Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 2/24/1999
|
John, I would be anxious to know the URL to the site you mention.
|
|
|
|
Dave Jenkins
(K=94) - Comment Date 2/24/1999
|
Unfortunately, most people don't care to look at good photojournalism these days. We are in a time similar to that described in the Bible in the declining days of the ancient kingdom of Israel, when the people told the prophets to "prophesy to us smooth things." In other words, if there's bad stuff going on, most of us would prefer not to know about it.
|
|
|
|
Steve Bingham
(K=384) - Comment Date 2/24/1999
|
Take a look at what???????????????? No URL mentioned.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Daryl Hiebert
(K=81) - Comment Date 2/25/1999
|
Try http://kosova.com/f980310.htm ...
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/25/1999
|
The religious/ethnic/political problems in the former Yugoslavia have complex historical roots....An excellent source for a historical overview is "Balkan Ghosts" by Robert Kaplan. Is there a solution to the problem? Who knows, the bloodshed in Bosnia is at least temporarily halted..The same solution will work in Kosovo, but in both cases, only until the NATO peacekeepers are pulled out. A real solution, if there is to be one, must come from the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Montenegrins, and Kosovar Albanians...and at present the desire to live together in peace doesn't seem to be an option. I feel that the international community of photojournalists has been a major force in making the world aware of the situation and in bringing about the temporary solutions achieved so far. Long term solutions will require that the combatants negotiate a mutually agreeable, fair, and peaceful solution. The world cannot compell them to live in peace with each other forever.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/25/1999
|
good photojournalism???!!! bodies lined up for propaganda shots? I'm not saying that I am taking sides at all, but isn't this obvious to anyone else? I don't see any photojournalistic value to these pics, they tell me nothing about war that I didn't know already and they certainly don't tell me anything about any specific war.
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 2/25/1999
|
Looks just like Vietnam to me. It sucked then and those memories still suck the big one. We should stay out of it. I don't want to risk anybodys' life over there on a people that can't get it together themselves. If we stay out maybe they will get tired of the fighting and find a solution themselves. If only it worked that way. So sad. Jaded
|
|
|
|
Gary Watson
(K=1665) - Comment Date 2/25/1999
|
The same old "objectivity of ignorance" from Kantor. I take umbrage at your glib oversimplification of Serb "suffering" in the Kosovo crisis. Have a look at "Cry, the Dismembered Country" in the New York Review(1-14-99) by Timothy Garton Ash, who has likely forgotten more than most of us will ever known about the whole sad business.There's certainly been no shortage of gruesome photojournalism on Kosovo in the mainstream Canadian press. This morning's Toronto-based Globe and Mail ran a full page by Montreal photographer Roger LeMoyne, who won a World Press Photo award in 1998 for his Kosovo coverage. You might profit from a look at the International Crisis Group's site(http://www.crisisweb.org).No pictures, though.
|
|
|
|
Mike Dixon
(K=1387) - Comment Date 2/25/1999
|
The photos at the site you noted were a graphic inventory of a bunch of dead bodies. They had shock value. Powerful photojournalism doesn't rely on shock value. If mainstream papers published these photos, there might be outrage against the paper for publishing such graphic photos. But I seriously doubt they would generate much outrage about Kosovo.
|
|
|
|
Steve Bingham
(K=384) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
John,
Wars kill. Big wars kill even more. Is photography the educator? I really think not. Most of us know. We really do. Honest.
Steve
|
|
|
|
John Kantor
(K=1664) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
Re Mr. Watson's response: I think the worst oversimplification we can make is to polarize it as Serb vs. whomever. We end up not only perpetuating the real historical enmities, but also playing right into the hands of opportunists like Milosevic who prey on ethnic paranoia. I think the lesson of all wars is that anyone can be indoctrinated to perform horrendous acts. We killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers, most of whom just wanted to go home to their families - but we failed to hold responsible the one person we should have.
Mr. Creech's response is, of course, technically correct, but he forgets that law and order is always imposed from the outside: from a national government that either represents all the people or is committed to oppressing all the people (all these ethnic groups did live together peacefully while the Soviet Union was around and Yugoslavia had a strong central government) down to an objective and disinterested local police force. But at best the hold of law and order is tenuous - even in our society. Do we forget our own social unrest so quickly? (I grew up and until last year lived in St. Petersburg, FL. Do you remember seeing the riots on tv? They were, of course, limited to a section of town neither I nor anyone I knew ever went anyway. It was all too easy even for us to dismiss them as something not relevant to our lives. The only difference immediately noticeable to me was the very visible police presence at the local mall.)
|
|
|
|
John Kantor
(K=1664) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
I have another "long-winded" post about some of the philosophical implications of photography that I'm thinking about, but it basically comes down to this: Photography exists on a spectrum of representation. At one end is the photo as artifact (such as an abstract fine-art photo). At the other, the photograph attempts to efface itself completely, transporting us to another time and place - the photo as pure (re)presentation.
