I don't believe I did. I wondered if there was a medical problem ... but perhaps that's spitting hairs.
No, it's not always right to do something because it's "called" art. But since you brought up whether or not street photography IS art, I replied that I thought it was. Graffiti, methinks, is a poor example, Butch ... if I am the artist, whose property am I defacing? Others opinions do differ, but that's unimportant. It's your opinion that matters. Let's look at this as a photograph depicting a social and medical problem that's affecting millions of people in many countries in the world. Might this photo, however distasteful it may be to you, get some people to think about the harm they are doing to themselves and their friends and family by supporting the fast food/junk food industry. Might that not be a redeeming value in the photograph? Many photos made by Dorothea Lange were, to numerous people, distasteful and hard to look at. But to many others those same photos opened their eyes to a situation that they may not have known about, except through second-hand reports. Perhaps that awareness prompted some people to constructive action. shel Butch Black wrote: > You even asked the question of her mental state in > your original post. > > I wanted to emphasize the question: is it right to do something simply > because it is (or you call it) art? The example that comes to mind is > graffiti. Some consider it art. Does that then make it right for the > "artist" to deface someone else's property? > > In thinking about my uncomfortableness I realize that this picture goes > against my "we need a gentler world" philosophy. My opinion is that the > image's potential to hurt far outweighs any socio/political statement, or > expression of art, the image may have. Other's opinions may differ. >
