I was going to let this drop, but I want to say some things to
explain my previous posts.
First, I am grateful to Shel for pointing us to a very powerful and
moving set of photographs -- and probably also an example of
found art, since these were undoubtedly made for data purposes,
not display.
Second, I am sensitve, maybe overly sensitive, to the propaganda,
mistatements, half-truths, and out-right lies put forth by government
agencies any time drugs are in issue. (and I was not accusing
Shel of making the connection -- the police did). Much of my
daily work involves dealing with these matters. The abuse of the truth
in this area is so pervasive that I now react almost automatically
to them. The DEA Administrator had a letter of scary half-truths in
Ann Landers yesterday, for example.
Third, the relationship of photographs to "truth" is something
that all of us who make pictures should concern ourselves with.
And, finally, those pictures were powerful. I would like to see
someone more intuned with that kind of portraiture do a series
of street people in their mid-30s to mid-40s paired with
earlier pictures -- high school yearbook, wedding pictures
(often available in newspaper archives), etc. The contrasts would
be more than most of us could bear.
Last, neither drugs nor sex will physically do those kinds of things
to a person.
Apologies to any I offended, and again congratulations to Shel
for finding a powerful photographic statement --even if we fight ablut
the meaning (another test of good art)
At 06:19 PM 05/07/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>This must be "Let's-dump-on-Shel week." He does not need a defense from
>me, but I am amused at the tenor of some of the comments in this thread.
>So I will add a couple of my reactions to the reactions.
>
>1) Is the series of photos he pointed to OT? Yes, I suppose it is in the
>narrowest sense, since it does not deal with Pentax equipment. If that
>criteria were accepted by all we sure could cut down on the number of
>messages that pass through here daily. But in the past when I and others
>have complained about the amount of off-topic nonsense that appears on
>the list, we have been outshouted by those who feel that list members
>should not be constrained to discussing only Pentax equipment-related
>matters, but should be permitted to discuss or raise questions about
>general photography topics, discussions of technique, non-Pentax tools
>needed to use our Pentax gear to best advantage, etc., (while perhaps
>eliminating politics, religion, the weather, and other completely
>non-photographic stuff.)
>
>And we have many threads dealing with non-Pentax matters, but dealing
>with photographic things of possible interest to many Pentax users.
>There are frequent discussions on lighting, characteristics of different
>films and developers, film latitude, how best to deal with extremely
>contrasty scenes, how best to scan images, enlargers, tripods, tripod
>heads, how neat it is to do photography of various nighttime sky scenes
>and how best to do it and when, and more. Lots of those topics are
>interesting, although not to all of us all of the time, and as often as
>not they are not labeled OT without generating much in the way of
>complaint.
>
>So what is the big deal about this series of photos? Lots of
>interesting work has been done using a similar technique -- the same
>subject photographed at widely varying times. I have seen interesting
>series' of shots of the same tree in different seasons, of the same
>geographic features over time -- a while back someone did a project
>rephotographing many of the early (19th century) scenes of the American
>West, placing cameras in the same position, etc., to show what has
>happened to the spots over a long time period.
>
>I wonder if Shel would have gotten the same reaction had he said, "Here
>is an interesting example of showing intertemporal changes with
>photography." That could, I think, properly be considered a sort of
>photo technique topic.
>
>I note that The 19th century Russian photos that Shel pointed us to a
>week or so ago was equally OT. It showed some interesting technique and
>the photos were good, but it did not relate directly to Pentax
>equipment, and it did not get any complaints. Seems to be the reference
>to prostitution and drugs that bothers people.
>
>2) Interpreting this series as showing how photos can lie because the
>cops labeled the series, "The Effects of Drugs and Prostitution" strikes
>me as making a strong assertion without proof. (Perhaps based in part on
>anti-police bias?) True, the cops have not presented evidence that the
>physical changes visible in the photos are caused by drugs and
>prostitution, but neither has any evidence been presented that it was
>not so caused, that it was caused by something else. Where is the
>evidence to support the claim that those changes are caused instead by
>life on the street and poverty? What has been the woman's income over
>this period, her living conditions, etc.? Those things are not stated
>anywhere. So both assertions of causation are just that -- assertions,
>without proof. (I do not consider a reference to Dorothea Lange's
>depression work as proof of anything, and I do not see much of a
>parallel anyway.)
>
>In fact, it is likely that the physical changes were caused by all of
>those factors -- drugs, prostitution, life on the street and poverty
>often go together and long-time heavy drug users who are poor and live
>on the street do tend to deteriorate physically pretty fast. It also is
>possible that the poverty and living on the street were caused by heavy
>drug use (which I assume is what the cops believe), although that cannot
>be stated with certainty since poverty and lousy conditions of life also
>can lead to drug use.
>
>So, to flatly state that "These pictures are a propaganda scam designed
>to pull your heartstrings, not convince your head" may be true but it
>also may not be true. That statement is not something that should be
>taken as fact without evidence. The cops may be right.
>
>And I also note, in my role as Shel's defender, that he did not hang the
>possibly inaccurate label on the series, the cops did. Nor did he refer
>to the series using that label. He simply said: "This is a link to a
>series of arrest photographs of the same individual over the course of
>10 years. She was about 31~32 years old at the time of the first photo.
>It's not a pleasant series of photos." I believe that is absolutely
>correct on all points.
>
>Bob Harris
>-
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
>go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
>visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
Buford C. Terrell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Professor of Law (713) 646-1857
South Texas College of Law
1303 San Jacinto Houston, TX 77002
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A deep respect for Law requires intense skepticism
toward every law.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
