discussion, although I will take a different opinion here. At least once a year (well, twice, since I have come back) I cross the Big Sur bridge that Adams photographed, and the scene at the bridge never fails to amaze me. But Adams' photograph, and any of it that I could take, fall flat, because the scene is so much bigger than what can be contained on a print. It probably has value to people who will never visit California, but it fails to enlighten in any way, since the subject speaks so strongly. There may be something that can be found that would have an effect beyond representation, but I haven't tried.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 3/8/1999
|
"...media sensitized to respond to those wavelengths and a physiological reaction occurs..."
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 3/8/1999
|
Taxation with Representation. PPPhhhhhaaaarrrrrtttttTTTT.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/8/1999
|
Hello. Howard: Yes I am revealing my own subjective and personal opinion, not prejudices. I have looked at a lot of C.J.Laughlins photographs. Original prints. I just don't care for his results. I grant his significance. I grant his relevance. I believe these are due to his historical and cultural positioning more than his interpretive or technical talents.
I'm shocked to hear you might prefer condemnation to indifferance (artistically speaking). I want the response I want, I do not care for condemnation, revulsion or even praise for attributes I did not intend or recontextualization that promotes principles I hold repugnant. I would not wish my figure studies to be praised as pornographic. I would rather Larry Flint just walk on by...Perhaps you don't include mis-interpretation but this comment is leading me: "If the artists is able to elicit a response, negative or positive, the work is a success on a minimum level at least."...To me, elliciting an inappropriate response is not artistic success.
But Avedons images, repulsive and "accurate" as they may be, and as far removed from the truth as they may be, still are successul artistic images because the response evoked from the veiwer is exactly what he intended, whether I like it/them, or not. And therein lies my respect for Richard Avedon. Everything he does is dedicated to his concept. Career, subject selection, approach, technique, edit, presentation.
Jeff, No photograph can be a substitute for real life experiences, two dimensions in one sensual mode, no matter how glorious, will ever impress like 5 senses and the depth of life. It is our duty as photographers to die trying.
Steve, apologies for inappropriate use of Physiology. I often speak metaphorically without knowing it. (put smiley face here). I'm sure you could substitute the right word, as well, or better than I, and get the drift...
"Isn't photography also about the photographer? His or her unique viewpoint? I think this really speaks more to being sensitive to the subject and approaching it in a manner that allows the subject to reveal itself fully. Edward Weston was totally involved with every photograph he made, yet he allowed the subject to reveal itself fully through his unique and individulized approach to each subject."
You da man, You da man! You got it! Thank you
But as far as the decisive moment and intervalometers, these days you can even get that. There's a really cool show on PBS or Discovery or something about a guy photographing Tigers in India. He puts wide angle auto focus cameras in waterholes with infrared triggers. Beautiful shots of BIG Tigers, just settling into the water, looking straight into the camera, perfect subtle fill flash. And this guy really knows what he's doing. Knows the subjects VERY well. Understands lighting, spends months to get just the right set up. Very decisive moments. There is a video camera that shows the continuous veiw and you can see the stills in the context of the "linear" veiw...
Thanks to you all....Oh, Trib...one word..."Bean-o"...t (is that really a word?)
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/8/1999
|
I would rather Larry Flint just walk on by...
I wouldn't. He used to put out one of the best photo mags in the US (Camera & Darkroom) so I figure he must know something about photography. Everyone has their dark side, it's just that he acted on his.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/9/1999
|
Tom, I was even more surprised than you were to hear that I prefer condemnation to indifference. I believe that you took my response out of context...that you reached a conclusion about my personal beliefs based on insufficient data (one response to a specific philosophical query) In addition, my dictionary defines prejudice as, "Bias, favorable or unfavorable" which really isn't much different than a subjective personal opinion. Lastly, just because you or I don't like something doesn't preclude that thing being great despite our personal subjective dislike of it. My response to your question was designed to elicit further commentary, not to sum up my personal beliefs...a technique I believe you are guilty of from time to time. Keep up the good work, amigo...just don't assume too much.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/9/1999
|
"you might prefer condemnation to indifferance (artistically speaking)"
Howard what does your dictionary say about "might"? And I was trying to maintain the context by saying "artistically".... Expression of "shock" was also intended as a qualifier, to indicate scepticism. I have never, from the many remarks of yours I have read, felt that you would prefer condemnation to indifference. And even with all that, I will say I'm sorry if these remarks seemed out of context. I thought the context was pretty clear.I'll try harder.
