Politeness versus Photography

David H. Bebbington · Mar 19, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Thanks for putting it so neatly. A lot of the hassle here seems to be down to an extremely (and to me, extraordinarily) narrow definition of the word 'politics'.

Cheers,

R.

With just a soupcon of mischief-making by Bjorke, who, for example, shows us the cover of an edition of "Kunst dem Volk" (literally "Art for the People") without mentioning that this is (was) a Nazi party publication, presumably with the blessing of J. Goebbels in person, exploiting what at first glance seems innocuous kitsch to hammer home the "master race" message!

John Bartley · Mar 19, 2007

Jstraw said:
Indeed, the word "politics" means far more than overt opinions about governmental and economic workings

Roger Hicks said:
Thanks for putting it so neatly. A lot of the hassle here seems to be down to an extremely (and to me, extraordinarily) narrow definition of the word 'politics'.
R.

Before I posted, I looked up the definition just to be sure that I had some sort of an understanding of the word. I'm not well educated, so I had what I assume is a "common" understanding of it. My understanding was that politics is mostly about the practice of persuasion to obtain power or control in groups. So, when someone tells me that I "must" have a political agenda if I am a photographer, then I have to suspect that it is they who are the politician, not me, so IMO their act of politicising my hobby speaks more about them and their intentions than it does about either me or my hobby. That is why I posted the short reply that I did.

When I look it up, it turns out that I was mostly right ... the definition seems to be quite narrow and if I had to choose between overt and covert, I'd take the overt kind anyday ...

.. and that's it for me ... back to ignorant bliss mode ...

cheers

jstraw · Mar 19, 2007

There is a relationship between photography and semiotics (and I surmise that there always is, even in the absence of broadly defined "symbols"...or rather that everything is a symbol). Semiotics, be they conscious or unconscious, sought out or reflexively responded to by the photographer, communicate.

This communication can be subtle or vulgar, sincere or fraudulent, manipulative or accidental. It can even be beyond the photographer's understanding, awareness or powers of description. It's there.

Once a photograph exists, this communication becomes a monologue delivered by the photograph and received by the person viewing it. The veiwer's participation in this process means that what's inherently, visually present in a photoraph has limited power over the cognitive, conscious and subconscious reception of the communication as it's subjectively processed by the veiwer. It is not powerless.

What it communicates are certain ideas drawn from the spectrum of all ideas. These ideas have the effect of eliciting certain responses, suggesting certain concepts, invoking certain emotions. What they communicate represents something, intentional or unintentional. It promotes some idea.

This is political.

Everything is political.

jstraw · Mar 19, 2007

Let me make a sledgehammer point.

Is a power structure that seeks to occupy me with bread and circuses acting politically?

Is my choice of bread and circuses as sustainance for body and soul, a political act?

Are bread and circuses political?

I would say "yes, yes and yes."

Others may not.

To them I would say, "It's working."

Roger Hicks · Mar 19, 2007

David H. Bebbington said:
With just a soupcon of mischief-making by Bjorke, who, for example, shows us the cover of an edition of "Kunst dem Volk" (literally "Art for the People") without mentioning that this is (was) a Nazi party publication, presumably with the blessing of J. Goebbels in person, exploiting what at first glance seems innocuous kitsch to hammer home the "master race" message!

Dear David,

Well, what could be more innocent or less political than 'Kinder, Kirche, Kueche'?

(For some others, not you, obviously) 'Children, Church, Kitchen'.

If I may, I'll leave you, as the more knowledgeable historian of that period, to explain that to others who are not familiar with this innocuous expression.

Cheers,

R.

Early Riser · Mar 19, 2007

I do pretty landscapes. I try to show the world looking it's best. Simon Norfolk would probably detest my work. On the surface there's no obvious politics to my stuff. However when I'm out there shooting and I'm driving thousands of miles, passing by landfills, giant condo developments, walmarts, etc I find it harder and harder to find a place on this planet that man has yet to deface. I come to the reality that this beautiful world of ours will not exist as a natural habitat for much longer. The strongest statement that I can make with my work is to show how beautiful this planet is while in the midst of it's destruction.

All of the landscape photographers out there now are creating historical documents, documentation for future generations of the paradise that planet Earth once was.