Arguably the most powerful photos have come to embody elements of both, becoming in essence icons. Much of the "great" photojournalism falls into this category - probably by accident of time, place, and the politics of the moment. The obviously relevant example from Vietnam is the clip and associated stills of the young Vietnamese girl running naked down the road after her village was napalmed. Did anyone besides me see any similarities between that picture and the last picture from the Kosovo series? (Perhaps it's too bad there wasn't a photographer there, taking pictures as that girl was murdered, rather than after the fact. That, I suppose, would have been true photojournalism.) For those who only saw another picture of dead bodies: As a photographer, what I am to do with the corpse of a young girl that will bring her death closer to you - and so also bring her life to mean something to you? (This is not just a rhetorical question.)
|
|
|
|
John Kantor
(K=1664) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
(Sorry about the multiple posts, but it seemed a better way to break up my responses.)
I am struck - but not surprised - by how easy it is to generalize and depersonalize situations like this, as with Mr. Lindsey's, Mr. Bingham's, and Mr. Dixon's comments. It's too easy for us to just say "I've seen it all before" and "that's what photojournalists (and the UN, etc.) do" and leave it at that. Of course, it is a natural defense mechanism. The media today puts us in touch with so many people and peoples that it can be overwhelming. (But don't forget, for a significant part of our population this might be the first time they've been exposed to events like this. Some of my younger acquaintances can still feel outrage.)
I asked the question because I take it as self-evident that we should do something - in all cases like this. I selected Kosovo only because it is the most current, but it could just have easily been Somalia or Iraq or the Palestinians or US migrant workers or textile workers in China. I most firmly believe that with privilege comes responsibility. Few people in the world have the luxury to worry only about the best mode of "self-expression." And note that I didn't ask: What can we do? because I also believe that we can do many things.
Too many of the world's problems happen to people who don't look like us, don't dress or talk like us, and don't live in houses or towns like ours. It's easy for us to distance ourselves from them (partly as protection as I mentioned). But we (the posters to this board) have defined ourselves as "photographers," as having developed skills and "vision" that others haven't. There was another thread about "finding a personal vision." Well, I say, look where the light is better. It's much easier to develop a vision about something you care about - and there is plenty to care about. As a challenge then: What do we do? As people, as artists or journalists, as photographers?
|
|
|
|
Russell Edwards
(K=329) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
Powerful images of violence from wars (e.g. Vietnam) have increased anti-war sentiment in the general public. However, people still seem to have trouble getting over the animalistic "us vs them" mentality. To bring things a bit closer to home for most of you, how do you feel about the acts of violence being inflicted by US forces on the people if Iraq and sporadically other places like Afghanistan, etc? How about the idea of sentencing someone to death as "punishment", e.g. the recent case of the white supremacist in southern USA? IMO people all over the world are going to have to change to incorporate pacifist ideals into their world view if we are going to have any hope of preventing the kind of thing we see in Kosovo in the long run. War photography has had a tremendous impact (in the west, at least), but to really eradicate violent behaviour and the "us vs them" mentality, the message of photography has to hit closer to home. It may be harder to carry off, though, because it is much more difficult to say portray the human side of a "cold-blooded" white supremacist than it is to portray the human side of a group of naked women and children fleeing from their napalmed village...
|
|
|
|
Ed Buffaloe
(K=235) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
There is a saying amongst Buddhists that since it is impossible to change the world we must change our attitude to the world. I don't take this as gospel--it flies in the face of our Western belief that the world is what you make of it. But there is a grain of truth here: we must be certain of our own hearts and minds, so that we never contribute, through action or inaction, to such an atrocity as took place in Kosovo. With right thought established, we can take right action.
It is a great tragedy of war that men become so inured of violence they think nothing of killing women and children. So we find it difficult to find mercy for the merciless.
|
|
|
|
Gary Watson
(K=1665) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
Please, Kantor, read something on Kosovo and stop embarrassing yourself. You're boring us all gormless with this emotive crap.
|
|
|
|
John Kantor
(K=1664) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
Actually, the point is not the situation in Kosovo per se, but constructive engagement. But Kosovo makes a good test case precisely because of the complexity and timeliness of the situation. (Besides, it's not about Kosovo - it's about people.)