My interpretation (should be definition?) of prejudice is based on a less academic vision of the word.
"Pre- Judged" : to form an opinion before "testimony", so to speak.
My understanding of your definition now requires a definition of "bias". My dictionary is not available, I'll buy one at lunch (my Websters International is at home).
What do you think of my take on Avedon?
I am intending, in one regard, to show that while I like Avedons work and I don't care for his bed side manner, thats irrelevant to his contributions to the development and history of photography. And while I don't like Laughlins work, I applaud his efforts but not the results, And THAT's irrelevant to HIS contributions to the development and history of photography. I guess I need to try harder, here, as well. Obviously, Laughlin's work is significant since it has two ardent supporters, right here, in you and Jeff. Obviously, I just don't like it, because I've said so, too many times in this thread alone. It's way out of proportion to my feelings...t.. I'm posting this before I'm ready, 'cause I've got to buy a dictionary.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/9/1999
|
Thanks to Mr. Spirer and Merriam Webster online, I can now define:
PREJUDICE usually implies an unfavorable prepossession and connotes a feeling rooted in suspicion, fear, or intolerence "a mindless prejudice against the unfamiliar". (my italics)
BIAS implies an unreasoned and unfair distortion of judgment in favor of or against a person or thing. (my italics, again)
I plead "not guilty" to the above....t
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/10/1999
|
Tom, My Scribners Bantam English Dictionary is inclined toward brevity, simplicity, and general usage...if you are not familiar with it, this one is worth it's weight in gold to any writer (much like Ambrose Bierce's.."Write it Right" which preceded Strunk & White's "Elements of Style" by more than 50 years) The real problem here is that I din't apply the proper importance to your "might"...and you neglegted to show the proper respect for my "minimum level". I always enjoy your posts (though I often disagree with them) and I think you provide excellent chains of logic to support your views. Where do you fall photographically between the "add nothing" minimalist Mr. Eggleston and the "Leave nothing to the imagination" Mr. Avedon? I suspect that your images are as competent and visually realized as your posts are. As I said earlier, amigo, keep up the good work...I look forward to crossing swords again in future.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
Success, by Merriam Webster: favorable or desired outcome.
The Honorable Mr.Creech: If the artists is able to elicit a response, negative or positive, the work is a success on a minimum level at least.
Success on a minimal level, seems oxymoronic. This might be reborn as a new tirade.
I really want to show you my photographs. I wander all about, from minimalist to excessive, reluctant to exclusive. I shun anchors. I saw my web designing bud tonite, got re-inspired...t
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/13/1999
|
Tom, my dictionary defines Oxymoron as, "A figure of speech that combines incongruous or contradictory ideas" Like maybe the lovely flowers and disturbing homo-erotic photographs of the esteemed Mr. Mapelthorpe? Simple ideas often have complex foundations.....minmal success is at least an aknowledgement of what you are/were trying to do....and many photographers (I don't count myself among them, but I do respect their motivation) seek to shock or revolt their viewers....just because we personally and subjectively don't like an image (or style of image) that doesn't mean that it (they) are not important and creative. I understand your personnal motivation to have your photographs accepted and admired for the ideas that you are trying to convey (my attitude toward my images is remarkably similar) but the world of art is a wider place than either of us can comprehend.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/14/1999
|
Damn the torpedos...
I post this as a kind of open letter to the participants of this Forum, and extend my apologies to Howard Creech, who was the straw that kicked me over the edge (mixed metaphor...so there!) It might seem personal, but there are bigger issues and other "guilty parties" as well, myself included.
There's a tendency toward an Academic approach to discussion here, with which I have a love/hate thing going on. (never use a preposition to end a sentence with) It's nice to be precise, but not at the expense of real thinking and actually trying to understand what he other guy's saying. And not presuppose that everyones an idiot until proven otherwise.
While I enjoy the intellectual discourse, I really think that guy,Tribblake, is the best communicator here. A simple vocabulary is the most demanding. Anyway, here's another entry in this thread or "here's mud in your eye:...t
p.s. re-establish context before reading on
Howard you say: "just because we personally and subjectively don't like an image (or style of image) that doesn't mean that it (they) are not important and creative."
Concerning the above statement, I couldn't agree more. Am I wrong in surmising (a thought or idea based on scanty evidence) that this may surprise you? I tried to illustrate before, my understanding of this concept with this next statement, which, perhaps, you missed:
"And while I don't like Laughlins work, I applaud his efforts but not the results, And THAT's irrelevant to HIS contributions to the development and history of photography. I guess I need to try harder, here, as well. Obviously, Laughlin's work is significant ..." since he has had great effect.