Roger Hicks · Mar 19, 2007

Early Riser said:
I do pretty landscapes. I try to show the world looking it's best. Simon Norfolk would probably detest my work. On the surface there's no obvious politics to my stuff. However when I'm out there shooting and I'm driving thousands of miles, passing by landfills, giant condo developments, walmarts, etc I find it harder and harder to find a place on this planet that man has yet to deface. I come to the reality that this beautiful world of ours will not exist as a natural habitat for much longer. The strongest statement that I can make with my work is to show how beautiful this planet is while in the midst of it's destruction.

All of the landscape photographers out there now are creating historical documents, documentation for future generations of the paradise that planet Earth once was.

Yup. And that's a political act.

Cheers,

R.

jstraw · Mar 19, 2007

Early Riser said:
I do pretty landscapes. I try to show the world looking it's best. Simon Norfolk would probably detest my work. On the surface there's no obvious politics to my stuff. However when I'm out there shooting and I'm driving thousands of miles, passing by landfills, giant condo developments, walmarts, etc I find it harder and harder to find a place on this planet that man has yet to deface. I come to the reality that this beautiful world of ours will not exist as a natural habitat for much longer. The strongest statement that I can make with my work is to show how beautiful this planet is while in the midst of it's destruction.

All of the landscape photographers out there now are creating historical documents, documentation for future generations of the paradise that planet Earth once was.

When you make a beautiful landscape where poles and powerlines function as a critical, compositional element and not something to curse and avoid, it speaks boldly.

That's on my darkroom cork board right now, btw.

Early Riser · Mar 19, 2007

jstraw said:
When you make a beautiful landscape where poles and powerlines function as a critical, compositional element and not something to curse and avoid, it speaks boldly.

That's on my darkroom cork board right now, btw.

JStraw, as you're responding to my post I'll be presumptive and assume that you're referring to one of my images with powerlines in it and thank you. Which one were you referring to?

In my earlier work I refused to have inclusion of Man in my work. I would go to great lengths to avoid any indication of Man in a natural scene. However at this point it has become nearly impossible to avoid it. Powerlines and telephone lines are EVERYWHERE. I give up, when life gives you lemons make lemonade. When you're stuck with powerlines, do something with them. It is a statement in itself that someone going to fairly unpopulated places and making a great effort to avoid showing the hand of man, can not avoid the hand of man.

jstraw · Mar 19, 2007

Early Riser said:
JStraw, as you're responding to my post I'll be presumptive and assume that you're referring to one of my images with powerlines in it and thank you. Which one were you referring to?

In my earlier work I refused to have inclusion of Man in my work. I would go to great lengths to avoid any indication of Man in a natural scene. However at this point it has become nearly impossible to avoid it. Powerlines and telephone lines are EVERYWHERE. I give up, when life gives you lemons make lemonade. When you're stuck with powerlines, do something with them. It is a statement in itself that someone going to fairly unpopulated places and making a great effort to avoid showing the hand of man, can not avoid the hand of man.

I like lemonade better than lemons, in this case.

I've "seen" this picture, sans power lines, umpteen times...*yawn*.

This picture:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

is fantastic.

That landscape and those lines are performing a duet. Semiotically speaking, it's a treatise.

(That image just happens to be "March" in my Early Riser 2007 Calendar)

Early Riser · Mar 19, 2007

jstraw said:
I like lemonade better than lemons, in this case.

I've "seen" this picture, sans power lines, umpteen times...*yawn*.

This picture:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

is fantastic.

That landscape and those lines are performing a duet. Semiotically speaking, it's a treatise.

(That image just happens to be "March" in my Early Riser 2007 Calendar)

Wow, and here I just thought it looked cool. You don't really have an "Early Riser 2007" calendar do you?

jstraw · Mar 19, 2007

Early Riser said:
Wow, and here I just thought it looked cool. You don't really have an "Early Riser 2007" calendar do you?

Yes, I really do. I'm sorry if that makes your head spin. I'm a fan. It's strictly for non commercial use. I used a calendar template in Microsoft Word.

Early Riser · Mar 19, 2007

Geez, Michael, I'm not sure if I should be flattered or get a restraining order . I'm very flattered, thank you. When I do have an official calendar I'll send you one.

jd callow · Mar 19, 2007

Early Riser said:
When I do have an official calendar I'll send you one.

pick me! pick me!

jstraw · Mar 19, 2007

I recommend the restraining order. But then, I know me better than you do.

I look forward to not having to print my own 2008 calendar! Thanks.

rpsawin · Mar 19, 2007

Early Riser said:
Geez, Michael, I'm not sure if I should be flattered or get a restraining order . I'm very flattered, thank you. When I do have an official calendar I'll send you one.