I fully expect to be pilloried for my esoteric philosophizing. But since the great thing about discussion boards is that you can ignore threads that seem pointless I am suprised that "emotive crap" can engender such responses. For those who unselfconciously accept terms like "self-expression" and "personal vision," and who argue about the relative ranking of modes of aesthetic expression, I would think emotive statements would have some appeal.
But actually this is tied in to the responses I usually get to my philosophizing as well: The most painful personal act possible is to question assumptions that have become your view of and defenses against the world.
I did, however, learn a new word. But from Webster's www dictionary, "gormless" (lacking intelligence) should probably been applied to describing my commentary, not it's victims. Interestingly enough it derives from "gaum," meaning attention or understanding - which precisely are the effects I was hoping it would have.
Finally, for anyone would would care to waste some more time by attempting to enlighten me: Why should I feel embarrassed?
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
You shouldn't.
Many people are embarrased by their nakedness. When the true self is exposed in hard light, the capacity for denial is tested to the failing point and your every attribute can be seen.
You have exposed yourself as a human who has the ability to empathise with strangers.
Have you ever experienced the sensation of embarressment while watching someone else commit personal acts, that you youself have engaged in?
You strike closer to home than many will admit. It's no wonder they want you to shut up and go away. (little voices inside head make me afraid)
Think globally, act locally, speak up on the internet...t
I have great sympathy for individuals trapped in horrific conditions, it's difficult to extend those sympathies to the societies that create those conditions. How many individuals does it take to make a society? How did they come to this? How can we avoid becoming such, ourselves?. Perhaps this is for artists to consider...t
|
|
|
|
Gary Watson
(K=1665) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
It's the inane parenthetical non sequitur in your original post that's objectionable. You're trivializing a serious matter for your own gratification--that's embarrassing in my view but inconsequential in yours.I just find the self-indulgent confusion of opinion and knowledge to be tiresome. Right, "bored gormless"=bored without understanding what you're on about.
|
|
|
|
Mike Dixon
(K=1387) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
'I am struck - but not surprised - by how easy it is to generalize and depersonalize situations like this, as with Mr. Lindsey's, Mr. Bingham's, and Mr. Dixon's comments. It's too easy for us to just say "I've seen it all before" . . .'
But Mr. Kantor, we -have- all seen it before. We've seen worse. Many times. Of course we depersonalize these situations! We are bombarded by them constantly. If we didn't depersonalize them, looking at a newspaper would debilitate us with grief and anger.
Kosovo is the most publicized, current example of Large-Scale Attempted Genocide. We know. We understand what is happening. If, as you assume, that we care nothing about it, do you honestly expect yet another picture of dead bodies to suddenly make us care?
I believe that powerful photojournalism can influence what people think. But the photos you noted were simply "shocking" snapshots.
To answer your original question: "What do we do to make a difference? - in this case, in similar ones, in any situation?" We aim higher than showing snapshots of corpses. How you choose to aim higher is your responsibility.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 2/27/1999
|
"Take a political stance with photography." I have no problem with that. That's what makes a photographer. But the site mentioned fails completely if the sole purpose is to publicize the "problem" in Kosovo. It simply is not photojournalism because the photos don't tell any sort of story; they just portray dead bodies, and that's stupid and disgusting. I have a friend who has lived and worked in Sarajevo (her husband is still there). She created a photo album of her pictures of that area (including surrounding areas) during the time the shit was hitting the fan there. One of the most moving experiences for me was viewing her photos with her while listening to her feelings and stories behind each one. Since her husband, who is a State Trooper here, has worked there for several years as a peace keeper, many of her photos are of him interacting, helping, and dealing with society there. Many of them have quite a sad conotation about them, but many of them are of smiling faces and "life" as we would expect here (quite strange, really). Each photo is a crappy machine print taken with a cheap point and shoot camera - probably lower quality even than the ones referenced by the kosovo web site - yet each one is 100 times more powerful because they are journalistic; they tell a story, they portray emotion, and there was something truly interesting being told. She recommended the movie "Welcome to Sarajevo" which I watched before looking at her album. The movie was really good, but looking at her pictures made it really come home for me because the perspectives of the people were portrayed in very much the same way. Her album is really one of the most powerful works I've ever seen. I have approached her about publicizing her pictures, maybe even scanning some in for a web site. Her photography made it "better" for me because now I have a small clue about what was going on there (and now in Kosovo). Maybe for her she made a difference just by showing her album to me and others. But making a difference in the cause is a different task, one she shares with her husband while her photography, as strong as it is, takes a back seat to their cause.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 3/2/1999
|
"Take a political stance with photography." I have no problem with that. That's what makes a photographer
excuse me??? what kind of horseshit is this?!
