On 28 Nov 2016, at 19:30, Marco Alpert <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Nov 28, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Bob W-PDML <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 28 Nov 2016, at 17:57, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Jostein Øksne wrote: >>>> I remember one time way back in the gelatine days of photography, that a >>>> guy called Shel Belinkoff posted a thematically similar photo. It >>>> triggered one of the most on-topic flame wars we ever had. >>>> >>>> With this photo, I get the feeling of observing a vulnerable person >>>> exposed in a vulnerable moment. I tend to side with Ann in finding it >>>> crossing a fine line of something negative. Indecency, maybe. >>>> Jostein >>> >>> I think that Marco should change his name to Rorschach. If you don't find >>> anything wrong with someone being fat, there is nothing to criticize in the >>> photo. Also note that what she is eating is an apple, something people >>> attempting to lose weight often eat as they can be filling without a high >>> caloric load. >>> >>> This is exactly the problem with street photography, the photograph itself >>> is making no value judgement, however the people looking at it are free to >>> be as judgmental as they want. >>> >> >> That's rubbish, and you know it. > > You know, you’re certainly welcome to your opinion, but telling someone else > what they do or don’t “know” strikes me as a bit presumptuous. > >> The photographer chooses which pictures to take, and then chooses whether or >> not to show them, then chooses how they are shown. > > No argument there. > >> Every photograph anyone ever took makes many value judgements. > > You’ve said above that the *photographer* makes choices (which I guess you > equate with “value judgements”). But unless the photographer makes a habit of > communicating the reasons he or she made those choices (a habit that I > eschew), Larry’s point that the photograph acts as Rorschach into which the > viewer can inject their own preconceptions, even as they guess at the > photographer’s motivation, seems pretty valid to me.
The point about a Rorschach blot is that it is essentially random and non-representative, so any interpretation is inevitably an invention of the viewer alone. A photograph is unavoidably representative - it is the defining property of photography - and there is human agency, choices and value judgements throughout the production chain. These choices and judgements influence the viewer. The comparison with a Rorschach blot therefore fails entirely. Of course the viewers bring their own preconceptions and make their own interpretation, but because of the aforementioned human agency these interpretations are not _entirely_ their own. Larry's claim that the photograph makes no value judgement is therefore rubbish and if he didn't know it he bloody well ought to, and does now. It is however true that the viewers can be as judgmental as they wish. As indeed can the photographer, and the rest of the world is free to interpret and judge their motives in turn. In the case of this particular photograph I interpret it as mean-spirited. That's not to say I might not have taken it myself, but having taken it I don't think I would have shown it. Obesity is a very complex issue, as is women's body image, and not simply a matter of individual choice and free will, and people should think long and hard before posting pictures of identifiable individuals in situations which are easily interpreted as reducing their dignity, or mocking or pitying them. B >>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2016 4:47 PM, Marco Alpert wrote: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.alpert.com/marco/photo16/peso34.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Comments, as always, welcomed. >>>>>>>>>> -- 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.
