Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Why sadly? ...If you didn't know that how would it > affect your view of her images? In fact, Adam, her images of Africans have appalled me from the moment I saw first saw them--long before I knew anything about her politics. Superfically sympathetic, they bundle together a number of condescending stereotypes--the noble primitive, the magnificent physical specimen, the eroticized female, the brave warrior/hunter.... Africans at one with the natural world--the savannah and the arid plain, their natural home--because they have scarcely begun to move down the path to civilization. It's an Africa of myth and fantasy. The photos are also superficial in the sense of showing no sign that Reifenstahl understands or even gives much of a damn about Nuba and the Masai individuals and communities, except at they serve her ends. It's not just a matter of where she chose to point her lens and how she chose to frame her subject, it's also a matter of where she chose not to point and how she chose not to frame. Her Africa has no farms, no cities, no docks, no railroads, no airports, no accountants, no laundry detergent, no mines, no factories, no traffic jams, no poets, no villas, no slums, no statesmen, no guerillas.... Contrast her Africa with a contemporary's, say, Margaret Bourke-White's. > a photographic genius Absurd, Marc. Capable of producing striking images, yes. But what is genius? Watkins, Cameron, Evans, Kertesz, HC-B, Weston....? Look at the body of work. She can't even clean their lenses. --John ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121