And this statement:
" I grant his significance. I grant his relevance. I believe these are due to his historical and cultural positioning more than his interpretive or technical talents."
And this one:
"And I agree whole heartedly with your Laughlin quote However, his pictures are about his secrets. I don't care for his secrets"
Here I tried to concede this point again:"Obviously, I just don't like it, because I've said so, too many times in this thread alone. It's way out of proportion to my feelings". This was an attempt at explaining that this topic is a dead horse, the point made, yet you continue to beat it to a pulp. But hey, one more time: He is a significant photographer, he will live forever...I'm just saying, for the purpose of discussion, that I personally, that's ME... TOM MEYER... DON'T LIKE HIS PICTURES.... OKAY? Make him a saint if you like, I really don't care. I am expressing a personal opinion that will have no bearing on Art History.
Another topic: You think I make assumptions? Then you live in my glass house, Howard : "... and if you buy into either Avedon's quote or the one above, then the responses on the Art & Politics thread should have been a little more reflective of this attitude." Does your "if" carry the same weight as my "might"? If little words mean a lot when you say them, then I want the same considerations.
I didn't say I bought into Avedon's statement. My presentation of the statement (in your words) "... was designed to elicit further commentary, not to sum up my personal beliefs".... I was curious what you meant by this reference to another thread, and even asked for some clarification, "Howard, show me the inconsistency you reference more precisely. It's hard to critique your own stuff (or edit your own exhibits)...." which you ignored.
Defining words seems more attractive.
This is why I'm getting tired of belaboring word definitions with you while somehow, my sentences and thoughts are being ignored.
And if you enjoy picking nits, Mapplethorps flower images were an entirely different BOOK from the XYZ porfolio, and your definition of oxymoron is about a figure of speech.... And you think I make leaps of logic? Is Eddie Adams making portraits for "Parade" magazine and also photographing guerilla executions an oxymoron? How's that for leaping assumptions? Not too far off from your Mapplethorp one, I'd say.
The question mark at the end of your illustrative statement gives you a way out of that, but I wish you could try to understand what I'm trying to say, instead of belaboring these kind of details.
I understand that these two bodies of work by Mapplethorp seem incongruous, and the fact that one artist created both "might" be described as "oxymoronic", but I get the feeling that expressing that observation in those terms would not be acceptible, considering the semantic scrutiny under which this entire discourse has been conducted.
I have tried to deflect this thread from a discussion about my personal tastes in photographers, and vocabulary shortcomings. Yet apologies and capitulations go un-noted, redirections ignored. You have your intentions, about which I decline to speculate, but by which I am baffled.
And Howard... I have noticed.... it's a big ole' world out there...gollllleee, Sargent!... Gomer
Main Entry: con7de7scend Pronunciation: "kdn-di-'send Function: intransitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French condescendre, from Late Latin condescendere, from Latin com- + descendere to descend Date: 14th century 1 a : to descend to a less formal or dignified level : UNBEND b : to waive the privileges of rank 2 : to assume an air of superiority
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/14/1999
|
Mr. Meyer, my apologies...I did not seek to offend (actually I was rather enjoying the exchange) evidently I misunderstood the direction or focus of the discussion at some point...my motivation was merely to enjoyably pass the time on a few winter evenings...charge ahead....I will joust with you no further.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/15/1999
|
"...my motivation was merely to enjoyably pass the time on a few winter evenings."
Mine as well. But by taking this quick bow out, you are missing the point again. Please...read what I have written. Let us engage in some meaningful discourse by actually responding to the things I say, as (I think) I respond to what you say and think.
I want to discuss these things with you, but it has to be a two way conversation. It is frustrating to me to make points and raise issues that are ignored. Should I have said nothing?
