Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> For example, if you have a row of fairly ordinary houses in a typical > market economy where there are a range of incomes. At the end of the row > is one falling-down shack. Unless you a photographing for a chocolate > box, the falling-down shack is more photogenic than the row of ordinary > houses. The ordinary houses may be economically more representative, but > a photograph of them will be too ordinary, uninteresting, maybe cutesy. > Banal. On the other hand, snap a shot of the the falling-down shack and > not only do you have a more interesting picture, you will be considered > a deep social commentator. But that example isn't a "typical" market economy. Chile under Pinochet is closer to a typical "market economy" - more than half in poverty, with Friedman's economic "reforms" benefitting the top 10% at most. Thus Salgado isn't skewing his sample - he's showing reality. Showing row upon row of tract houses and SUVs would be skewed. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html