Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 117

Thread: Opinions about exploitation

  1. #61
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Opinions about exploitation

    "Paulr- you put a lot of value in the ability to have an artist work through their inner struggles while creating their art. And I know this is a valid technique that is used in a theraputic setting. But I'm sure the therapist would agree that "working" through your issues with corpses is not a good thing. Especially whent he corpses are treated as they are in Witkin's photos."

    Kirk, I see how I could have been unclear here. I don't believe a work can attain artistic value simply because someone dealt with their issues while making it. Art therapy indeed has different standards than art. What i believe is that when art succesfully explores personal issues and struggles, it can be enlightening to others who for whatever reason are interested in a similar exploration. Art that comes out of a sincere exploration is much more likely to succeed in this respect. I have no opinion on what Witkin's shrink (if he has one, which i doubt) would think about any of this.

    You mention Hitler in relation to this. I don't know about his painting, but the parallel I can draw is that scholars and historians still read "mein kampf," not because the endorse anything hitler did or stood for, but because the ideas it contains are historically and psychologically compelling. If all you got out of it was "this is how a homicidal megalomaniac sees the world," even that is something. better to understand this than not, given the possibility of someone similar entering the world stage some day.

  2. #62
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Opinions about exploitation

    "On the same vein I can use your argument to say you think you or the curators you mention are the arbitrers of what is good in art. I suspect for the each an everyone of the people you mention I can find 2 or 3 that dont think the work has any value other than shock value. Get it?"

    Ok, find me two or three people who have made a formal study of the history of photography who think Witkin's work has no value other than shock value. I think you'll find people who don't like it, but I doubt you'll find anyone educated in the field who thinks there's nothing there.

    "show me one response that ties "artistic value" to this topic other than yours."

    well, you wrote: "IMO Witkin's photgraphs have nothing to offer but a morbid curiosity that once the viewer gets past the initial shock show nothing but a quest for fame and money out of exploitative pictures."

    "Seems to me your mind is made that we all need to see "more" even on the face of disagreement by most here, and that you are the one who will only listen to disagree.....funny how that works and one can use your same arguments aganst you."

    Jorge, I'm perfectly willing to do whatever it takes to understand your position. I'll even state it back to you if you like, and you can tell me if I got it right or not. Let me know if you're willing to do that with me or anyone else you disagree with.

    "You very conveniently ignored the part in my post that if these pictures had been done with latex man made body parts (which can be made to look just like human parts, at least in film..hollywood does it all the time!), nobody would give a rat's ass about them, the only reason they are "important" is because they were made with real body parts. That should be an indication to you about the worth of these photographs."

    Because I honestly don't know. In general we tend to value authenticity in photographs. We feel more strongly about pictures of real people than we do about pictures of models; real places than pictures of sets. So i don't really know what your example would prove.

    Again, if you're willing to read and to try to understand my observations on Witkin's work, I'm willing to post them. but I don't want to waste my time doing it if you already have a prepared response telling me i'm full of it. And if this isn't clear already, I'll say again that i don't expect you to agree with me, to like Witkin's work, or to change your mind about his ethics. Only to make a sincere effort to understand what I'm seeing. I'll happily extend the same courtesy to you.

  3. #63

    Opinions about exploitation

    As I said, and you are unwilling to aknowledge, none of the statements you quoted me on have to do with artistic value other than the fact that they are done to shock the viewer and the content of the picture is plain exploitation of the subjects as well as the viewer. As Kirk told you and I have told you, you cannot separate the artists from the art in this kind of discussion.

    In general we tend to value authenticity in photographs. We feel more strongly about pictures of real people than we do about pictures of models; real places than pictures of sets. So i don't really know what your example would prove.



    Well, you contend that we are dismissing the artistic value because we fail to see deeper, obviously you think the the content of the pictures is not important but the way they are arranged and the "message" they transmit. If so, what difference does it make if man made objects are used? the "message" would have been the same..no?...You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you cannot say we need to see deeper and dismiss the things used to make the photograph and only examine what the "artist" tried to convey and then turn around and say..oh, but, but the "authenticity" is important, the message would not be the same...I ask you, how come? which is it then, are the we to be superficial and take into account that real body parts were used and thus making these great photographs, or are going to be intellectual about it and see into the "depper meaning" and realize that the message could have been transmitted just as well with man made props?