Perhaps this thread should close on this sad and inappropriate note, and we could start afresh, elsewhere...t (my apologies for any rude sarcasms in my last post, the road to hell is paved with good intentions)
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/15/1999
|
At the risk of a second accusation of semantic flagellation of an expired equine (how's that for academic dialog?) I will respond. First, the reference that I made to the "art & politics" thread...you can't separate yourself from your photographs, anymore than you can separate your politics and culture from your photographs...we are subjective beings...maybe some of us are more blatant, or lack "photographic" tact...but none the less we are what we do, and what we do is us. I was not the first, second, or third person here to raise the dictionary's ugly presence...however, I am a writer and I like prescision in language...I won't apologize for trying to make sure that I know what I am talking about. I did go back over our discourse, and I noticed the following...first...I only refered to Laughlin in passing...at no point did I say he was a saint, or even that he was a "first-tier" photographer...only that I liked his quote better than Avedon's...it was a reference to THAT idea, rather than his body of work that I was making. Second, most of my responses were to your taking me to task for saying that rejection was a success "on at least a minimum level" and I find myself in the enviable position of defending what I thought was an obvious "philosophical point" not one of the pillars of my personal life. Third, I didn't bring up the word OXYMORONIC, you did...I just made sure that you were able to see my reasoning...i suspect it would be just as much "a figure of speech" in your discourse as it was in mine...the point here was that "incongruous and contradictory" ideas could lead to creative photographs (maybe even some that upset or revolt the viewer) BTW, I think your Eddie Addams example was better than my Maplethorpe example...I do not condescend to anyone...I am sorry if I gave that impression, I respect all individuals, their right to dignity and human worth, and their right to pursue their dreams where ever they may lead. I will tell a little story, if I may, to illustrate the the thrust of where I was going...many years ago I was very involved with a group of German photographers (while living in Germany) and at one social get together I showed my best slide of the Neueschwanstein castle, one of my friends said "I see you found Disney's castle" I had expected approval for doing a good job with a Bavarian icon, instead I was called to task for re-doing a hackneyed Bavarian cliche, my American viewers love that slide...but to the Germans it was just another example of how little non-Germans understand the German psyche...for us the castle is all tied up in Disneyland and fantasy, for them it is all tied up in King Ludwig II, Wagner, Hitler, and German nationalism...and for it to be a German icon is an embarassment to them. I write, think, and respond in a way that is uniquely personal to me...just as all of us do. I believe that I answered your questions and and responded to your ideas...evidently you feel otherwise...that leaves us at something of a Mexican standoff...I think the misunderstanding lies at your feet...I have said repeadtedly that Art is about artists, that intent is the major qualifier, that we are products of out time and culture....I believe that my philosophy is pretty clear. I enjoy this forum, and the free exchange of ideas about one of my favorite topics...however I don't wish to muddy the waters, and in this case I appear to have done just that..although that was not what I intended.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/16/1999
|
Thanks for sticking around after that temper tantrum.
I don't see the contradiction between my "art-politics" statement and anything I've said in this thread. Perhaps you believed I accepted Avedon's philosophy as my own, which is not the case. I found your words to be the best way to express this, since my quoting Avedon "was designed to elicit further commentary, not to sum up my personal beliefs...".
I too feel more in tune with the belief expressed in that Laughlin quote, than that expressed in Richards' statement. See my post in "why are you a photographer". Perhaps a disclaimer when posting quotes or concepts with which I disagree would help to avoid this sort of confusion. I was bringing up a philosophy that I believe is fairly common, as a topic of discussion, not as a personal creed.
While I do try to enable a subject to "speak" with it's own "voice", it is, as you point out impossible not to put your own spin on it, if only by the choice you made when pointing the camera that direction (see the intervalometer passage). Avedon endeavors to speak for his subjects, apparently believing himself to be more eloquent than they. It is the task of portrait photographers to evoke something more than a visual record,I just think he pushes the concept too far. If I may quote myself, "I believe he elicits responses to his own stimuli, and calls that insight" and it may well be insightful, his subject is secondary to himself, but that's what seems to be his point.
The whole Laughlin issue was just an example of my (and your) belief that just because you don't like someones photographs, doesn't mean they're a bad photographer. I felt like I was being lectured on this point repeatedly, and it was getting annoying to be criticised for an attitude I do not possess. Hence the volume adjustment.
Effective communication means speaking clearly & listening carefully, with the desire to understand. I accept some responsibility for this episode, but it does take two, and we're the only two hanging around. Perhaps my shortcomings in self expression and your desire to self express... I appreciate your willingness to persevere, and tolerate (if that's the right word) my desire to be understood. I will try harder in the future to express myself more clearly, I am not an experienced writer.
And as far as "oxymoronic" goes... well, can we just forget about oxymoronic?
