Dear Shel, I'm really surprised.
Your agenda is, if I've got it right, to show us something about American poverty. I have *nothing* against your agenda, but your photos fail to engage me. Why on earth are you taking that personally? Please don't confuse the quality of your agenda with the quality of your photos. I'm only commenting on the latter. Since you mention the previous pic you put up, I'd like to remind you that I didn't enter that thread until late. In the meantime you had in sequence appreciated all the stir it created, making a point that not everyone would like your shots. Then as the commotion went on, you claimed to have posted it to get technical comments only. Then at last you dismissed your own shot as "just a snapshot really". That's what P**sed me off. If you are after stirring up something, and show controversial pictures, *please* stand by your shot with courage, and endure the comments you get. After your denounciations, one is left with a rather awkward impression of your true intention for posting the pic, and of how much work you actually put into your photography. I will say it again, your agenda *is* good. But telling the tale of poverty is not so important that it makes an uninteresting photo passable. Work on your angles, Shel. Remember the quote of Frank Capa that you have cited so many times yourself "if your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough". Your social engagement is a force that you can wield with your photography. Just do it! -And don't blame others for lack of engagement if they don't approve of your images. It's not your agenda I dismiss. sincerely, Jostein ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 2:59 AM Subject: Re: PAW PESO - Breakfast in Bed > You look but you do not see ... tis a shame you are so jaded and cynical. > She's smiling, there's direct eye contact, and she's not the least bit > "grumpy" with my presence. Your comments are worthless since you've made > them based on unwarranted assumptions and lack of observation. In > addition, apart from being totally mistaken about the photograph, you're > attempting to point a negative finger at me personally. Well, I won't take > it quietly like I did with the last pic I put up. > > My comments were not to evoke sympathy, but to show a similarity between > two extreme segments of the population. Both can enjoy a pleasant morning > breakfast in bed regardless of social and economic class or their physical > situation. It's sad you only perceive the negative. > > To judge someone and their life as you've done is just a load of crap. > Consider yourself fortunate that you don't have the problems that put this > woman on the sidewalk that morning. Consider that you're not mentally ill, > that you have some form of socialized medicine to help you when you need > attention, that you may have family or friends which she may not have, and > you have other resources, both financial and social, to help you should you > have the problems that this woman has. > > It is easy to look down on someone, but, perhaps more difficult to show > empathy and understanding until you've experienced some of what they've > experienced. Clearly you have not, or, if you have, you have a short > memory. > > > Thanks for the scanning tip. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Portraits of the Less Fortunate, as Shel calls them, can be > > interesting. With Shel's intro it seems like we're supposed to feel > > sorry for this lady, for all the obvious social reasons.This photo > > fails to provoke such emotions with me. She's just an obese woman, > > smoking and munching junk food on the pavement. There's no eye > > contact, and the lady looks grumpy. Possibly with the photographer's > > presence? > >
