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 sio 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.
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 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.
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 accused 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 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.
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 of 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 accused 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 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.
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 of 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 holds up the mirror and works in an honest way or any artist 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 on an unflattering light someone will surely accused 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 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.
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 of 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 holds up the mirror and works in an honest way or any artist 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 on an unflattering light someone will surely accused 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 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 of ironic but I am clearly not making fun of them. I am not looking down on them. 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.
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 of 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?
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 of ironic but I am clearly not making fun of them. I am not looking down on them. 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.
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 of Avedon\'s West series he 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?
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 of ironic but I am clearly not making fun of them. I am not looking down on them. 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.
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 photographs trying to make your subjects prettier than they are that could be considered exploitive. If you make images like say of Avedon\'s West series he 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?
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 of ironic but I am clearly not making fun of them. I am not looking down on them. 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.
Interesting point and a 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 photographs trying to make your subjects prettier than they are that could be considered exploitive. If you make images like say of Avedon\'s West series he 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?
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 of ironic but I am clearly not making fun of them. I am not looking down on them. 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.
Thats my 2 cents.
What do you all think?
May 14, 2014 at 09:13 PM
Previous versions of airfrogusmc's message #12347681 « Vegetarian Deluxe »