I'd rather have the Neueschwanstein Castle as an embarassing icon of my culture, than the Golden Arches. But embarressment is in the mind of the beholder...t
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/17/1999
|
My Grandmother used to use a phrase that I have always loved...she called "disagreements" that weren't really disagreements "A storm in a teacup" I don't know if she invented this phrase, but like many old country sayings it goes right to the heart of the matter. As Mr. Shaekspeare said, "Much ado about nothing"...and I will certainly accept my share of the blame in this...the more I consider this, the more I believe that the two of us were approaching the same dead horse (with clubs raised) from opposite sides....basically I think there was a lot more agreement, than disagreement....I will even confess a dark deep secret...I do street portraits and my goal is to subordinate (that's right) my presence as much as possible...in order to get the essence of my subject on film....maybe both of us have been too pedantic. I had better stop here, this could easily get out of hand again.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/17/1999
|
"A storm in a teacup" I don't know if she invented this phrase
The original is "tempest in a teapot." She seems to have modified it somwehat.
maybe both of us have been too pedantic
Well it is called "Philosophy," isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Old Gray Beard
(K=162) - Comment Date 3/17/1999
|
Oh no!!! Howard, tell me it isn't so. You do street portraits? Next you're gonna tell us you get back in your SUV and drive home to the burbs talking on your cell phone. But I guess subordinating yourself makes it all OK. But I'm sure you shoot with empathy that I somehow lack, or at least you imagine I lack.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/17/1999
|
Jim, no cell phone, no SUV (a seven year old tempo four door) and I never said that I didn't do street photos (in fact I have mentioned it on several threads) what I said was that I didn't rob people of their dignity with my camera....I don't take photographs that humiliate or demean...I don't shoot the homeless...and I don't apologize for "subordinating" myself to get closer to the essence of my subjects (most of whom are musicians, craftspeople, characters, local shopkeepers, ...and on occaision, even tourists) I believe you are looking for a contradiction...I don't think you will find one.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/17/1999
|
Try me! I'm full of contradictions...storm in a teapot, tempest in a teacup, Tempos, Pathfinders, Nick Cage, William Shakespeare, much ado about nada...t
|
|
|
|
Old Gray Beard
(K=162) - Comment Date 3/17/1999
|
Howard, you have my apologies for assuming that your street portraits were of homeless people. But, there is still the insinuated assumption on your part that I take humiliating or demeaning photos of street folk. As a matter of fact, if I really think about it, I can't remember ever have taken a picture of a homeless person myself. But it brings a thought to mind which might be ripe for another thread. If a liberal takes a photo of a homeless person, the photo probably shows great empathy. If a conservative takes the same photo, it probably represents cheap pathos. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 3/17/1999
|
Me too, t, and I'll go one further and say...my philosophies shift everyday, and I'd like to state also for the record that i don't trust anyone claiming to be pure, make that people, artists and art, much less do I believe they occur anywhere other than human imagination. When we begin to obsess about purity in art more frightening realities come to the fore like M-Aktion or the Ahnnerbe. Dignity hehehehe oh howard that's rich the homeless are like me buddy, we don't have any dignity left to steal.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
Jim, I am sorry if you feel that I implied that you take demeaning photographs of homeless folks...I haven't seen any of your images (of homeless people, or anything else for that matter) so I obviously wouldn't know. The problem here is that both you and your anti art, anti purity, anti emotion, anti hippie running dog crony (THIS IS A JOKE!!!!!!) are prone to make short "pithy" comments that ridicule the portentious pedantics of some of the other posters here (hell, I have taken a couple of personal shots from you two myself) so if the two of you are percieved as insensitive (at least to some of the bullshit around here) it may be because you choose to snipe at the convoluted conversations of those of us who are trying to prove that we have a "philosophy of photography". Trying to put how you feel into words is not an easy task, especially when you don't wish to appear a fool or worse...and just because some of us occasionally stumble and fall...doesn't mean that we don't have a philosophy...it just means that it is harder to try and explain where you are comming from...than it is to point out how miserably you have failed to achieve your goal. Trib..I genuinely believe that every person on the planet has inate personal dignity...even the ones that I don't like. As for liberal empathy and conservative cheap pathos...I see both as trying to interject a personal belief system into your image making...overtly political...I prefer subjectively political.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
Jim, I do not think it is that simple: "a conservative shooting a homeless will result in 'cheap pathos' and a liberal doing this will show empathy". There have been big photographic failures you know. We make them all. I (again) refer to the work of Diane Arbus. I do not know her motives to show all sorts social rejects, but I doubt that her intentions were inhumane. Still her work doesn't work: it does not provoke empathy, humane responses or whatever high morals. It's just a failure, it's weird, without any constructive social message.
