> >> I cannot see how Dorothea Lange's photos are substantively different > >> from those that illustrate the story, but I guess the point is not > the > >> images themselves, but rather the way in which the photographers and > >> editors used those photos in shaping a social narrative. > >> > > > > I think the main difference is that the workers are photographing > themselves > > and their own situation, rather than being the passive subjects of > someone > > else's regard. > > > > B > > > OK Bob, I can see that. And it raises a large handful of philosophical > and/or practical issues about photography. E.g., I wonder if we should > accept the assumption that a participant is more likely to recognize > key elements of their condition (suffering, poverty, hard work, old > age, whatever) and thus is more likely to capture that in an image than > an outsider.
No, not necessarily, but they are at least telling their story in their way. That's what is most important about it. It is also almost certain to give us insights that we couldn't get from somebody who was parachuted in. That doesn't reduce the value or importance of the work of the person parachuted in, it recognises the limits, and provides an additional viewpoint. > Or whether an amateur with no preconceptions about "art" > and "composition" is more likely than a professional to capture good > images. Well, it's different, not necessarily better or worse. I would, however, challenge your idea that amateurs have no preconceptions, and the assumption in there that good images arise only from such preconceptions. To me a good image is one that conveys the photographer's intention. > There is almost an 18th century argument that the pure natural > state is better than the educated/developed one. > I don't think so. I think the two approaches can sit alongside each other, and provide something that is collectively stronger and more informative. It's all very well to send Salgado along to photograph an event or situation, but it will always be Salgado's view of it, informed as it is by his background. Great as the photos may be, in my opinion it would also be great to see pictures by, say, the people in that enormous mine he photographed. The problem that arises, though, is that by giving cameras to people in the community (which is itself rather a patronising thing to do), you privilege the people with the cameras above the people they are photographing, so you are just repeating the same problem on a smaller scale. If you give everyone a camera, you have an issue of editing and selecting. Presumably you then ask the community to choose collectively which pictures they want to show. But then, when it's time to curate an exhibition, the curator gets to choose the pictures, so you're kind of back to square one. > So yes, I can see how the interviewee might distinguish the work from > e.g. Lange's based on process and method. But looking at the images and > the stories they tell, none of that really matters to the viewer, and I > would prefer the emphasis were on how different approaches lead to > similar outcomes. > > stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
