Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 117

Thread: Opinions about exploitation

  1. #11
    Beverly Hills, California
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    1,108

    Opinions about exploitation

    "Does the world really need another mediocre picture of a smiling "peasant girl"?

    The real question is, why go way down to Oxaca for that? Just come to L.A. and ride the bus for that shot.

  2. #12

    Opinions about exploitation

    Well, I think even photographers like witkin dont have any ill intentions of their subjects, but they are still using only the images of their subjects. I was walking down the neighbor hood street when I spotted a man sitting out on his front lawn, I couldnt tell anything about him from that far away in that he was just a man enjoying the sun, so I decided I wanted to take a picture of him, when I got closer, I noticed he was an amputee, and I decided to not ask him if I could take his picture...is this worse than taking a picture of a guy missing limbs? I let my own stereotypical thoughts of pictures that have (what seems to be exploitation) been taken influence me, what started out as what wouldve just been a document of someone who lives in my neighborhood...also, shelby lee adams was born in hazzard county, but he was born into a very middle class household...something which I do not think matters. I absolutely love his work btw.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Richmond Virginia
    Posts
    139

    Opinions about exploitation

    When I start a project, I do so because I'm interested in a subject and want to see if I can tell a story about it in an interesting way using photography. Important influences on my point of view are W. Eugene Smith, Paul Strand, Wegee, Sally Mann, and Nicholas Nixon.

    I once read a prominent photographic magazine editor accuse Sally Mann of exploiting her children, creating her Immediate Family work with intention of gaining personal fame by exploiting her children. I thought this to be ridiculous, and said so.

    A photographer can exploite a subject if the subject is approached with a preconceived idea about the story to be told, rather than observing, and developing the story from those observations. By this I mean, not focusing only on scenes that support the preconception, or relying on a single photo to tell the whole story, thought it is sometimes possible to do so -Smith's Tamura's Bath photo for example. Such photos can be rightfully called works of art.

    If approached with an honest curiosity, and the desire to tell an honest story, I don't believe the photos will be exploitive, be the subject people with Aids, children growing up in rural Virginia, those suffering from mercury poisoning, or another smiling peasant girl.

  4. #14

    Opinions about exploitation

    Interesting discussion............
    If you take pictures of people, under what circumstances would you get a release?

  5. #15

    Opinions about exploitation

    I find Arbus the most problematic of the original listed group - she really was out to document the 'freaks' (her term, AFAIK) and those on the margins of society. In itself that's troubling, But the images she made of these people were largely unknown until after her death, when we get the spooky twin girls or the three mental patients plastered onto the front of books and magazines. If she was exploiting her subjects, it was an internalized, personal exploitation rather than exploiting them for money or fame.

    Eugene Richards, IMHO, doesn't belong anywhere near a list of (even possibly) exploitative photographers. He doesn't aestheticize despair or use his subjects to turn a quick buck. One need only read the prose that accompanies his work to get a feeling for his connection to those he documents and why he does so. The latest Aperture has a selection of his photographs and prose accompanying mental health advocates in the developing world. It's a shame they'll never be seen outside of the narrow spectrum of middle-class westerners who read high-dollar photo quarterlies.

    J-P Witkin, I don't see the exploitation. His living models are all volunteers and/or paid, and the dead are, well, dead.

  6. #16
    Moderator Ralph Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Posts
    5,034

    Opinions about exploitation

    Personally, I agree with the idea that whether an image is exploitive depends entirely on one's attitude and motivation when taking the picture, and how it's used subsequently. I don't personally agree with the attitude of some "street shooters" who take the picture with or without the subject's consent. But, if I find someone who is interesting, I'll sometimes muster the courage to engage them in conversation, and request permission to photograph them in a respectful way. Absent that, I wouldn't intrude on either their space or their dignity. With LF, I think that's pretty much a given, as one can't be particularly stealthy with an LF camera.

    As to the photo of the young woman from Oaxaca and her child, I see nothing exploitive about the image. She's a beautiful young woman with a radiant smile, and one whom I'd gladly photograph in a heart beat. Plus, the child is cute, too. There's nothing about her look, or the photograph that says "peasant" to me.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NJ / NYC, USA.
    Posts
    331

    Opinions about exploitation

    I think that poor Viet Cong guerilla getting shot in the head by that Saigon police chief in the EddyAdams photo is being exploited. And that was before Advil.

    I agree with most everyone that exploition goes to intent. But lets face it, things overlap. I think one of the most gifted photojournalists of all time is Sabastia Salgado. He has brought to light the horrific working conditions of laborers in African diamond mines, the plight of refugees, with an almost poetic visual sensibility. But his books sell really well, and I'll bet SOMEONE other than those poor folks is making a profit from them.

  8. #18

    Opinions about exploitation

    but how does intent matter in the end if the picture comes out the same either through complete compassion vs. 'this person looks interesting'

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    No. Virginia
    Posts
    364

    Opinions about exploitation

    I'm with Jorge, Bill and Alex on this one. I for one, never understood why rich white people taking photographs of poor dark people was considered "art".

    Smith and to a lesser extent Salgado have made great art of disurbing subjects. Most other's are phoneys appealing to the upper east side, pseudo-intellectual, New York Times reader.

  10. #20
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Opinions about exploitation

    The word "exploitation" has always been a can of worms. It's often used rhetorically to champion causes, even when it's refering to people who don't feel in the least bit exploited. I think that you usually need to know more than you can learn from just looking at a photograph before you judge it as exploitive. Nick Nixon was slammed for exploitation when "People with Aids" came out--but not by the aids community, and definitely not by the patients involved or their families. They loved the work.

    Look at Witkin's work, for example. If you knew that the people in the photographs volunteered, that they saw other work of Witkin's, and that they knew exactly what they were getting into, would you still consider it exploitive? And if so, isn't it possible that this is a condescending position, one that assumes you know what's better for the moral wellfare of these "freaks" than they do? Personally, if there's any exploitation that troubles me in Witkin's work, it's his use of animals. I think he has a cold heart when it comes to them, and I'm not impressed by justifications like "well, that horse was going to be put to sleep anyhow."

    However you judge the work on its fairness to the subjects, I think it's important not to confuse this with its artistic worth. Whether or not something is exploitive (at best a subjective word; at worst an instrument used to bamboozle people with rhetoric) has no bearing on whether it can be beautiful, interesting, revealing, or profound. These are different conversations. They could both be worthwhile conversations, but you'll only confuse the issue if you try to tie them together.

Similar Threads

  1. Opinions on Wehman
    By Bruce Schultz in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 13-Nov-2005, 13:18
  2. Duluth Pack---any opinions?
    By John Kasaian in forum Gear
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 7-Jun-2005, 03:15
  3. Opinions of 65mm f8 SA
    By Brian Schall in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 16-Apr-2005, 13:54
  4. Comments and opinions please, 6x7 or 6x9
    By Robert J Pellegrino in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19-Jul-2000, 13:26
  5. Opinions of the Horseman LE?
    By Max Rahder in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17-Aug-1998, 03:38

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •