On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:13:31 -0400, Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is most evident now that you post these pics here with the purpose of > starting social/political debates and not artistical/technical ones > related to photography. May I suggest some other controversial subjects > like guns/abortion/religion. This would help make the list perfectly > unreadable.
Whatever you think of Shel's photo, that's all it is: a photo. He's observing the world around him, recording some of those observations on film, and posting them. I do that too. We all do that. Some try to find beauty in posed portraits, beauty in nature, beauty in glamour, automobiles, advertising copy. And, that's just fine with me. That's an entirely proper use of a camera. Others use their camera to photograph everything, the good with the bad. The ugly with the beautiful. The rich and the poor. I don't understand why it is that Shel is accused of starting debates, or having political motives, or of having an agenda. Why is it that no one yelled at him for shamelessly promoting Cello Players when he posted the "portrait" of his friend (can't remember her name right now)? Why did no one yell at him when he posted the wonderful series of shots of the neighbourhood children of 35 years ago? When he showed the photos of Mexico? Of the "mechanic" who put his car on stilts? The red chair? The little boy running on the beach? All he pointed out in his little intro is that some in society don't have the comforts that all of us on this list are able to enjoy, but that despite being less fortunate (for whatever reason), this lady seems to be able to find some small joy out of her meal. Is that political commentary? Is that social commentary? At worst, he can be accused of humanizing this person, of giving a face to the homeless. Is that a bad thing? Is that so radical? Is that so worthy of condemnation? If he puts a caveat on his post, saying that if one doesn't like looking at his "homeless" photos one shouldn't open the photo, then who's to blame if one opens it and is offended? People, it's a photograph. The commentary is that of the observer, not Shel. It's as controversial as a photo of a beautiful beach, a sunset, a caterpillar, a flower, the moon, a car, or a sporting event. I'd suggest that the controversy rests with the observer(s), in this case. -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