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/2/1999
|
excuse me??? what kind of horseshit is this?!
It looks to me like the beginning of a fairly long thoughtful statement about the question, as opposed to the simple vulgarity of the post that followed.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 3/3/1999
|
still looks like horseshit to me......taking a political stance with photography is what makes a photographer...please, if it smells like it, and it looks like it..............
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 3/3/1999
|
This 'political stance that makes a photographer' reminds me of Stalin who distinguished bourgeois art from proletarian art and bombarded Shostakovitsj with this sort of 'art-critique' which tried to bring this composer from his artistic track.
|
|
|
|
Richard Newman
(K=850) - Comment Date 3/3/1999
|
Gentlemen!!! Shall we keep it polite? No flaming please!! Actually, I am surprised at the emotional response to this question. The fact is that much photography is political, and much isn't political. It is equally true of all art and literature. As mentioned, many governments, such as the Soviet, had specific social goals and styles for art created under their control. In the Soviet Union, it was called Socialist Realism, and was intended to glorify the communist society and system. The Nazis also had acceptable and unacceptable artistic criteria. The exhibit of "decadent" art held in Germany is famous, as a public warning to artists. So it is with photography. Some do it to create images with no intentional political purpose. Others do it specifically to advance a political or social goal. In the Depression, the Farm Security Administration photo projects created some of the most famous documentary images around. Were these political? I think that would depend on one's particular interpretation of the word "political". Apparently, the primary intent of the program was to document society and its problems. While not a specific political goal, there is little doubt that these pictures had an impact on national ecomomic and social policy - a political issue. It is also true that photos taken with no inerest or intent to be political can be used politically by others. Ansel Adams had, so far as I know, no political purpose in making his famous landscapes. But it is certain that these images have been used in the political battles surrounding the environment and national park usage. So, if you want to make political pictures, fine. If you don't its equally fine. But, please show some tolerance and understanding of those who do it their way. You wouldn't want them telling you what and how to photograph, would you?
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/3/1999
|
Politics and art are inseparable, in the late 60's, after the Sierra Club had started to espouse political activism in the interest of environmental protection and preservation, the president came under fire from from the more conservative members, who wanted the club to return to the earlier outings for the wealthy...in a classic showdown, David Brower was fired after two prominent photographer board members spoke eloquently about the direction the club was taking. Ansel Adams voted to fire Brower, Eliot Porter voted to retain him as president (and to continue the environmental activism) Brower was out, but the direction of the Sierra Club remained unchanged. Adams is often mentioned as a leading force in art for environmental conservation (although that was not his position) Porter was unabashedly pro environmental activism/conservation and his photographs clearly stated his position...we do not live in a vacuum, what we choose to shoot (and what we don't choose to shoot) state a political position whether we like the idea or not.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 3/3/1999
|
If this is a respons to my post Richard: I just wanted to blow away a little grain of sand which came in the Schnecke-gang of our lens directed to the world of art and politics. Tony Rowlett suggested - and I actually doubt that he meant it exclusively - that a political stance MAKES a photographer. If this text had been: CAN make (there are other ways than a political stance too) - I wouldn't have written my post. In short, I agree with your post. But then, is the title of this thread a hint at the title of one of Lenin's pamphlets? If so, my association is not impolite, but just adequate.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 3/3/1999
|
Lot has it right of course, I should have written "can make a photographer" or, perhaps better, "makes many photographers." But, one's political stance has a bearing on how one feels, acts, and thinks about a given situation. For a photographer, the act of photographing often shows how the photographer feels and thinks, thus my statement suggesting that the photography itself is the product of one's political stance, which I think is what John Kantor suggests in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 3/3/1999
|
In the Arts and Politics thread, Howard Creech responded: John, we are not machines....everything that we do is, at least marginally, subjective, and just as important, relative to our personal views and feelings. It is not possible to be totally objective...since we can't separate self from action. Therefore, even those of us who claim to make no political or social statement, are in fact making just such a statement through our denials, and the choices of what we shoot and what we don't/won't shoot. In reference to my statement suggesting that one's political stance "makes the photographer," I think Howard's statement reinforces this. One's political stance has a great deal of bearing on one's photography, no?
