-
Opinions about exploitation
I figure Ill ask about it here because I think if youre willing to commit to LF, you probably have a good emotional investment in photography as well. How do you guys feel about taking pictures of people that you find interesting. Say on a street or in a bar, donut shop, etc. Is it right or wrong to approach someone and ask to take their picture because they have some kind of quirk or something that makes them stand out? How interesting would the pictures of people like Diane Arbus, Shelby Lee Adams, Alec Soth, Walker Evans, Chris Verene, Bruce Davidson, Eugene Richards, etc be without at least some of the pictures being about people who dont fit into the cookie cutter mold of an ideal american? I know their pictures greatness is much more than some kind of spectacle of the different, but it they are definitely a part of what makes those pictures good, so...is it right or wrong? How do you guys deal with the exploitation of peoples images?
-
Opinions about exploitation
I guess it all depends, the master of exploitation is Witkin IMO. Remove the dead or mishapen bodies and you got left with nothing. Yet some people think of him as a genious...go figure!
Being born in Mexico I am sick an tired of seeing tourists take pictures of beggars and street performers. There is a whole more to Mexico than beggars and in the case of Bertrand a trash landfill.
Compare Witkin's photographs with Eugene Smith's photographs of Mercury poisoning in Japan, one if exploitation the other is documentation done with sensitivity and respect. Like art, I know it when I see it... :-)
-
Opinions about exploitation
The exploitation is not in taking the pictures, but in how they are used.
-
Opinions about exploitation
if the person is pissed off that you are taking the picture, I dont want to see it and it shouldnt be taken IMO. Respecting other people comes before photography. There are plenty of quirky people who will agree to be photographed.
Witkin is repulsive.
-
Opinions about exploitation
"I know their pictures greatness is much more than some kind of spectacle of the different, but it they are definitely a part of what makes those pictures good, so...is it right or wrong? How do you guys deal with the exploitation of peoples images?"
In the case of Shelby Lee Adams you are not looking at pictures of an outsider nor do I think his subjects are exploited by his point of view. IIRC, Shelby is from Hazzard County, Kentucky and is taking pictures of friends, neighbors, and relatives. He is a participant in their lives as much as they are subjects in his photographs.
I took a workshop from him several years ago and found his pictures and tales fascinating. He handles serpents with the same finesse as view cameras.
And thank God for people like Gene Richards who show us what life is like outside of "cookie-cutter" America.
Personally, I think conformity can be more disturbing. I get the shakes whenever I see an Abercrombie & Fitch clone.
In my own images I'm very upfront with the subjects about why I'm taking the images and what I hope to realize. Most of them are cool with that. If not, just move along.
-
Opinions about exploitation
Very interesting topic: as was said earlier, I feel it depends on what is done with the images afterwards and the photographers intent. If its only about "filthy lucre" I'm sure that there is circle of hell just for people who exploit others misery. I myself have been very tempted to use my access to convalecent and alzheimers facilities, I have family members in both, to document the lives of the people there. I haven't done so yet because I question my own intent! Would it be to draw the attention necessary for oue society to take better care of the less fortunate? To show the humanity that still exsists there however broken they are physically? OR to feed my own passion for a "cause" or worse yet for personal recognition!!!! I think about it then say nah! i aint gonna do it.
-
Opinions about exploitation
I agree with Bill and Jorge. Its all about one's motivation; why is the picture taken and what is done with it afterward. I don't do many pictures with people at all, in a small part because I don't ever want anyone to feel that they are being exploited, paraded in front of the world with others saying "Oh, aren't those people provencial!", or "How quaint and unenlighted". I feel many of the pictures seen these days of the Amish are taken for amusement. Smith's series on the mercury poisoning was full of dignity and respect. And it got the point across.
