----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Halpin" <[email protected]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: A Hard, Merciless Light
On Jun 3, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Bob W wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Stan Halpin
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. Or whether an amateur with no preconceptions about "art" and
"composition" is more likely than a professional to capture good images.
There is almost an 18th century argument that the pure natural state is
better than the educated/developed one.
As someone who documents what she sees with both pen and camera, I'm willing
to admit all sorts of socio/economic, political--and gender--assumptions--of
the usual western variety-- inform how I see the world and thus document it.
In many ways I can't help that, but what I can do is understand how my
worldview is shaped and accept the fact that other people's worldviews might
be informed with different assumptions, and, knowing this might help me
better understand others and their experiences. I'm willing to accept the
possibility that an "insider" might nuance documentation of experience in
ways I as an "outsider" might not be able to--in ways I might not even see.
As to the amateur/professional/quality issues Ribalta raises, well, those
are tricky ones--we'd really need to agree on working definitions to
discuss this, but let's try this argument instead--just for fun :-)--and the
argument goes like this: professional artists of all types--sculptors,
painters, musicians, dancers, writers, photographers et al--are *made
professional* by the artistic standards held by the capital elite who have
the assets and power to publish, exhibit, produce, and critique (which leads
to acclaim) artistic work. Given this argument, that's what makes the WPM
so interesting--proletariat worker photographers setting their own artistic
standards--and advancing their own revolutionary agenda to be sure :-)--we
can't forget that. And to bring this inclination to modern day, people are
trying to use the internet to do the exact same thing :-).
Anyway, it was a great interview and fun to consider all the points and
arguments Ribalta makes.
Cheers, Christine
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
