@TheFlyingCamera @Don Heiszf you want to discuss semantics and the history of sexuality and pyschology, then please do so... but not here. It's a photo forum
Without doubt, it's a beautiful book, and the range of images in it are inspiring. I bought a copy right away.While I am often displeased when a discussion of a sensitive topic becomes confrontational and "angsty", I also believe that if we cannot discuss the subject matter in photographs and the story they are telling, then this forum would be limited to dull, repetitive technical information, and I don't think that is optimal. If anything, I wish there was MORE thoughtful discussion about content and the meaning of photographs and less technical info sharing.
I can only speak for myself, but I find that one unfortunate consequence of many discussions on the subject of human sexuality and gender identity is that for people whose identities fall within the "alternative/non-binary spectrum" (I am in that set), there are things that get said in discussion that act as triggers that spark panic, defensiveness, or similar negative response. In other words, many LGBTQ+ people have "hot buttons" that are easily triggered and the response isn't easily suppressed. It is the nature of the LGBTQ+ psyche: society has damaged us. (No, I don't speak for everybody. Though I suspect that plenty of people 40 years my junior fare better, having grown up in a much more liberal, rational society)
TFC has illustrated a very important point, as it pertains to the photographs collated in the book this topic is supposedly about: before we had labels to describe/define what homosexuality is, there was only behavior, not identity. With the creation of labels that define identity, we've created opportunity to make community, make a place in society, craft a meaningful life that encourages a sense of belonging, etc., but we've also given a name to something that people can aim their discomfort and disapproval at. We've given people a (relatively) clearly defined target to which they can aim their hate, and in the past 70 years we've been navigating the consequences of that. On the upside, we can just be people, without having to explain ourselves. In 2015, I was finally able to marry the man I've been partnered to for the past 22 years. Prejudice and judgement are less conspicuous and (hopefully) less likely to find harbor in the minds of our species. Good things have come from investigating the spectrum of sexuality, and presenting the facts without judgement, without perceiving differences as pathological.
I, for one, am glad someone collated such a unique collection of photographs, and I'm pleased that - for me - those photographs create a sense of legacy. I am comforted in the knowledge that although their lives were probably not easy, there were people who found a way to express love with one another all those years ago, and I can look into their faces and feel kinship and belonging.
I'm not sure why Ralph posted, but I think it may have been more an admission than anything, because I can understand people whose discomfort with a subject that was once considered taboo is hard to shake, even after their beliefs on that subject evolved and changed.
My parents grew up with one set of beliefs about gay men and women. Then, as the world changed, their beliefs and their actions changed, and they welcomed more and more people into their world (including into their home) without consideration of what their sexuality was.
But they never became comfortable with discussing that sexuality or with anyone exploring it photographically.
Interesting observation Michel, but I don't agree with the example, at least in the context of Ralph's post.It's like barging in on a quantum physics convention, and shouting in the middle of the panel "PLEASE NOTE THAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS." Who gives a...?
I think both analogies miss the mark - the response was more along the lines of "I neither understand, nor want to understand, this, but I still want to express an opinion about it".Interesting observation Michel, but I don't agree with the example, at least in the context of Ralph's post.
The reason I think this matters, is because of the work that Ralph does. There are some relatively distant parallels between his work and the subject of this book.
I think it unfortunate that he is not comfortable with the subject, because otherwise his photographic knowledge could support a useful critique of the book.
A better parallel might be an astrophysicist sitting in on a quantum physics convention, and then asking a question to the panel, prefaced by "Please note that I do not understand any of this."
I took Ralph's post as being an admission of his inability to express an opinion.I think both analogies miss the mark - the response was more along the lines of "I neither understand, nor want to understand, this, but I still want to express an opinion about it".
I took his comment to mean that he had an opinion but knew it would be an unpopular/politically incorrect one, so he chose to not fully articulate it. I cut him some slack because of his age and medical condition, and it does take some degree of courage to admit you aren't as open-minded about something as you perceive your peers would wish you to be. There's been plenty of opportunity, though, for a clarification of that statement, should he have wished to do so.I took Ralph's post as being an admission of his inability to express an opinion.
You have clearly understood it differently.
It is certainly possible that both of us are wrong - Ralph's difficulties with the keyboard since his health problems sometimes make it difficult to understand his posts.
So I'll stop here, and leave it be.
I took Ralph's post as being an admission of his inability to express an opinion.
You have clearly understood it differently.
It is certainly possible that both of us are wrong - Ralph's difficulties with the keyboard since his health problems sometimes make it difficult to understand his posts.
So I'll stop here, and leave it be.
I took his comment to mean that he had an opinion but knew it would be an unpopular/politically incorrect one, so he chose to not fully articulate it. I cut him some slack because of his age and medical condition, and it does take some degree of courage to admit you aren't as open-minded about something as you perceive your peers would wish you to be. There's been plenty of opportunity, though, for a clarification of that statement, should he have wished to do so.
When I read Ralph's post I remembered how shocked I was at number of examples of naked woman depicted in his (instructional) book. In
100 Years of Photographs of Gay Men in Love I was struck by the beautiful tonality of the photographs. Weird me,eh! to distinguish between an instuctional text and an photographic book.
Yes, Ralph is German, the German people have a way with words.Give Ralph some slack please.
Yes, Ralph is German, the German people have a way with words.
Better to try and accept people than marginalize them.
...
TFC has illustrated a very important point, as it pertains to the photographs collated in the book this topic is supposedly about: before we had labels to describe/define what homosexuality is, there was only behavior, not identity. With the creation of labels that define identity, we've created opportunity to make community, make a place in society, craft a meaningful life that encourages a sense of belonging, etc., but we've also given a name to something that people can aim their discomfort and disapproval at. We've given people a (relatively) clearly defined target to which they can aim their hate, and in the past 70 years we've been navigating the consequences of that.
I'm not.Ralph has his options and feelings.
You have yours.
All are entitled to their opinions and feelings.
Germans are also well known for precision of language. I'd argue with your use of the term "accept" here but I'd just get accused of derailing the forum for personal political points.Yes, Ralph is German, the German people have a way with words.
Better to try and accept people than marginalize them.
Thanks for sharing this.Here is the link to Hugh Nini and Neal Treadwell's PHSNE presentation Loving: a Photographic History of Men in Love, 1850s to 1950s. Thank you Hugh and Neal!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?