There's a fellow in our area that hasn't driven a car in over 40 years. He travels everywhere on his old Farmall tractor with no cab, just a canvas windbreak on the front. He cut the utility lines to his house and uses a small generator to power the refrigerator and a few lights. He would make a highly interesting story on the subject of independance. But I think everyone in the community, including myself, would feel such a story, and pictures, would be exploitive of him.
Some things are better left alone. Like Jorge says, look beyond the obvious.
-
Opinions about exploitation
You mean like this?
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BZ64
Does the world really need another mediocre picture of a smiling "peasant girl"?
And when she let her picture be taken, did she realise it was going to be published for hundreds, possibly a couple of thousand or more people to view her as a living cliche on somewhere like photo.net?
What is the point apart from some meagre instant gratifaction for the photographer
-
Opinions about exploitation
Interesting. I wonder how A. Sander's work fits in to all this? I was at a home for dying destitutes run by the Sisters of Charity awhile back and was asked not to photograph the patients---and I didn't. Misery isn't something I'd shoot, but I could see a documentary "reason" for it given the right set of circumstances. I can't see any honor in exploitation however.
-
Opinions about exploitation
Paddy Quinn qrote:
>You mean like this?
>http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BZ64
>Does the world really need another mediocre picture of a smiling "peasant girl"?
While we may not need "another smiling peasant girl," I don't find this photo exploitive. What differences are being exploited? How is she being marginalized or used for profit? Could it be perhaps that there is gratification for the subject as well as the photographer?
I do agree that the photo is mediocre. But, I don't see or feel exploitation. On the other hand, Jorge's point is very valid. There is more to Mexico than beggars and street performers.
Take a look at http://www.thomasadaniel.com/
While many of these people are marginalized by society, history, and time; that doesn't make the photographs exploitive.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Opinions about exploitation
Interesting discussion............
If you take pictures of people, under what circumstances would you get a release?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'
-
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.
-
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.
-
Opinions about exploitation
and the dead are, well, dead.
Oh really? well next time someone in your family like your father, mother, sister, wife or child dies, let me know what mortuary they are going to be sent so I can go use them as props.....a******.
-
Opinions about exploitation
would you still consider it exploitive?
I do when he makes a lot of money out of the prints and those who pose for them are volunteers who dont see a penny out of it. I bet you some of them might have regrets about posing. In the 1800's there used to be "freak" traveling shows, if there is nothing wrong with this, how come we dont see them today?
My apologies to mlpowell, but this is a sore spot with me. Yes I know Witkin was invited by mexicans to come down, and yes I know that he had to tell the people working at the morgue to be more careful so they dont break the noses etc. Nevertheless two or three wrongs do not make a right. I find it obscenely disrespectful to use someone's body parts as props without the family and the own deceased consent, and to top it of make money out of it.
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.
Bottom line, he might be a "genious" but as a person I can say with 100% conviction that I would not piss on him if he was on fire!
-
Opinions about exploitation
Jorge, you do have a way with words.
Would you agree that exploitation involves ridicule, or shock. Witkin and Arbus come to mind, as do some painters who depicted scenes of flaying and dismembering of the damned and saintly. I guess we have to include "horror" movies as well. I am not sure that the fact of an artist making money from his/hers art is necessarily exploitative.
-
Opinions about exploitation
Paddy:
I would like to respond, as it is my photo. Firstly, I had quite rapport with this young lady and spoke with eher several times totaling several hours. We talked about Mexico and I talked about where I live and the fact that this was my first time back since being born in Mexico. She asked about the camera and was very proud of her adorable daughter isabella. She had two other children "just as beautiful" as she put it, but they were studying hard in school. She was very generous and on the last day found me out taking pictures and gave me one of the bracelets that she sells in order that I remember her and the city and her daughter. it was thoughtful, remarkably generous for someone with much less to give than many, and really touched me. That being said, I am very happy to have a photo to remember her and her daughter and I am currently making a print for her that she can have of her and her daughter. Maybe this is a newer form of colonialism, maybe not. I didn't feel a simple posting of a picture of a woman and her child was the venue to editorialize about the story behind it, but I assure you, there is one. She was well aware of what I was doing, I asked her for her permission. Your post says more of the instant conclusions that you assumed than it does of the photograph. I don't think that she would be ashamed of the "thousands of people" that might view this, as it is a picture of beauty and filial happiness. If she were offended, if I thought that it wrong, I would be the first to apologize incessantly, and do whatever I could to pull the photo off.
