Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/07/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It is a "rash" assumption. I used to know many folks back in my younger days who religiously read the NYT because they said it had the very best sports coverage. Not a typical "elite readership" crowd, I guess. The "ethics" of photography are very interesting, but some of the more public, or publicized rather, concerns really worry me. For better and worse, I just think (hope) that folks should always be able to go out and shoot and publish with the same reckless 1st Ammendment protected abandon that we allow people to put pen to paper. I just went to the National Gallery and saw the Irving Penn exhibit. Showed many of the test images and "straight prints" in addition to the final product platinum/paladium prints. On the subway home, I pondered. The straight prints *sucked*. That's not his genious (same goes for much of fine art B&W), and that's not what we want to see. This isn't slides on a light table kind of work. So I thought - an 11 year old boy with a gun shooting someone. A good darkroom artist might make this an innocent lad fighting for his life (pick your political or social scenario) or an evil pre-adolescent murderous neo-terrorist product of a world gone cockeyed. Dodge, burn, crop - take your pick. Where's the "truth"? Same might be asked of a jury verdict or a NYT editorial on the same event, in prose that is. Aesthetics and truth. Conservatives and liberals alike will often enjoy a George Will column, just for the clear writing and logic of it. A supreme court ruling (or a dissenting opinion) well crafted in prose can hold the same appeal. I recall when Scalia wrote that fashioned (not real) images of juvenile sexuality could not be considered pedo porn, in part because Juliet (Romeo and Juliet) was only 13 in Shakespeare's play, and the Supreme Court (or the Constitution rather) was not about to censure Shakespeare. I remember being in my car and laughing to tears at the shear elegance of the counterexample (a classic philosophical reasoning mechanism) I heard on the radio (yup, NPR), and my opinion of Scalia improved by some amount proportional to my mirth. Aesthetics matters. It's in our brains, I guess. I think that relationship between aesthetics and truth is in the hands of both the author/photographer/editor and the reader. It's like a little war of reason and perception. So long as the battle continues on, reason may in the end prevail. Elitism? Should we always assume that the photographer/author/editor "wins"? Me'thinks not. So much of our representations fall on deaf ears and and meet a skeptical eye. Nixon sweating. Children taught of the famous era of "Yellow Journalism" in American history. You get the idea. Aesthetics is always in the picture, as it were. NYT or "embedded journalism" or Supreme Court rulings or the ceremony surrounding affairs of state or whatever. We need critical judgement and peer review and the like to help interpret. "Ours whose task is eternal wakefulness." Nietzsche had a point. Scott Seth Rosner wrote: > Scott, in fact it could be either or both. My intended meaning was > that the Times assumed its readers are elite and would therefore > conclude that this was not the photograph of a real event. Rash > assumption. Sorry for my lack of clarity. ;-) > > Seth > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott McLoughlin" > <scott@adrenaline.com> > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> > Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 1:10 PM > Subject: Re: [Leica] NYT Public Editor on Press Photography > > >> Yeah, I was wondering if it was an "elitist assumption" or an assumption >> that the readers themselves "are elite." >> >> But I generally write off just about any opinion when the "elitist" word >> comes up, so I didn't wonder too long :-) >> But I went to Harvard, so what the hell do I know? >> >> LOL ROTFL >> >> But back on topic, the possibility of a photograph being misinterpreted >> as a more "factual" than illustrative photo is always a real issue. >> >> Sure, why not? Just think of all the sensationalist headlines and >> copy that >> passes for "news," even in the relatively dry business press and >> industry >> trade rags. Maybe moreso there, because it's so dry to begin with :-) >> >> Scott >> >> Adam Bridge wrote: >> >>> I don't understand the use of "elitist" in this context. >>> On 7/3/05, Seth Rosner <sethrosner@nycap.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>>> And there are at least two problems with the response of the Times >>>> editors: >>>> that NY Times readers will recognize the difference. >>>> >>>> 1) it makes quite elitist assumptions about the paper's readers >>>> and 2) it >>>> omits to consider how people with a different ideological point of >>>> view from >>>> that attributed to Times readers will point to the misleading >>>> inferences as >>>> attempts to mislead deliberately Times readers into believing that >>>> these >>>> were real photographs of real torture. >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information