Well said, Frank!
Bruce Friday, October 29, 2004, 7:43:21 PM, you wrote: ft> 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. ft> Whatever you think of Shel's photo, that's all it is: a photo. ft> He's observing the world around him, recording some of those ft> observations on film, and posting them. I do that too. We all do ft> that. ft> Some try to find beauty in posed portraits, beauty in nature, beauty ft> in glamour, automobiles, advertising copy. And, that's just fine with ft> me. That's an entirely proper use of a camera. ft> Others use their camera to photograph everything, the good with the ft> bad. The ugly with the beautiful. The rich and the poor. ft> I don't understand why it is that Shel is accused of starting debates, ft> or having political motives, or of having an agenda. Why is it that ft> no one yelled at him for shamelessly promoting Cello Players when he ft> posted the "portrait" of his friend (can't remember her name right ft> now)? Why did no one yell at him when he posted the wonderful series ft> of shots of the neighbourhood children of 35 years ago? When he ft> showed the photos of Mexico? Of the "mechanic" who put his car on ft> stilts? The red chair? The little boy running on the beach? ft> All he pointed out in his little intro is that some in society don't ft> have the comforts that all of us on this list are able to enjoy, but ft> that despite being less fortunate (for whatever reason), this lady ft> seems to be able to find some small joy out of her meal. Is that ft> political commentary? Is that social commentary? ft> At worst, he can be accused of humanizing this person, of giving a ft> face to the homeless. Is that a bad thing? Is that so radical? Is ft> that so worthy of condemnation? ft> If he puts a caveat on his post, saying that if one doesn't like ft> looking at his "homeless" photos one shouldn't open the photo, then ft> who's to blame if one opens it and is offended? ft> People, it's a photograph. The commentary is that of the observer, ft> not Shel. It's as controversial as a photo of a beautiful beach, a ft> sunset, a caterpillar, a flower, the moon, a car, or a sporting event. ft> I'd suggest that the controversy rests with the observer(s), in this case. ft> -frank