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/3/1999
|
as does ones emotional condition, as does ones financial situation, as does ones age, as does ones marital status, as does ones level of intoxication, as does the amount of sleep you've had....okay, I'll stop...t
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 3/3/1999
|
actually, you know, I'm sure that a good amount of scotch before photographing can have a very positive effect on one's pictures. Sort of inhibits the..... wait, I think I'll make this a new thread! :)
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 3/3/1999
|
I think too many of us are too ready to label just about anything as being "political" when things really turn out to be nothing more than one's own preferences, likes or dislikes. Anyone care to tell me what political statement I make by eating Black walnut ice cream? (no, I am not eating it right now)
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 3/4/1999
|
Tony, could you tell where it is to be seen in the work of Dali, that he had peculiar sympathies with the fascist Franco? How come that I so much like his art, and so much dislike Franco? Toscanini said once about Richard Strauss (could have been another composer with a dubious relation to the Nazi's): "For the composer Strauss I take of my hat, for the politician Strauss I put it back up again". Art and politics are different realities which may not have any relation at all. In photojournalism the relation may be more close, but that's rather evident.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/4/1999
|
Politics has many definitions, all of which do not relate to forms of government, or methods of obtaining influence...my Scribners Bantam English Dictionary also offers this definition..."sagacious, artful, wily, discreet, judicious, and diplomatic." Mark, one definitive choice shown by eating black walnut ice cream is to live in an area that provides electricity, and readily available dairy products to its citizens (many areas lack electricity, or have dietary restrictions on the consumption of dairy products) Political choices are not always simply about which political party you prefer.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 3/4/1999
|
With any kind of photojournalism (that's my qualifier here), one need start first with a slice of reality that one cannot merely create from scratch (like Strauss can). Whatever one's views are of the world ("political stance" as it were), such views are so often reflected in the slice of reality one chooses to photograph, as opposed to painting or composing or writing, that it is with a photographer that the very political stance can form the the body of work of the photographer. As the quote suggests, Strauss and his compositions reflect completely different points of view. This is less so with photography. Also, I think it's important to relate this philosophy to a "body" of work by a photographer, even if it's just one photograph, but I believe most of the time it's more than one photograph, i.e. a series.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/4/1999
|
To fathom a photographers intent, I find the singular image insufficient. It is turned to a point more easily by the veiwer, suffering without context. One piece seems like a word, and makes me want for a sentence, then a paragraph and still an essay...t
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
Howard, As for your post on 3-3-99 about photography as political statements, I strongly disagree. You may read into someones work your own political agenda or philosophy but that is not always what is meant if anything is meant at all. How you come to your conclusion baffles me. How do you know whether mine, or anyone elses photography, has a political statement or not if you don't know them and what they truly stand for? Kind of like statistics I suppose. Anything can be read from or into them. James
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
Tony- March 4th, If you had never read anything about Strauss how would you know what he meant with his compositions? Had you not known where he was from and what era he composed in, how would you know what he meant when he composed a piece? Or would your own politics and beliefs color your impressions? As I asked Howard, how would you know from looking at Ansel Adams or Eliott Porters body of work, what they meant as a political or philosophical stance? James
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
James, good questions. I believe it is easier to extract meaning from photography than with symphonic musical compositions. The politics of Strauss are clearly separate from the music. The music is mostly a subjective thing. I think this is the characteristic that separates photography from all other channels of expression, even bare journalism where writing and news editing can (and often do) start from pure make-believe. Photography (in its pure form) must start with a slice of reality - the photographer has no choice, even though the product can take on different forms.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
My own politics and beliefs would color my impressions of listening to Strauss because music is open-ended, I can fill in the blanks and say oh well, he meant that, or he wanted this. Photography, like the politics of Strauss, is less subjective.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
James, my intent in answering that question was to point out the relationship between genre and context....we can't separate ourselves from the time we live in or the society that we live in...consequently, the artistic endeavors we engage in are at the minimum representative of our culture and time/place in the over all scheme of life....we are not objective beings and our creations are not objective either...therefore culture, economic situation, education, life experiences, etc. all color what we choose to photograph (or not photograph) any representational relationship is by its very nature political.....This is why "Life is beautiful" is now being called to answer for political "un" correctness...rather than judged strictly on its merits as a film with a breathtakingly new viewpoint. Making a politically correct film, would be just as much a political statement...as making one which was politically incorrect....both are going to judged in the context of Genre and the cultural climate prevalent at present...whether the author espoused any political position or not....
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/10/1999
|
This remined me of this statement by Pedro Meyer:
Memory is culturally as well as biographically driven. Our perception of a photographic image is affected by the historical conditioning of our media experiences, which, with the structure of society, affect the content of what we perceive.
|
|
|
|
![Photograph By Nelson Moore [Kes] -](http://thumbs.imageopolis.com/images/6/0/0/5/6005/1537290-tn.jpg "Photograph By Nelson Moore [Kes] -")