|
|
|
|
Old Gray Beard
(K=162) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
Lot, I must confess my ignorance of Diane Arbus. But I think I understand what you are talking about. I have a coffee table book at home. Can't remember the title or photographer, perhaps it is Arbus. It is filled with shots of mentally retarded people, Downs Syndrome et al. The photos taken at Halloween are particularly bizarre. I was shocked the first time I saw the book. I did not buy it, my wife came up with it somewhere and since she has a sister with Down's I haven't questioned her about it, perhaps I should. Obviously, I feel this book certainly walks the tightrope of good taste. I don't know if a profit was made off this book or if the photog donates profits to the mentally retarded. In relation to Arbus, you say "Still her work doesn't work: it does not provoke empathy, humane responses or whatever high morals. It's just a failure, it's weird, without any constructive social message." The book I refer to at times does provoke empathy. It provokes both humane responses and disgust. It is very weird but may have a constructive social message. It both works and fails. It evokes all of these from the same beholder. I'd sure be interested in hearing what some of you think of this. Is this a Diane Arbus book I have described?
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
This sounds like an Arbus book. Arbus made no money from it, it was published posthumously. There was quite a bit of controversy around this book, especially from A.D. Coleman who wrote a pompous review about how he wouldn't review it. Personally, I found Coleman's article far more troublesome than the book.
|
|
|
|
Jim Mitrovgenis
(K=15) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
I might add as an interesting side note that when my wife's sister visited us a short time ago I noticed her looking through that book and I could not detect any emotion from her whatsoever. And she is a very emotional young lady who is easily moved to tears, laughter, anger and fear watching network television. Yet no apparent emotion at all as she thumbed through this book.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
I have owned the Arbus book since it was published over 20 years ago. I think you are trying to read social commentary into something that Arbus did because she was interested in making the images, interested in the people and documenting them. That is different from social journalism. I don't know how to explain it - think of them as "trees," or "still lifes," or any singular subject not necessarily photographs of people that are meant to elicit empathy.
Grey Beard guy - maybe that's why your sister-in-law didn't react to them. Plus, they are hard photographs to "get into." Any empathy or social commentary is going to have to come from you the viewer, and not from the photograph. Most people feel "uncomfortable" when they look at them and put the book down very rapidly. That is a very powerful statement in itself. It's difficult to look at the photos for long periods of time for many people.
I was initially really put off by them. But the more I looked at them and studied them, the more I appreciated them. Lot, you think they are failures. But, look at the composition, look at the direct, unflinching approach to the subject. If you can, look at them carefully and define why you don't like them. If you can define what it is about them you don't like, maybe you can use that analysis to help improve your own photographs. That alone will make them successful photo experience for you.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
So, could you say, would you agree, that those photographs are accurate, but their veracity is elusive, at best?...t
(it's a chrono-synclastic infundibulum, life is...)
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
and remember, Arbus was kind of psychotic herself. Perhaps she did identify with these people, and simultaneously find them revolting, and frightening as a mirror/metaphor for her own subconcious...t
|
|
|
|
Lot Wouda
(K=34) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
I appreciate your comment, steve. I did not mean to say that art or documentary work has got to be unequivocal per se and that it's not supposed to provoke contradictory feelings in the viewer. What I know from Arbus, is that she wanted to show with her work that in the end empathy with the subject photographed is not possible and that this turned out to apply to herself also. Maybe the almost rage that comes up in me when I see these pictures has the paradoxical effect of defending social rejects against possible abuse/invading into their privacy, etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
I have owned the Arbus book since it was published over 20 years ago
The book that was referenced is the one with people with Down's Syndrome. This was published in 1995, the first time these photos were published. The older book is probably her Aperture monograph, which was reprinted a few years ago and does not have the images that Jim referred to.
|
|
|
|
Old Gray Beard
(K=162) - Comment Date 3/19/1999
|
I checked the Arbus Down's book last night. The title is "Untitled". I also questioned my wife about her take on it since she's an RN with a Psychiatric specialty and since she has a sister with Down's. She sees much love and empathy in the Arbus photos. I found that a very interesting perspective. It goes back once again to depending on the beholder's frame of reference.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/19/1999
|
Coleman's article on the Arbus book can be read here. For what it's worth, I don't care much for the article.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 3/19/1999
|
To correct my earlier post --
...I've owned the Aperture monograph for over 20 years and have seen the latest book...
