From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/22/02-04:16:29 PM Z
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Shannon Stoney wrote:
> ... Recently there was a show at the
> Blaffer Gallery at the University of Houston, about children and
> adults with cranial and facial abnormalities. I had to admit it was
> a bit fascinating, but I was sort of ashamed of my own fascination
> with looking at people who had these handicaps; it seemed
> voyeuristic. And there wasn't much that was interesting about these
> photographs other than the fact that their subjects were
> "funny-looking." It seemed as if the photographer was exploiting
> these people in order to get people to look at her photographs.
This and all sorts of ramifications may be true, but not "street
photography."
" ... One deranged man actually shot
> a filmmaker from Canada because he was so tired of Appalachian people
> being portrayed as backward and ignorant.
Deranged people shoot other people for all sorts of reasons, pretexts and
fantasies. Including the voices in their head.
If you
> feel a little queasy about it, maybe you shouldn't do it. Certainly
> sharing your photographs with your subjects before you show them to
> the world is some sort of insurance against exploiting people. If
> they think they look good, it's probably ok.
Sure on the first point, probably no on the 2nd. You've just illustrated
in fact that your idea of "exploitation" and the subjects' do not
correlate -- while constructing a formula for wiping out about 90% of
photography in public. Which photographers of holy name or no name submit
their work for censorship to "subjects" -- or could if they wanted to?
Or let's say with that in mind nobody would shoot nothing except "head
shots" and pablum -- which many it seems would prefer.
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:10 PM Z CST