Put me down for the Early Riser Action Figure when they are available...

Bob

copake_ham · Mar 19, 2007

Wow, you go away for a few hours here and all kinds of things happen!

Reading though all this I am left with one basic thought.

All art attempts in someway to alter the consciousness of the viewer (or listener etc.). Since this alteration of conciousness is the aim, all art is inherently political since its seeks to sway another (remembering that even "reinforcement" or a priorily held viewpoint is an act of "swaying").

Which viewpoint is being altered and in what manner is immaterial. The act of one individual using art to alter the conciousness of another is fundamentally a political act.

Early Riser · Mar 19, 2007

hmmm, looks like it's time for that unlisted phone number......

Bob, I'll give you a preview of the Early Riser action figure. It has lots of pockets, a really big backpack and it's stands next to a tripod holding an umbrella over the camera for hours. It's right hand has a working opposable thumb that presses a cable release and it's anatomicaly incorrect in that it's balls are sometimes larger than it's brain. Most often this action figure can be found standing by the side of the road waiting for a cloud to move while semis blow past, or hiking alone in the twilght with a separately available accessory, bear spray, clutched nervously in it's right hand.

Studio photography doesn't sound that bad anymore....

Ole · Mar 19, 2007

Would that be a figure of Early Riser in Action, or Early Riser Inaction?

Early Riser · Mar 19, 2007

Ole said:
Would that be a figure of Early Riser in Action, or Early Riser Inaction?

Ole, for the first thirty seconds of the camera setup it seems like an action figure, for the next 3 hours waiting for the light to get back to what I had just missed, it seems more like an inaction figure.

I still can't get over how well the Norwegian speak english. Far better than my peers growing up in Brooklyn,NY. I PM'ed you after my return from Norway, but you might have not gotten it as it appears that PMs had some issues then, in case you didn't, it was great meeting you and the Mrs. and especially spending time with your carbon fiber view camera. It was very gracious of you, thanks.

mark · Mar 19, 2007

ME WANT EARLY RISER CALENDAR.

bjorke · Mar 19, 2007

David H. Bebbington said:
With just a soupcon of mischief-making by Bjorke...

Heh, well as my dad used to say at little league practice: "just keep pitching 'em slow, sooner or later somebody'll swing at it."

Actually ALL the images I've posted are technically-proficient romanticisations becuase those are exactly the sorts of art that restrictive governments like. The first one is from the studio of Josef Thorak.

jstraw's "bread & circus" comment made an excellent hammer btw.

My point, really, is to simply say that pictures need to be free, and discussion of pictures needs to be free. I find it odd that threads get bounced to the Soapbox because they mention, oh, Fox News, but at the same time images that are HIGHLY codified with a wide variety of political content (e.g, partial inert female nudes, where individual portraiture is de-synergized into collections of interchangeable parts) is accepted without a whiff of complaint.

As I expected, those who proclaimed themselves apolitical seem to have had the most reactionary and vitriolic reactions. Funny how that works, huh.

copake_ham · Mar 19, 2007

bjorke said:
.....

My point, really, is to simply say that pictures need to be free, and discussion of pictures needs to be free. I find it odd that threads get bounced to the Soapbox because they mention, oh, Fox News, but at the same time images that are HIGHLY codified with a wide variety of political content (e.g, partial inert female nudes, where individual portraiture is de-synergized into collections of interchangeable parts) is accepted without a whiff of complaint.

Bjorke,

Actually, I was disappointed at first that you didn't comment on my post.

But it seems as if you, too, have fallen into the syndrome of equating the word "politic" with the actions of governments and their related ilk such as "political parties".

In reality, politics exists at many levels and in many venues - for it is simply the effort of one or some to influence the behavior of another or others. Simple examples of this are such phenomena as "office politics"; "club (i.e. fraternal organizations of any sort) politics" etc.

This is why I phrased my comment with a lower case "p".

What I did note from this thread was how those here who are generally on the "right wing" side of the (big P) political spectrum (almost exclusively American, BTW) assumed you meant the upper case "Politics" and took the greatest umbrage at your initial photo. It was if they were reacting (and yes, that is the best word to use) to the au courant interest of much of society in "the environment".

You will recall that the original photo show "god awful" towers in the background of what appears to be an otherwise idyllic tidal basin.

But you want to know what I find interesting about the first photo?

If you read the caption, it is an old BBC Atlantic relay station antenna system. From its appearance alone, most of us who are knowledgable about radio could tell you that it is older than just about anyone commenting here. Today, the BBC World Service (as you would more likely know it) uses satellites and web-based streaming etc. to reach all over the globe.