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 3/19/1999
|
Jeff, your posts on this topic makes me wonder how you think about Arbus' work. Seems you're rather indifferent, which is in itself remarkable.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/20/1999
|
Jeff is away, we can conjecture at leisure about his perspectives and enjoy the consequences later! (extra stupid smiley face here).
I read the A.D.Coleman article about Arbus that Jeff recommends. The authors points remind me of Brett Westons nightmares (I'm surmising) about his unborn cousins (twice removed) re-editing and publishing his reject images in coffee table format and calling it something imaginative like, oh I don't know...say..."Untitled".
I doubt Coleman intended this connection, but it's the best argument I've heard in favor of Brett's bonfire of his vanity. He, perhaps, hoped to avoid just this type of speculation about his motives for producing a book he never would have published...Diane is not here to explain or edit...t
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 3/20/1999
|
Howard, what is meant with pedestrian in your comment on Arbus in the thread on 'off topic'? I lack knowledge of American idiom here I think.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/21/1999
|
Lot, it means that her work doesn't rise above the ordinary...no spark of greatness or insight...and unlike Eve Arnold (whose work is also pretty pedestrian) Arbus lacks charm and appeal...the opinions noted are, of course, mine...and I don't deny that they are subjective. I personally believe that her images are demeaning...I like Eve Arnold's images...even though they are pretty ordinary...she (Arnold) at least likes her subjects and has a connection to them.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 3/21/1999
|
Thanks Howard, I can follow your reasoning, although I don't know Eve Arnold's work and it's hard for me to consider Arbus' work as ordinary.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/21/1999
|
Lot, Eve Arnold was one of the first women to work for Magnum (in the early 50's) she also worked for Life and the the Sunday Times (London) Magazine. She did a lot of celebrities, topical stuff, and some social commentary photography (McCarthyism and South Africa) her images are competent but uninspired. As for Ms. Arbus...once one subtracts her commercial work (fashion stuff mostly) her body of work is very small, there is no cohesive focus, and the images while possesing some shock/upset value really don't rise above the ordinary...I believe that her fans elevated her to "star" status because of the unhappiness of her life and her suicide...rather than because of any intrinsic value in her work...as for the mentally retarded subjects she shot...they couldn't speak for themselves...and Ms. Arbus was certainly not stable enough psychologically to speak for them....at a time (in this country) when when the mentally retarded had no rights Ms. Arbus had a chance to expose their plight, instead she merely took advantage of them.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 3/22/1999
|
Howard -
I sense some resentment towards Arbus because she did not perform in manner that is like what you would have done. ("...Ms. Arbus had a chance to expose their plight, instead she merely took advantage of them.")
How did she take advantage of them? Is merely taking photographs taking advantage? How can you speak to her motivations? Why should Diane Arbus be held to some arbritrary standard that you have created?
Are you looking for everyone to be Jacob Riis or W. Eugene Smith and have a photo crusade in order to justify the worth of the photographs?
I don't understand your comments and the basis for them.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/22/1999
|
By way of repetition: Arbus is not here to clarify or justify her reasons for making these pictures. We can only second guess her motives. It's idle chat. This is why A.D.Coleman refused to speculate and I follow his example.
It would be more appropriate to speculate that those entities who chose to edit this work from her archives, and publish a book without her knowledge or consent, are guilty of something that may be exploitative.
I would not attempt to extrapolate from my limited knowledge of this particular book some theory about her motives, when she has not offered any explanation, herself, from which I may depart...t
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/23/1999
|
Gentlemen, Lot asked me to clarify my earlier comments on Ms. Arbus (a response to his comments on Ms. Arbus) I merely expressed my opinion and feelings. In point of fact, since the images were not prepared for publication or showing by Ms. Arbus herself...it may be that she did not intend for them to see the light of day. At about the same time that Ms. Arbus was shooting these images in East Coast institutions...Frederick Wiseman was making a documentary on the same subject (also East Coast area) about the archaic and inhumane methods of caring for the insane prevalent in the U. S. at that time ("Titticut Follies") Wiseman's B&W Cinema Verite take on mental institutions brought about a meaningful and important discourse on reform and the adoption of more humane treatment of the insane. Maybe this is what discouraged Ms. Arbus from publishing her images. At any rate, no I don't believe she was obliged to try and improve the status of her subjects...but I do believe that she lacked their informed consent for the images that were made....and yes I do believe that this was taking advantage of them. Conditions in institutions for the insane at this time (late 60's/early 70's) were barbaric...more closely related to the institutions of the mid 18th or 19th century, than to the middle of the 20th century. Ms. Arbus was neither a documentarian nor a photojournalist...consequently I wonder about her motives for untaking such a project (she was primarily an advertising/fashion/commercial photographer) I don't resent her work, I don't consider her an important photographer...her body of work was very small and lacked focus...and her images are (to me anyway) pedestrian. I mention once again that I believe her fans elevated her to cult status because of her unhappy life and and her suicide...obviously those in charge of her images have made repeated efforts to cash in on this cult status.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 3/23/1999
|
Gentleman steve please: Arbus is just an example in a discussion started in 'NOT taking a photograph' and continued here in the 'accurate vs. truth issue' which concerns the ethics of relating to your subject as a photographer. To some of us Arbus' pictures do not convey the 'right' relationship to the subject. My argument was that the photographed people are not wholly capable of judging the impact of publication of their portraits on themselves and the way they will be seen by a public. Whether or not Arbus asked their permission, I think it's an unequal relationship. For me, this is more important than the fact that Arbus can't defend herself. What's wrong in criticizing dead artists? Can I speak of that one work of Mozart which was a mistake (if I can find any?).
