Also I received some really good news the day before yesterday. I was selected for this exhibit at the Soho Gallery in New York. It was a juried show and only 40 images were chosen from over 2000. The opening is July 1. This was the photo that I submitted and was selected.
Thanks so much Douglas and your words, in my opinion, are about the biggest compliment you can give a photographer. For peers to recognize my work by just the image is very rewarding and in my opinion one of the greatest compliments a photographer can receive. Thanks again and I am truly humbled by your words.
I will probably be at the opening on the 1st of July if anyone can stop by.
I think it is a moment. I mean to have a big guy with his daughter slung across his shoulder that just happened to be walking past a vegetarian sign and to have all of those repeating shapes was something I couldn't pass up when I saw it starting to unfold. At the last minute the little girl looked up and made eye contact, I pushed the shutter.
I think Chuck asks an interesting question here. It has been argued that all photographs (and photographers) exploit their subjects, with or without the subjects' consent. There is also a strong tradition of photographers making deliberately unflattering, satirical, and/or downright hostile images in the name of art (witness Avedon's Coco Channel portrait, Frank's "The Americans," or a good portion of Martin Parr's catalog, for instance).
Whether or not the image was selected purely for its shape, it is inevitable that a contemporary audience will view such an image in the context of obesity, eating habits, and so on. I think, for me, what balances the harshness of the emphasis on the subject's habitus is the sympathetic connection with the little girl. That balance and connection and participation on her part in the image ensures that while is isn't a "nice" or "flattering" approach to the subjects, it is not entirely unsympathetic.
The bottom line for me is that I do think this image exploits its subjects, and I do think that it has a somewhat judgmental quality (albeit presented with a satirical tone), but I don't think that it is a "mean" image. It uses visual language to link consumerism and America's weight problem with a human face. For this reason, in addition to its purely graphical qualities, I feel this image has considerable merit.
Interesting point and I somewhat agree Evan. As you touched on I think someone could say all street photographs and really all photographs of people are exploitive in one way or another. If you're a portrait photographer trying to make your subjects prettier than they are that could be considered exploitive. If you make images like say Avedon's West series, one could say his honest view of the subjects was exploitive. Some argue Gilden's street work is exploitive. Many think Witkin's work is not only shocking but exploitive. Was Newman's portrait of Krupp exploitive? Some would argue that it was. Is Davidson's book Subway or East 100th Street exploitive? If you are taking photographs of your kids and posting them on line are you then exploiting your own children for praise or whatever? Was Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange or any of the FSA photographers exploiting the victims of the dust bowl and depression?
I think any time a photographer or any artist holds up the mirror to the world and works in an honest way they are going to rock someones boat. A writer if he is writing history or even fiction that is kind of autobiographical, if he is truly being honest, he is going to show something or someone in an unflattering light and someone will surely accuse that writer of being exploitive. I think any artist or photographer should be honest and take chances because the easiest thing to do is to play it safe so I say take the chance then let the chips fall where they may.
There is a fine line between holding up a mirror to the world and making an exploitive image. I think this is where intent becomes huge. Sure Newman meant to show Krupp as the monster he was but that could still be seen as exploitive. I think if a photographer worries to much he will never make an image. So that's why I believe intent is big.
For me and why I took this photograph is first I thought there was a tender and genuine father/daughter moment and the fact the father is a big guy and they were passing right on by a vegetarian sign made it just a bit ironic. I was just lucky to be in a position when all of the elements came together. The fact it works on a deeper social level is a bonus. I hope that in most of my work people have to dig a little to see it all.
Here's a small part of a body of work that this image selected for the exhibit is a part of. I have been working on dealing with background/foreground relationships and also the moments when elements in the frame are working together so that all the elements are supporting the visual statement. And in some cases, as in the above discussion, there is also other deeper meaning to the work showing us a glimpse into our society at this moment in time, good, bad or ugly. In my opinion it's those qualities in images that elevate the work to a hire level. Thus the attention this image has gotten.
Chuck I don't think it really matter if folks think your images are exploitive. As I was getting at earlier and I think Evan was also, because some might think some of the greatest work of all time is exploitive, would that make the work any less important? I think great photographs not only reflect the subject but also show some of the person making the images.
If you see just a bit of humor in my work all the better.
Re exploitation, that was not my first impression - rather I enjoy the irony and juxtapositions in much of your work.
I would agree that regardless of the subject matter, in today's society someone, somewhere, will find an image objectionable. Whether or not the photographer chooses to be held hostage by others' judgement, is the photographer's call. We all have our own, personal, and unique limits.
So a friend of mine were having a related discussion today and he said "so modern day street photography is about how many clever puns you can fit in a frame?"
This comment kind of struck home to me, because it undermines the importance of the visual wit that I tend to value in photography. I wanted to have a strong counter to this statement, although I think its certainly a fair point. Looking through Allen's remaining gallery, I think the additional quality required for effective street photography is counter-intuitive: you can't explain/reduce it. Part of what separates a quality street image from a trite visual pun or a mean-spirited caricature is that while individual elements of the image may be "explained" and certainly analysis undertaken, the best images defy simple verbal distillation. More than one great photographer has said that if they could explain their photographs in words, then they might as well just write essays. Really excellent photography should not be interchangeable with other arts.
So what I like in many of these exceptional images posted is that while there is obvious parallelism and perhaps even visual "puns," most of the photos defy straightforward analysis and explanation. They make me think and ponder, but they are open ended questions rather than declarative statements.
Evan Baines wrote:
So a friend of mine were having a related discussion today and he said "so modern day street photography is about how many clever puns you can fit in a frame?"
This comment kind of struck home to me, because it undermines the importance of the visual wit that I tend to value in photography. I wanted to have a strong counter to this statement, although I think its certainly a fair point. Looking through Allen's remaining gallery, I think the additional quality required for effective street photography is counter-intuitive: you can't explain/reduce it. Part of what separates a quality street image from a trite visual pun or a mean-spirited caricature is that while individual elements of the image may be "explained" and certainly analysis undertaken, the best images defy simple verbal distillation. More than one great photographer has said that if they could explain their photographs in words, then they might as well just write essays. Really excellent photography should not be interchangeable with other arts.
So what I like in many of these exceptional images posted is that while there is obvious parallelism and perhaps even visual "puns," most of the photos defy straightforward analysis and explanation. They make me think and ponder, but they are open ended questions rather than declarative statements....Show more →
Oh yes, I did not mean to imply superficiality - beneath the sometimes apparent there is cohesive element binding various facets into a whole that I cannot describe, but I know it when I see it Rather akin to peeling the proverbial onion perhaps.