    Funny how you side step any question that is an example of clear exploitation and go back to your excuse that we are "close minded and shallow".

    Again, if you're willing to read and to try to understand my observations on Witkin's work, I'm willing to post them. but I don't want to waste my time doing it if you already have a prepared response telling me i'm full of it.



    Seems to me this is a very convenient excuse, we have "wasted" our time explaining to you why we thought that witkin's pictures are both exploitative and as a consequence of little real "artistic value" yet you refuse to tell us why they are not....besides, I did not ask for your explanation, Kirk did. I simply found it interesting that you side stepped his question, which IMO was a good one.

    Ok, find me two or three people who have made a formal study of the history of photography who think Witkin's work has no value other than shock value. I think you'll find people who don't like it, but I doubt you'll find anyone educated in the field who thinks there's nothing there



    LOL...if it wasnt so sad, this would be funny. Apparently you equate "education" with the ability to BS your way and "analyse" an artist's work.....I dont know, maybe you are right, let me do a google search, but I get the feeling that those truly educated see the work for what it is and decided not to waste their time telling people what should be obvious...

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    743

    Opinions about exploitation

    Paulr - "Again, if you're willing to read and to try to understand my observations on Witkin's work, I'm willing to post them. "

    I'm willing - please do.

  5. #65
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Opinions about exploitation

    "Well, you contend that we are dismissing the artistic value because we fail to see deeper, obviously you think the the content of the pictures is not important but the way they are arranged and the "message" they transmit. "

    Not obvious, not what I said, and not what I meant. I believe content is always important in photographs, particularly in symbolist/allegorical photographs like witkin's. I'm not even saying that ethical considerations are unimportant; only that they are a different issue from the issue of artistic understanding or artistic value.

    "Seems to me this is a very convenient excuse, we have "wasted" our time explaining to you why we thought that witkin's pictures are both exploitative and as a consequence of little real "artistic value" yet you refuse to tell us why they are not....besides, I did not ask for your explanation, Kirk did. I simply found it interesting that you side stepped his question, which IMO was a good one."

    I agree that it's a good question. I'm neither sidestepping it nor refusing to answer it. I promise to answer it, but only if someone actually wants to hear it. I don't want to go through the fruitless motions of discussing art if no one wants to actually pay attention. Believe it or not, it's actually harder work to talk about the things you like in a picture and to try to be clear about them than it is to dismiss something as crap.

    And I don't think you've wasted your time explaining what you think. I've listened to it. I can distill a few points; tell me if i got it right: 1) there's nothing to see in his work that can't be reduced to shock value and desire to make money; 2) his work is exploitive for reasons including, but not limited to, the bad ethics of photographing corpses without permission and blessings from the family; and 3) it is impossible to judge or understand a work of art without considering the ethics of how it was made.

    "Apparently you equate "education" with the ability to BS your way and "analyse" an artist's work.....I dont know, maybe you are right, let me do a google search, but I get the feeling that those truly educated see the work for what it is and decided not to waste their time telling people what should be obvious..."

    I think it makes sense to give more weight to educated opinions when it comes to an intellectual topic. Witkin's work, while it works on other levels, demands a certain amount of historical background in order to get below the surface.

    I probably wouldn't have much trouble going to a trailer park and finding a bunch of people who'd agree with a statement like "Shakespeare was nothing but a pompous air bag." But that collection of opinions wouldn't hold much weight. If you could find someone educated in Elizabethan literature who dismissed shakespeare's work, that would make for a more compelling argument. Not necesarily a convincing one, but I'd be curious to hear it, because it's probably based on something besides lack of understanding or prejudice.

    Anyway, I don't know about you, but if I want someone to help me understand something, I'll prefer someone who's educated in the topic over someone who isn't.

  6. #66
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Opinions about exploitation

    "I'm willing - please do"

    when i go home tonight i'll find an image or two .. preferably something online so we can all see it ... and tell you what i think.

