Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm not saying that "National Geographic" should be a news outlet, but I am saying that I find it remarkable that the National Geographic Society spent six years without even acknowledging earth-shattering events which altered so many aspects of human endeavor in places as different as New York and New Guinea. I am not implying that "Geographic" should have run bloody war stories or pictures of children dying in their mothers' arms. However, I am saying that for a magazine whose mission is to document all aspects of life on earth to ignore a world at war is patently absurd. My comments on "Geographic's" photographs, that I find them pretty but vacuous, is a different matter. Usually I just find the narrative content of "Geographic" photographs to be pretty thin and their emotional impact to be slight. They are always technically proficient, usually gorgeous, and often demonstrate rare courage on the part of the photographer. They just don't "speak" to me and I find them empty in the way that I often find attractive politicians empty. Of course there are exceptions and some Geographic photographers are better than others. I should also come clean and say that we actually subscribe to "National Geographic." My kids love it. I look at every issue and wish the photographs had greater significance and moment. Buzz Hausner - -----Original Message----- From: Lee, Jonathan [mailto:Jonathan.Lee@hrcc.on.ca] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 12:10 PM To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' Subject: RE: [Leica] Oh So Geographic Jeez guys, NG is a publication of the National Geographic Society, not Magnum. Its mandate is for travel/discovery, culture/anthropology, archaeology, flora/fauna and the like. NG photos are indeed pretty, but to call them vacuous is to do their qualtiy a disservice. Sure, NG doesn't have Requiem-like pictures of child dying in mother's arms or photographer lying in pool of her own blood, but that's not what NG is all about. I love NG. I can look at combat photos somewhere else. Jonathan Lee - -----Original Message----- From: Buzz Hausner [mailto:Buzz@marianmanor.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 10:50 AM To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' Subject: [Leica] Oh So Geographic Between 1939 and 1945, "National Geographic" did not publish one article or even one photograph regarding the Second World War. Generally and with only rare exceptions, I find the photographs in "Geographic" to be pretty. Very pretty and totally vacuous. Buzz - -----Original Message----- From: B. D. Colen [mailto:bdcolen@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 5:12 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] Howard Sochurek Nice Geographic photos...but how typical of the "Old" Geographic that there are no "disturbing" combat photos in an article about the Special Forces in Vietnam....Quite a contrast with Requiem.. B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of peter stamos Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 11:04 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Leica] Howard Sochurek Although I never met the legendary Howard Sochurek, a confirmed Leica user, I've heard many stories about him. While resolution is poor, this is well worth a look http://home.att.net/~specialforceslx/lx_national_geographic.htm ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com