Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
James, it is all about intent..
|
|
|
|
Sean yates
(K=1240) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
I'm not sure about that, Mr. Creech. The road to hell is paved with good.....
|
|
|
|
Dave Jenkins
(K=1350) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
We are each responsible for our own motives and actions, but ultimately, every tub sets on its own bottom.
|
|
|
|
John Kantor
(K=1664) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
Up until recently I spent most of my time interpreting cultural objects (like photographs). I specifically interpreted them with an agenda in mind (my critique was "informed" by my politics - as are all critiques). An artist who thinks his art speaks for itself is naive - and today probably will not be very successful.
Today art is not just about technique (or a "vision" which just happens to be in vogue), but about celebrity. Annie Liebowitz is a good photographer, but not a better photographer than many on this board. However, she is a celebrity. People both seek her out and attach great importance to her work because of this.
It's no accident that successful artists today fall into the two extremes: the facile and innocuous (e.g., babies dressed as flowers) in which politics has been completely suppressed (though, of course, not eliminated) and the controversial and outrageous (e.g., Mapplethorpe or Serrano, in which politics is foremost).
If you want your art to have an effect, you've got to put it and yourself to work: advertise it, interpret it, and politicize it and you will be advertising, defining, and politicizing yourself.
For those essentialists who believe art has an essence and is powerful in it's own right, think of a photo as dangerous object, like an old grenade you dug up in a field. If you just hand it out, it might not go off; then again it might. Either way, you won't have any control over the effects. But if you pull the pin, you get to decide.
|
|
|
|
Darron Spohn
(K=781) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
If I photograph an elk in the woods am I resposnsible for the hunter who seeks it as a trophy or for the animal rights activist who wants to restrict our access to the elk's habitat? If you photograph a rodeo are you resposnsible for the child who wants to ride that horse? If so, should you share in his winnings is he becomes world champion? If he is injured, should you pay his medical bills? Every person is responsible for his or her own actions, not the actions of people unmet.
|
|
|
|
john
(K=15) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
I once heard a quote which I try to act upon when I am faced with a subject that could/may be interpreted in various ways, and I feel a sense of "responsibility". The quote was "I dont take sides, I just take photographs" VERY easy to say. VERY VERY hard to do. But it helps to remember that you CAN influence people with your images, and that the image can be positive or negative. As the creator of that image I think I (we) have a responsibility to do so "honestly". (I think you will all know what I mean by "honestly" - yes?). I agree with Howard - it IS all about intent.
|
|
|
|
Sean yates
(K=1240) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
Moderator's note: deleted at Sean's request.
|
|
|
|
rene z. quan
(K=36) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
Dera Sean
The spelling is 'niggardly'. Your unintentional misspelling of the word could open up a huge can of worms by those who choose to latch on to it.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
Mr. Kantor, very succinct. I will quote you!
The great thing about consistency, is that sooner or later it overcomes all sorts of idiotic behavior. The fashion design house "Benetton" (spoken of earlier) has maintained that "ad" campaign, which has been explained/defended so often now that at least their intentions are known, even if their wisdom or its' effectiveness continues to be challenged.
Just because you are misunderstood, does that mean you should not care, or try harder? Or do you just say "people will get what they will out of my pictures, there's nothing I can do about it" and give up? There's no avoiding being misunderstood (happens to me here all the time) but you don't just let it lay, do you? You speak up! Why should we abandon our photography, and let it be turned against us?
Perhaps in order to be understood, we should speak more clearly, accept responsibility and stand behind our work. ...t
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
Ellis, that photograph is one of the powerful images ever, it is still hard for me to look at it. However, that single image perfectly summed up what was wrong with the whole Viet Nam debacle. The instant of death for a young man, hands bound, by an official of a corrupt and tainted government, without trial or preamble. The millions of people who saw the Police Chief of Saigon act as judge, jury, and executioner probably did help speed the end of the war...I know that it certainly help shift the opinion of many individuals. As photojournalism it has few equals in terms of the raw power of photography to document evil. If that was not Eddie Adams intent, it was still effectively the result.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/10/1999
|
lets also not forget that the young man was a part of group that had, amoungst others, just killed the generals family, including his children. I also have a friend who, as a child, had his family slaughtered in front of him by the v.c., he survived only because he hid under their bodies. I would say that he would have a different opinion as to whether we should have been there or not. The problem is when wars are fought by politicians and not by the military. Lets not be so naive as to think the issues are so black and white.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/11/1999
|
Mark, do you have any documentary proof for your "vengance" as opposed to "summary execution" story?..Even if the story is true, I still don't see any reason to accept the idea of those in law enforcement acting as judge, jury, and executioner, whatever their "justifications" may be. The photo remains one of the most potent denunciations of war in general, and the Viet Nam war in particular, that I have ever seen
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/12/1999
|
Howard,
Everytime that I have seen, read or listened to this story about the revenge aspect, it has been from, as I recall, very reliable sources. I think to describe him as "law enforcement" is a bit deceiving, but I can understand your reasons to view it in this way. I am not saying that the action by the general was right or wrong, just saying that there are two sides to every story and there are few innocents in war.
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 2/12/1999
|
This is off the subject but I see around the world that law enforcement is also judge jury and executioner. To our western civilized eyes it's not right by any means. But that is just what it is. "To our eyes".
|
|
|
|