Those towers are unlikely to still be in active service and these days, if in more accessible locations than the South Atlantic, would more likely be considered "historic landmarks" or have been torn down as "eyesores"!

Most similar relay stations (for all kinds of shortwave broadcasters and locational servicers etc.) have been torn down. Whereas, if these towers still exist, they are wonderful relics of an earlier time - protected by their remoteness and the cost therein of tearing them down!

One man's visual pollution is another's memoir!

What is sad is that now, at least by reading the posts of my fellow Americans here, the very word "politic" is now a "loaded" word that causes people to race to their defenses.

Simply put, we're getting more and more "dumbed down" that no one here seems to have first read the definition of the word before opining.

firecracker · Mar 20, 2007

From the interview piece provided by the link in the first page of this thread, I really find the following part very interesting:

BLDGBLOG: How does working outside of photojournalism, and even outside the art world, affect the actual practicality of getting into these places photographing war zones and ruins and so on? You werenÅft an embedded photographer in Iraq?

Norfolk: No, no. I was just kind of winging it.
You know, the camera I use is made of wood it's a 4x5 field camera, made of mahogany and brass and it looks like an antique. Part of what I do is I make sure I don't look very serious it's best to look like a harmless dickhead, really, so no one bothers you. You look like a nutter. And, to be honest, I play that up: I've got the bald head, and the Hawaiian shirt, and, to look at the image on the back of the camera, you have to put a blanket over your head and go in there with a magnifying glass, and itÅfs always on a tripod.
So I have two choices: I can either do these images from a speeding car, or I can stand there with a blanket over my head, and look like such a prick that somebody's going to find me through their rifle scope and think: Oh! What's that? Let's go down and have a look... I canÅft believe that photographers go into war zones dressed like soldiers! Soldiers are the people they shoot at. If I could wear a clown suit I would do it if I could wear the big shoes and everything. I would wear the whole fucking thing.
I think there's a lot to be said for that, actually, because I can either scrape in there on my belly, wearing camo, and sneak around; or I can stand right there in front, wearing a shirt that says, you know, Don't shoot me. IÅfm a dick.

I'm sure he's being sarcastic, but still I think seriously he makes a good point about how artists approach their subjects and get what they can possibly get.

dickie vaara · Mar 20, 2007

Opinion...

David H. Bebbington said:
My feeling regarding the disconnect is, I think, well illustrated by the picture you post. SN may think this is a passionately political picture, but we need a caption before we can understand anything about it and a considerably longer explanation before we can discern any political standpoint. The information which the picture alone supplies is merely that here was some kind of building which has suffered severe damage (fire? bombardment? termites?) caused by an indeterminate agent (we can't even tell whether human, meteorological or other) and that there is a person standing next to the ruined building (totally unclear whether he has any association with it or not) selling balloons - we are aware of the general incongruity of balloons/celebration on the one hand and ruined building, suffering and loss on the other but we cannot gather any specific information, indeed the distant emotionally cool arm's length dispassionate view camera approach mitigates against this. In short, the viewer of this picture has very liitle impression of what has happened, why it has happened, and why (if at all) he/she should care about this. Consider if you will how this contrasts with the "normal" photojournalistic approach, where the reporter would establish the relationship between the person and wrecked building by visual means - for example, if the balloon seller were much larger in the frame and were holding a fire-damaged object, this would establish his relationship to the building as his former home. If the relationship were of a different kind, this too could be established by visual means.

Second question: Do I think all artists and art works are political, either by accident or design, by omission or commission? Yes, in the sense that all artworks either invite the viewer to broaden his/her horizons and view things in a new way OR massage and confirm the viewer's preconceptions and prejudices.

Regards,

David

Hello David,

Your response is beautifully written and well thought-out. PLUS, I couldn't agree with you more. I think your quote at the bottom says it all. Great job, thanks very much.

Richard Vaara
Everett, WA
vaararr@yahoo.com

Politeness versus Photography

David H. Bebbington

John Bartley

jstraw

jstraw

Roger Hicks

Early Riser

Roger Hicks

jstraw

Early Riser

jstraw

Early Riser

jstraw

Early Riser

jd callow

Moderator

jstraw

rpsawin

copake_ham

Early Riser

Ole

Moderator

Early Riser

mark

bjorke

copake_ham

firecracker

dickie vaara

Politeness versus Photography

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency