Hi Shel and all, A late comment on the original photograph.
I think it is interesting - the idea and the description, which suggest that people in all walks of life can enjoy breakfast in bed. It does give me to think, and in that sense it is a good photograph. I agree with Jostein, however, that it doesn't evoke any feelings in me. Maybe that means I am a little jaded and cynical. I could defend myself by saying that I have lived in a big city most of my life and those many years have left me a little less sensitive to poverty or homelessness. I think it is but natural. You might think it a pity. Maybe it is, but the fact remains that the image is just not powerful enough. We have all seen more dramatic, gut-wrenching images in the media. I also think Jostein is right when he suggests that Shel is not close enough. I, personally, would have liked to see this shot close-up, tightly focused on the woman's face and her breakfast things. In the present image I find it hard to discern her expression, and though there is eye contact it is not powerful. I simply do not 'feel' the presence of the woman in this shot. Let me add that I also greatly admire street photographers and their work. Shel and Frank are two of the people whose work makes reading PDML interesting. Cheers Badri On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:00:24 +0200, Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Speaking of assumptions, could you (or anyone else) answer the > questions I have interspersed below? I'm quite certain that there's a > fundamental discrepancy between intention and perception here, and it > would make an interesting lesson for me, I think. > > If you feel it more appropriate to send it off list, please do. > > thanks, > Jostein > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > You look but you do not see ... tis a shame you are so jaded and > cynical. > > Ok... maybe I didn't make it clear that it was this particular photo > that failed to induce any feelings? Did I really come across as a > complete cynic in all questions related to poverty? > > > She's smiling, there's direct eye contact, and she's not the least > bit > > "grumpy" with my presence. > > This an obvious mistake on my part. > > > 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. > > I would really like to know what I'm accusing Shel of here... > > > 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. > > I don't get it... Is the photo posted to show this person's pleasure? > > > To judge someone and their life as you've done is just a load of > crap. > > How, exactly, am I passing judgement on anything but the photo?!? > > > 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. > > Excuse me, but this is exactly the kind of normative patronising I > don't like when posted to PDML. For one simple reason; it has nothing > to do with the photograph. Whose problem is it? Shel's or mine? > > > 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. > > Whoa... Am I the only one making assumptions today? > > > Thanks for the scanning tip. > > Pleasure! > I'll make sure to look carefully at facial expressions hereafter. > > Jostein > > > > > 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? > > > > > >