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/23/1999
|
My point is only that we should be criticizing living editors, rather than the dead artist. Had someone found incomplete works of Mozart, and constructed them into an "Untitled Sonnet", I believe it would be inappropriate to criticize Mozart for the effort...t
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 3/23/1999
|
Well. You see. My problem is that I have no taste. I can usually find one or two photographs by someone (with the exception of Kenny Rogers) that make me stop. Look at them. And think "how in the world did they see that?" "I just learned something new."
I have a difficult time with totally writing off a photographer (Again, with the exception of Kenny Rogers.) Even Richard Gere has made a few photos that were worth a second look. O.K. Maybe not a third look, but certainly a second look. I am perplexed, perhaps by my own self, that I cannot adapt the attitude that a photographer hasn't made a picture of merit (one that made me stop and look at it for an extended period of time). Maybe I'm too easy. Maybe my aesthetic sophistication hasn't developed to the level of the other participants in this forum. In that case. I'm really interested in who the other photographers are that someone feels should be totally ignored or written off. I of course, nominate Kenny Rogers.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/23/1999
|
Here is a student report on Diane. The images are such low res, I found the quotes more appropriate to, and illuminating of this discussion.
I think this discussion is still about truth and accuracy...t
http://209.132.60.44/Presentation5/index.htm
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 3/23/1999
|
Looked at the presentation. Have to say, the first photo is a killer. The kid with the hand grenade, yeah. To me, the quotes point out the fact that in some way she admired the people she was photographing. That she wasn't out to exploite them, but to explore their world. Like I said earlier... I'm probably too easy.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/23/1999
|
being easy's a double edge blade, ain't it?...fun and dangerous...t
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/23/1999
|
That one quote really sticks with me, to do something without knowing why, to trust your intuition enough to believe something hidden will be revealed, if you just walk this path instead of that one....t
|
|
|
|
Jack McVicker
(K=1704) - Comment Date 3/24/1999
|
Diane Arbus RIP
In the early part of her career she was compared with Lee Fiedlander, Gary Winogrand & Robert Frank. An exibition ' New Document', organised by John Szarkowski, depicting the exemplary talent of named trio, the plaudits ' her arresting and enigmatic way of capturing her own views and experience. The Influence of Robert Evans proundly radical ideas helped to create the base from which Frank, Arbus, Friedlander,Wingrand cast aside the preordained rules and present their own viewpoint. The 'New Talent' were all considered to have produced their best work work for themselves and not as part of their working rouitine and/ or comissions. Diane Arbus captured the people that uguste Sander, at the end of his exhaustive typology of humanity, could not have imagined or forseen. Her comments ' Love involves peculiar, unfathomable combination of both understanding and misunderstanding' is an indication of her insight into the humanity she tried hard to capture. Her opinion that the ' Social landscape as an endless fertile ground' reflects the arresting and often enigmatic style, irrelevant details are absent as the attention is focused on the character portrayed signifying a complex and ironic insight. Her main claim to 'fame' is the book 'Diane Arbus' which only included 80 prints and cannot be consider a true example of her her complete talent. In consideration of her understated talent, one has only to consider the ' Midget Fiends' (1963) the artful arrangement, the warmth indicated by the pose overrides the inference of freakishness, these are human beings that happen to be small.
Sources: Time-Life & MOMA, NY Was she identifying with her subjects,??? but where does that put Weegee????? Jack.
|
|
|
|
|
