[Leica] BD PAWS

[ricc at mindspring.com (Ric Carter)]

On Apr 19, 2005, at 10:56 AM, lug-request@leica-users.org wrote:


> 5. Rick Carter - I can't believe that you would with a straight face
> suggest that you "fail to
> see the essential photo subject difference between a sleeping infant
> and a bum in the gutter."
> B. D.
>

I'm dead serious, BD.

So far as an element in a well composed photo goes, there is no 
difference.

I'm fully aware that each pulls very different strings in viewer 
emotions, but even these are incredibly dependent on context. I also 
know that you sure as hell better have different intentions with each, 
or your results may be disastrous.

That said, the photographer may use either baby or bum with the utmost 
compassion or utter violation. The bum may be the subject of a 
"compassionate conservative" bent on ending welfare or crusading social 
worker wanting to improve the bum's lot. The baby may be the subject of 
an adoring parent or a child pornographer.

My point was that such a thing is a general "no bum" rule is worse than 
useless. It's all a matter of intention and interpretation. Some will 
succeed better than others. Some of us who think we are showing social 
conditions that should be changed will appear in the eyes of some with 
different experience as a mere slumming yuppies. What some perceive as 
ridicule may be seen by others as an affirmation of humanity.

It's one of those flexible morality things. Answers are not always cut 
and dried.

I like Adam Bridge's summary of the question:

>
> Absolute rules like this are simply silly. Underneath them should be
> compassion. Am I caring about this person or are they just a symbol?
> Am I taking away from them a dignity I would give to someone else?
>
> There ARE no rules - just compassion, and caring, and (I hope)
> kindness. The rest is conscience.
>
> Adam Bridge
>


Well said, Adam.

Ric Carter
Garner, NC

PS: Were I a photo instructor assigning a his class the topic 
"Poverty," I might well invoke a "no bum" rule.