  7. #67

    Opinions about exploitation

    "I have never been physically or verbally attacked because of my work," Witkin says a bit incredulously.

    I think this quote is a clear indication of his photographic purpose.

    OTOH there is no point in discussing this with you any longer, it seems you fail to respond to the questions posed and go on back to your "ethical should not be a consideration" argument. Even though at least Kirk and I have been telling you it is not.

    One last time, how does the content and message of the pictures change if he had used latex body parts? Which is it? Is the message only important if real body parts are used, if not then the message is somehow less? aren't you faling to "see deeper" if the parts are not real?....Why is it that only real body parts could be used? Isnt it a bit shallow on your part to say:" ah well, if he did not use real body parts then the photography is not real and thus with less value?" Why did the message change? If he had used latex body parts and told people he used real body parts and then the "truth" was found out, why would you be dissappointed? after all the " message" was there in the same manner...no?..... As I said to beguin with, take away the fact that these are real body parts and the photography becomes meaningless, and by your refusal to answer these questions I guess you agree.....

    As I said, you cannot have your cake and eat it too....you dimiss these questions or gloss over them.

    And BTW, you got 2 and 3 wrong.....

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    743

    Opinions about exploitation

    "when i go home tonight i'll find an image or two .. preferably something online so we can all see it ... and tell you what i think."

    Great - thanks!

  9. #69
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Opinions about exploitation

    ""I have never been physically or verbally attacked because of my work," Witkin says a bit incredulously.
    I think this quote is a clear indication of his photographic purpose."

    Huh? That just sounds to me like an answer to the question, "have you ever been attacked because of your work?" It tells me nothing about his purpose.

    "One last time, how does the content and message of the pictures change if he had used latex body parts? Which is it? Is the message only important if real body parts are used, if not then the message is somehow less? aren't you faling to "see deeper" if the parts are not real?....Why is it that only real body parts could be used? Isnt it a bit shallow on your part to say:" ah well, if he did not use real body parts then the photography is not real and thus with less value?" "

    Would the power of that picture of the viet kong man about to be executed (discussed earlier) be altered if you discovered it had been staged with a model? This is an open question; some might say no. I suspect most would say yes, because belief in the authenticity of a picture tends to contribute to people's sense of its power. I do know that for myself, the power of robert capa's photograph of the soldier at the moment of being shot was diminished when I learned it had been staged. but the important point is that neither of these questions are about ethics; they are about authenticity, or sense of authenticity, which has always been one of the main bargaining blocks of the medium of photography.

    Getting back to Witkin, it's a very hypothetical question how his work would be different if he used fake parts. It would be an interesting question for him. It may be that the reality of his subject matter strongly influences the way he perceives it and works with it. Or it may be that he's a necropheliac. I can only speculate. All we know for sure is what the final work looks like, and what he tells us about how it was made. As viewers, this is what we have to work with.

    "it seems you fail to respond to the questions posed and go on back to your "ethical should not be a consideration" argument."

    my argument is that ethics are a separate consideration, not that they're a non-consideration.

    "And BTW, you got 2 and 3 wrong....."

    Ok. Help me get them right.

  10. #70

    Opinions about exploitation

    All we know for sure is what the final work looks like, and what he tells us about how it was made



    SO which is it? should we or should we not take into account what he tells us on how it was made ?According to you it should not matter, we should "see" what we see in the picture irregardless of what he tells us. On one hand you tell us we should separate how the picture was made from the appreciation of the "artistic" value and on the other hand you tell us we should consider how it was done to "appreciate" the deeper meaning.......

    YOu have gone to the pyramids, and now you are confusing photojournalism with exploitation in art photography. I hope you are not confused on the fact that all of Witkin's pictures are manufactured. The intended purpose of the photographs is far different than that of those created to chronicle a war.

    Authenticity in photjournalism is paramount, there is no such thing in art photography. But then apparently the message you see in Witkin's picture would have changed if he used latex parts....nice way to rationalize this by using this "authenticity" argument.

    I am done with this, as they say, you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink...and frankly this has gotten boring, repeating the same argument over and over, is not going to make you right.....

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
  •