-
Opinions about exploitation
as do some painters who depicted scenes of flaying and dismembering of the damned and saintly. I guess we have to include "horror" movies as well. I am not sure that the fact of an artist making money from his/hers art is necessarily exploitative.
No, I would not agree. Depictions of "hell" in paintings and/or corporal punishment were typical of the time they were done, and sometimes served to make people reflect on the excess of these practices. I would like to think humankind has evolved some (not much but some) since the spanish inquisition.
Horror movies?!?!...you are kidding right? For one, the actors are paid. Second lets have Hollywood try and use real body parts in one of their movies and see what your countrymen (not to mention the legal system) have to say about that. Lets face it, this a****** came to Mexico to do this because in the US he would have been jailed and most likely lynched.
But as I said, you dont see anything wrong with his immoral use of cadavers, lets have one of your family members used as props once they die.
-
Opinions about exploitation
Jorge - I agree with you on Witkin. Especially your point about seeing him do those photos in the USA.
But I'm curious - have you been to Guanajuato City, GTO, Mexico, and seen the Museum of the Mummies? What did you think?
(For those that have not been there, it is a museum that has the mummified remains of around 100 people that were originally buried in a cemetary in Guanajuato and when the surviving relatives no longer paid to keep the bodies in the cemetary, they were removed to make way for paying customers. But they noticed that many of the people had been mummified due to the mineral composition of the cemetary, and someone had the idea of putting the remains on display.)
I took my touristy photos when I went through, but I would in no way ever think of using the photos for anything other than a rememberance of the experience.
Kirk
-
Opinions about exploitation
Yes I have Kirk, and I find it deprorable. Unfortunatelly the mummies have become a tourist attraction and from what I understand they are exhibited with the family's permission. In any case, while I think it is unethical this is done in Mexico by Mexicans and whatever the laws are they apparently are ok with this. I dont know, and I will find out, but I am pretty sure what Witkin did was illegal here, and most likely in the US as well.
So as a compilation of his actions, he goes to a foreign country, breaks the law by bribing morgue attendants and using cadavers without consent as props and then he is hailed as a "great" photographer?....not in my book, regardless of what he is using, cadavers, animals of mishapen people, you see one Witkin picture, you have seen them all, same sh*t, different print....
-
Opinions about exploitation
Oh and BTW, I dont see anything wrong with Andrew's photographs. It is obvious he was respectful, kind and does not show the woman in any kind of demeaning way. I have to say I have asked in my behalf, and behalf of friends who have come to visit, street vendors to let me take theirt picture or a picture of their child.
What I meant is the typical 35 mm user who comes down and takes a picture of these people without asking or showing any kind regard for them. When I see this I usually stop and tell them to go take pictures of the poor in the US living under bridges, I have yet have one of them try to make an issue about it........
-
Opinions about exploitation
It's strange to me that this idea of exploitation has to be tied to money.
I think you'll find that Witkin was making these photographs at great personal expense long before he was getting paid for them.
As far as as your ideas about him as a person (not pissing on him if he was on fire, etc.) I'm not sure what this has to do with his work. Many great artists have serious personal shortcomings; some have been downright monsters. But meaningful opinions about their work-- its vision, power, and depth--are not going to come from feelings about an artist's character, whether those feelings are based on first, second, or third-hand information.
