Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Perhaps it is dishonest, perhaps it isn't. I do agree that Rob is talking about something stronger than I am but then he has been in the field and I have not. You still are not addressing the fact that often the presence of the photographer is the catalyst in many interactions in the world. Interactions that would not have otherwise occurred. I am not saying photographers/observers cause the world's problems but they often are the straw that breaks the camel's back so to speak. There is the famous story about when the troubles first broke out in Northern Ireland after the civil rights marches. The world press showed up and nothing was happening so, according to the story, they paid some kids to start throwing stones at the British soldiers. There are now many cases where violence is orchestrated for the press. The press is told where to be and, presto, spontaneous violence of an irresistibly photogenic nature occurs. Presumably if the press didn't show much of it might not happen. Some would like to say there is a difference between the two above scenarios and others of us have a great deal of difficulty seeing any difference at all. John Collier On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 11:03 AM, Tina Manley wrote: > At 10:36 AM 11/4/2003 -0700, you wrote: >> Rob is talking about actions and manipulations that many >> photographers and their subjects are unconscious of performing. >> John Collier > > Rob said, "but it could mean saying, why don't you all > go over and sit in that doorway and play with the baby for a bit while > I > take some pictures." > > That doesn't suggest actions and manipulations that photographers are > unconscious of performing. It is directing and it is dishonest. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html