From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/28/02-12:11:36 PM Z
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Shannon Stoney wrote:
> There's also a review in the New Yorker about this show. The
> reviewer gets into some of the issues we were discussing about
> photographing poor people too, as Avedon's portraits of people in the
> American West were criticized for being "exploitative." I never
> thought they were, and neither does Anthony Lane.
I'd say only in the sense that photographing people as uglier or dorkier
than they really look in "reality" is exploitative. But that's done to
rich people too (tho not usually when they're paying for the
"commission.") Did anyone besides me notice that before he was "president"
every photograph of George Bush that appeared on front page of NY Times
had a sappy smirk, sort of Mortimer Snerd? And suddenly, the photographs
of PRESIDENT Bush began to look (almost) human? That's what motor drives
are for.
I remember a photograph of some senator caught by Life magazine talking on
the phone outside a meeting, picking his nose. Etc. Etc. I daresay the
tendency is to be more defensive of "poor people," and probably apt in
that they have fewer defenses -- but the photographs aren't necessarily
more *exploitative* -- though I'll add that I absolutely hated those
Avedon "American West" photos -- so maybe I did think they were
exploitative...
Of course Anthony Lane doesn't check his copy with me before rushing into
print and I find he's often in error. I'll look for the issue -- Thanks
for mention.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:10 PM Z CST