Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Well, maybe some politics...
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:57:09 -0400
References: <002701c0d365$3ebceba0$02000003@dnai.com>

This really is a bit of an odd discussion.  On the one hand, ALL
photography, by revealing a bit of the photographer, is "political".  On
the other, there are Thucydideans in our midst -- myself among them! -- who
see the job of photography as a Joe Friday "just the facts, ma'am" art
form.  You pays your money and you takes your choice.  I was rather taken
by the number of LUG'ers (NOT "Lugers" -- those are German firearms!) who
rushed off to view some revolting protesters a couple of weeks back, while
my spin on this was that this was a most magnificent weekend to AVOID such
doings.  Again, you pays your money.

Yes, let us discuss the social effects of photography -- but, understand,
that those with a leftist agenda will reveal themselves in short order.
Photography is not automatically conservative, liberal, or statist -- but a
discussion of the quality and content of pictures does not, automatically,
mean that those discussing it are endorsing the political agenda of the
photographer.  Our work speaks for itself, within the confines of the
picture.  It may also reveal that the photographer had a certain social or
political belief, but the discussion must, in the end, be centered on the
picture and not on the political agenda of  the clicker.

Oddmund is most welcome here, by my lights;  he and I share a lot of
fundamental values and even some life experiences -- such as military
service -- though he advocates a political course which I suspect I don't
share.  But, his photography is his inspiration, and it is grand to have
him here to stir us to thought.

The great evil of the American middle-class in the 1950's was a refusal to
discuss "religion or politics".  Hence, when their kids wandered off to
college, they were fair game for the statist professors they encountered,
and had no tools to deal with the rather soft and ill-defined arguments
presented them.  The 'campus revolution' of the '60's resulted.  (My own
parents discussed politics and religion constantly, so I had an evolved
dialectic of my own by the time I was in tenth grade -- if there was a
single skill I picked up at the dinner table, it was political discourse!
Hence, I was immune to the lure of that 'gospel of greed', the 'lure of the
Left'.)

My point in this is that it should be proper to discuss the political
implications of photography and to do so broadly -- else, we risk becoming
molluscs, content behind our shells, but incapable of real growth.

But, as Brian has ruled, no name-calling!

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!

In reply to: Message from "Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com> (Re: [Leica] no politics)