From my brief personal contact with Witkin, and a friend's more prolonged contact, I can say that i don't like him much. But this has nothing to do with his work. I like his work, and for reasons that have little to do with the initial shock. They have a lot of depth, and work on many different levels. I also sense that the work is intensely personal, and comes straight from Witkin's personal struggles (not financial ones). I know you like to tell me I'm imagining things when I see things that you don't, but that is definitely another conversation. Just know that there are quite a few people out there who see more than shock and a morbid freak show.
p.s. There is still at least one freak show in United States. It's at Coney Island, and its existence is threatened by the same thing that wiped out all the other freak shows: lack of money. Why would people go all the way down there and pay $5 to see freaks when they can see them for free by strolling through the east village, or by turning on daytime t.v.?
-
Opinions about exploitation
Sometimes the exploitation is not connected with the photographer. Take for example the FSA photos. My family came from the worst area of the Dust Bowl and could have easily been in one of them. There were feelings on both sides but for most people there, the last thing they wanted was the Government showing their pictures to a bunch of Easterners saying "Oh, look at those poor people!" They understood the photographers had a job and didn't begrudge that. But many did not feel poor, and they sure weren't ignorant as they were being portrayed back in Washington. The photos may have been taken with dignity and respect, but their use stripped that away and was highly patronizing.
Another example is Eddie Adams and his photo of the Viet Cong excecution. From everything I have read, Eddie hated that photo and had nothing to do with what became of it. It was taken entirely out of context and made into something he knew was not true.
Such is the tight wire we sometimes walk.
-
Opinions about exploitation
Forgot to add, that maybe this explains why I feel the way I do about exploitation. It was pretty high up on the priority list when I was growing up to not do something that would bring shame upon people for their condition because it should be nothing to be ashamed of. One of those by-products from the Depression and Dust Bowl I suppose.
-
Opinions about exploitation
It's strange to me that this idea of exploitation has to be tied to money
It does not, but certainly it is one consideration. As to his personal expense, I have heard he is a cheap skate....so I doubt it, at least I dont think he is/was making any more of a financial sacrifice than any of us in this forum.
As far as as your ideas about him as a person (not pissing on him if he was on fire, etc.) I'm not sure what this has to do with his work.
It has nothing to do with his work and I never said it did, please do not put words "in my mouth" as it were. But IMO the things he has done to get his pictures gives us a clear indication of the type of person he is. I dont care if people like his pictures or not, but playing and desecrating human remains so that he can be "different" and "contemporary" is just plain wrong and it needs to be said.
Bottom line Paul, you nor anybody here has responded to my question on how would you feel if your child died in an accident and I used her/his body as a prop? And I did so without your knowledge and permission......You can look into his photographs all kinds of things you want, to each his or her own, but dont tell me they justify his actions nor that they were made in the name of "art." The guy is a sensationalist and that is about it.
-
Opinions about exploitation
Jorge, I agree with you that the ends should not justify the means. It wasn't clear to me in this discussion that the judging of W's character has been separate from judging his work ... and i felt that this needed to be addressed before we could really get anywhere.
To answer your question, I would indeed not be happy about someone I loved being used as a prop--unless I was consented with and was convinced that the project was respectful and somehow important, and that it was in keeping with the wishes of the deceased. And I'm well aware that this is not how W operates.
I will say that i feel he is not a sensationalist. He believes very, very strongly in the work that he does, and believes in the importance of it being made. This by itself can't justify things (i'm sure charles manson believed very strongly in his work, too) but it does tell me that he at least believes he is serving more than himself and his ego. His convictions about the work are powerful and infectious--it's one of the main reasons he has such an easy time convincing people to participate. Does this make him a good guy? No, of course not. But as questionable a person as he may be, he is coming from a sincere place. He may be a monster, but he's not a charlatan.
-
Opinions about exploitation
It wasn't clear to me in this discussion that the judging of W's character has been separate from judging his work
I think this is what this thread is about, the underlying intentions of the photographer. If all we are going to do is talk about his work without any other consideration then lets stop boring the rest of the forum members and say that you like his work and I dont....simple as that.
Funny though, that you are willing to see all these extra things in his photographs yet you refuse to consider what he does to get them. How convenient.....
-
Opinions about exploitation
How do you guys feel about taking pictures of people that you find interesting/
I feel interested and motivated enough to want to make the photo, that is how I feel. And if the other person is willing and agrees they are to some degree collaborating. know this is the case with Arbus, S.L. Adams, and Davidson...Eugene Richards too. How can this possibly be considered 'exploitation"?
The work of those photographers is strong and "interesting' because the person behind the lens has strong and interesting ideas as well as powerful enough aesthetic skills to make you feel compelled to look at the images they make and a high enough degree of craft to make iamges that work.
-
Opinions about exploitation
Paulr wrote "He believes very, very strongly in the work that he does, and believes in the importance of it being made."
So - what is the "importance" of the cadaver photos that was made by Witkin?
-
Opinions about exploitation
I see no redeeming value in Witkin's photos. I would call it pornographic - sensationalism to elicit an intense emotional response.
-
Opinions about exploitation
Wow what a great subject to discuss.
IMHO exploitation cannot not be defined but rather extrapolated and analyze out of a multitude of variables.
Respect and permisssion if at all humanly possible:
for/from the individual
for/from the family
for/from the extended family
for/from the culture
for/from the moment
for/from humanity
for/from your own ethics and beliefs
Take for example Eddie Adams picture of the execution. Yes, it was deplorable and I feel really bad for the person. The right thing would havebeen to ask permission from the family or another vietnamese elder. On the other hand if this image had any positive effect on the war, our leaders, the people, the world then it may be determined out to be non-exploitive for most people. What if this image was never published would that have been right? Just the fact that he hated this image means it cost him personally to publish it. Now let's spin this and imagine Eddie was some sort of necromaniac and published the same picture on a website dedicated to the same, that would surely fall out of the realm and be exploitive. Same picture different intent and outcome ;-)
-
Opinions about exploitation
I dont buy it Bob, photos like this have to be considered within a context. Photojournalism and documenting the atrocities man visits upon man has been done almost since the creation of photography. Playing with human remains for the sake of "art" in an enterely different thing than your example. Adams did not set out to become a pulitzer price winner and had no ulterior motive to take his picture, Witkin had a specific purpose when using body remains (whatever that was) .
-
Opinions about exploitation
Jorge, I beleive we really are in agreement. I was not condoning any picture except for Adams' picture of the execution. What I was trying to express was some of the criteria or context that I would use to determine if a particular image that I wanted to make was exploitation or not. I will not look at Witkin's work for personal reasons as I suspect it's of no redemming value and would not meet the criteria I listed earlier.
-
Opinions about exploitation
"I think this is what this thread is about, the underlying intentions of the photographer. If all we are going to do is talk about his work without any other consideration then lets stop boring the rest of the forum members and say that you like his work and I dont....simple as that."
I did in fact discuss my impression of his intensions.
"Funny though, that you are willing to see all these extra things in his photographs yet you refuse to consider what he does to get them. How convenient....."
Jorge, please read what I wrote. I do consider what he does to get the pictures, and in some cases I find it troubling. My points are that 1) his working ethics and the value of his work are both worthwhile subjects, but of different conversations. And 2) while I agree that he crosses a lot of lines and that he's not my favorite person in the world, I don't think he's just about sensationalism, shock, or money.
-
Opinions about exploitation
"Paulr wrote "He believes very, very strongly in the work that he does, and believes in the importance of it being made."
So - what is the "importance" of the cadaver photos that was made by Witkin?"
which cadaver photo? there are many.
one thing i get a strong sense of in all his work is one of personal complicity ... an identification with the subjects, however freaklike or even dead. i get a sense of "welcome to my inner world" from his pictures. and a sense of both the horror and alienation of that world, and of the elaborate means used to make that world formally, texturally, metaphorically, and even art-historically coherent. Even beautiful.
next time you look at his work, consider this: it's only partly photography. the photograph is the finished product, but witkin's work is concerned every bit as much with sculpture, installation, and performance. this places it pretty far outside the bounds of the kinds of straight photography that most people on this site (myself included) spend most of our time talking about, so this suggests to me that it's worth more than a cursory look if we're going to understand it. it's very easy to quickly dismiss something, but not always illuminating.
-
Opinions about exploitation
"Take for example Eddie Adams picture of the execution. Yes, it was deplorable and I feel really bad for the person. The right thing would havebeen to ask permission from the family or another vietnamese elder. "
You see Bob, this is the type of exploitation I was talking about. You have a story behind this photo that you have read/heard and believe. I can tell you that the version you recount is not the context of the event at all. Reading from Eddie Adams' own account, and from what I remember being published in Life Magazine at the time, that "poor" Viet Cong had just killed a large group of school children and their teachers. He mowed them down on the sidewalk as they were walking into their school building. He was immediately apprehended and delivered to the South Vietnamese Colonel. Being martial law was in effect at the time, the Colonel WAS completely in his authority to execute the VC on the spot. There was no doubt that this person had done what he did. Adams was there and saw it first hand. The guy wholly deserved what he got.
Sure, it won him the Pulitzer prize, but he hated how the photo was used and interpreted past its publication in Life. It was blown into something he never intended it to portray nor did he agree with what it became.
Same war, the other iconic image winning a Pulitzer was that of the little girl on fire from the napalm attack. This photographer purposely went out with the intention of documenting such an event for the purpose of garnering the Pulitzer and becoming an icon of the Anti-War movement. What gauls me the worst is he purposely let the girl run by his self, on fire, doing nothing to help her, just to get his picture. Luckily, there were some GI's a few more yards down the road that saved her. A US Army combat photographer, with the GIs who saved the girl, got the whole incident on movie film from the other side of the road. You can see that guy lining up his shot and following the girl with his camera, and doing nothing to help her.
Was that ethical? I highly think not! However, to some, it apparently is. So there; two photos, two Pulitzers, two forms of exploitation, one intentional, one not. And two differing stories of what happened in the two events.
-
Opinions about exploitation
Hello.
I'd like to re-enter the discussion. I was not familiar with Wilkin's work until this thread. I googled him and viewed the work being discussed. I am reluctant to trash someonelse's work, but I don't care for it at all. To me, it is like the bondage and the sado-masocistic photos from the 40s we've probably all seen. Mapplethorpe went for it some, and Helmut Newton became a famous fashion "photog" with it. It attempts to appeal to the the baser elements and dark side of human nature. Maybe the work has a legitimate point to make, but I can't see it. Perhaps Wilkin is attempting to make an artistic statement, but with the way he has utilized human remains, the work is void of any humanity.
Expoitation is difficult to discuss. Apparently Wikin has an appreciatitive audience. Some of the photograhers I cited in my earlier post have been both commended and condemed for their work. Wegee often photographed the recently departed in his on-going story of the New York streets; Gene Smith depicted the dead and deformed (Spanish Wake & Tamura's Bath), but those works retained their human connection, their humanity.
Nick
-
Opinions about exploitation
I'd strongly suggest to anyone who sees nothing in Witkin's work (or nothing but exploitation, bondage photo-remakes, sensationalism, etc.) to find one of the books on his work at a library or b&n and spend some time with it. Any simple, knee-jerk reaction to this work is missing the point. I'm not suggesting everyone's going to like it, but you have a chance to discover some depth, and at least to understand what it is you like or dislike.
-
Opinions about exploitation
hello paulr,
Like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not unaccustomed to looking beyond the surface of an image. Shocking images do not normally disturb me, and it's the "shock" aspect that I first responded to. I made a photo of a decaying bird carcas that has a deeper meaning to me, but some people who have seen it, do not like. The eye of the beholder.
I have seen work like Wilkin's, but using manaquen or animal (please excuse the mis-spellings) parts rather than human body parts. Though I'm not familiar with his work, I will accept that he is, by some, a respected artist. As an artist, I assume his work is intended to make a statement - asthetic, social, political, etc. I sense he is attempting to make a pyschological statement, expressing an inner vision.
Oh, I guess I can ramble on. I just don't really like his use of human remains and parts. It doesn't feel right. I can't look at the work and say "I wish I'd made such an image". Unless, the departed left a will saying "use my remains as a color or texture in a work of art", I think doing so, more than exploitaion, is unethical. But, that my opinion.
-
Opinions about exploitation
to find one of the books on his work at a library or b&n and spend some time with it
Why? so I can read some psycobabble?...no thanks.....
Jorge, please read what I wrote.
Apparently you did not read my response either. You cannot separate the artist from the work. To say just look at his picture and find the "deeper meaning" without taking into consideration how the pictures were made is a cop out. If all you want is to consider the pictures without any regard to what was used to make them then as I said, it is very simple, some like me find his work has no readiming value, some like you think they are seeing....whatever you think you see, and you like them...no need to argue anymore.
-
Opinions about exploitation
You're still compressing the two points into one point: you're saying you don't like the work, which is fine, and you're saying you disapprove of how it was made, which is also fine. But this quick dismissal that lumps the two ideas together doesn't really answer either question.
Hypothetically, what if you discovered (and it would have to be from some source besides the art itself, because no such information is available there) that the cadavers were given to Witkin with full blessing from the families, and that they were in fact left to witkin for this purpose in the wills of the deceased? Would this change your perception of how exploitive the work is or not?
Or look at the Egyptian pyramids. For centuries it was believed that they were built by slave labor; by tens of thousands of people living from childhood until death under the burden of enormous stones, simply to build death monuments to the pharoas. I don't know anyone who wouldn't consider this to be a pinnacle of exploitation in the history of the world. Does any of this, however, diminish the pyramids' beauty, grandeur, mytycism, or historical fascination? Does it suggest that they should have been razed, banned, or ignored? And now that we no longer believe that they were built by slaves, should our perception of their beauty or their worth be somehow changed?
These are just open questions.
-
Opinions about exploitation
I want to follow up with something that might clarify my position on this issue.
I believe that a lot of art (certainly not all) comes from a place of pain in the person who makes it. The art often serves as a partial cure, or a palliative, or at least as a process for placing that pain or its source in a more affirmable perspective.
Pain is also a common cause for bad behavior: meanness, coldness, rage, lack of empathy, disrespect, betrayal, treachery. This is why it comes as little surprise that a good number of artists (again, certainly not all) have had some history of behaving badly. Picasso, Hemingway, Van Gogh, Mingus, and Stieglitz come to mind. I say this not to glorify or even condone any bad behavior, only to try to empathize with it, and especially to understand the ways in which might be related to their work.
If the making of the work comes the source of that bad behavior, or even if it can be seen as a product of bad behavior, I am going to be much more interested in trying to understand and learn from the work than I'm going to be interested in condoning or condemning it. All I can get out of judging it is a sense of righeousness. But if I open myself to the work, try to understand it, and to understand the pain and even the human failings that led to its coming into being, then my life will be richer for it.
-
Opinions about exploitation
paulr - you are saying that playing with cadavers was theraputic for Witkin, and therefore we should look the other way because he is now a better person for it??? Sounds like more of the psychobabble.
So that's the "understanding" you have gained from looking at his work? And that benefits you as well somehow?
And if that's what makes this important, that seems like a rather lame excuse. I agree with Jorge that this activity would have been handled very differently had it occurred in the USA - I suspect he would have been charged with abusing a corpse.
I love the "modern" attutude that all judging is bad... Sometimes there is a right and a wrong, but some people refuse to see it.
Finally - What if Witkin was doing this and did not happen to take any photos?