David Hamilton...

[ChrisHensel]

Dead.

Thoughts?

http://jezebel.com/photographer-dav...source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

[frank]

RIP

 

[pdeeh]

I never took much notice of him when he was active, because I thought most of his photography unpleasant and prurient, and without any saving graces.
He seemed to be technically accomplished, but so what?

Subsequent revelations haven't caused me to raise an eyebrow in surprise

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

He did some nice work...but I drew the line at using under aged girls.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Hmm. Found dead with a plastic bag over his head? This guy died this way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Castro_kidnappings#Castro.27s_death

 

[Ian Grant]

History won't treat him well, whether rightly or wrongly will be immaterial. We only have to looks at Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carrol) and yet modern research clears him, he was never alone with his child subjects, kept meticulous records but was hounded out of society, if he'd been a painter no problem at all.

When I first came across Hamiltons work I was only a little older than his subjects and it was my then girlfriend that bought two of his books for me. I always worried - that's perhaps to strong a word - was unease about the age of the subjects and the motives behind the images.

I think the big difference now is paedophilia is quite rightly now being exposed, quite rightly, and we have to rethink, Hamilton won't be a hero.

Ian

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Not a fan.

 

[LAG]

Thoughts?

When an author happens to be more important than his work, they cease to interest me both.

When the purity (of the photographed and / or the work itself) is broken is because the author has not been able to see when the use becomes abuse.

When Photography (or part of it) is infected or affected in some way, I act with serious rejection and take some distance to any serious conclusion on the subject, but only with the photographic interest in the background. And in this case that background leads me to first thought!