On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:20:26 -0400, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I never received Shel's message as quoted below. Random deletion of > messages seems to be one of the few negs of this list. However, I would > hope that no one would ever disparage photography that is part of the > real day-to-day story of life in the real world. Like everything else > we see here, some of it is bad photography, some of it is good > photography, and some of it is great photography, but it is all worth a > look. Shel's last upload is great photography. A fact borne out by the > huge volume of commentary it has provoked. > Paul >
I didn't get Shel's post either, Paul. Oh well, off to the archives I go. You're right, though, Paul. Even if it was completely staged (which I don't for one minute believe that it was) it's a great photo. Even if, unbeknownst to Shel, these are a couple of art-school performance artists (which I don't believe they are), it's a great photo. Even if they're a couple of kids from the suburbs who came downtown for a day of fun and making a few bucks so they can go to the movies tonight, it's a great photo. BTW, a couple of years ago, before we outlawed it, Toronto had a real big problem with "squeegie kids" - I know you've got them in large US cities as well - folks who hang around at intersections, and when the lights are red, wash windshields in an unsolicited manner, then ask for "donations". It was said that no small proportion of them were suburban kids who lived in big homes, who came downtown for "adventure" and to make a few more bucks than they could make at Mickey D's at minimum wage. Don't know if that's true or not, but the press sure liked that angle... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
