Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/02/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Excellent, excellent, questions, Peter. And in some ways your points are personified by Magnum photographer Marc Ribaud's photos of the now time-worn woman carrying the photo of herself -taken by Ribaud - as a young anti-war demonstrator confronting (sheathed) bayonets with a flower at the Pentagon in 1967. B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Peter Klein Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:45 PM To: leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Leica] Protest pics: Selection, bias, seeing To expand on B.D.'s question: Looking at everyone's anti-war protest pictures, I'm seeing a common thread that may or may not actually be the reality. Those in the anti-war movement are portraying themselves as a broad coalition of diverse people who are simply against war and bloodshed in general, and the potential "pre-emptive" war on Iraq in particular. A big tent under which there may be some people you don't agree with on some issues, but mostly regular folks, and all united against war. Those who wish to discredit the movement are portraying it as a fringe element. They say its critical mass is made up mostly of anarchists, communists, Trotskyites, 60s refugees and others for whom "peace" is a knee-jerk slogan with no real meaning, Muslim activists, and people who think a little terrorism against the right people is perfectly OK. And some journalists have noted that some of these factions are attempting to hijack the movement for their own ends. It seems to me the pictures posted here on the LUG give more credence to the latter description. I'm wondering how much of this impression is true, and how much it is the "reality tunnel" of the photographers, which affects the choices they make. Or perhaps it's *my* reality tunnel causing me to give greater emotional weight to certain pictures than others. Have the photographers concentrated on photos that contain fringy-looking or emotionally overwrought people, believing that such photos are stronger? Are some of the photographers locked into 1960s sensibilities and therefore taking or selecting pictures that remind them of those golden days? Are the photographers' sympathies towards some of the peripheral causes biasing what they post? Please note that I'm not trying to provoke a political discussion here (really!). I'm interested in how our own biases affect what we shoot, how we edit, and what we see. And also how a group of photos can sometimes add up to an impression that may or may not be real. - --Peter Klein Seattle, WA B.D. wrote: > The photos themselves are very strong, Brian, but I come away from the > two portfolios with two 'editorial' questions: > 1. Were the demonstrations in London as confrontational as the > cop-heavy portfolio would indicate, or were they largely as peaceful > as most media reports would indicate - and if the later is true, why > did you concentrate on the cops and on making things look tense? > 2. I'm aware that there are huge immigrant = and particularly Muslin > groups in some UK cities - but were the London demonstrations Muslim > dominated, or did you make the editorial decision to shoot that way, > and if so, why? - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html