Re: [Leica] Suzy Q, again

[Krechtz@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/26/00 5:46:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
images@InfoAve.Net writes:

<< I think Salgado and Natchwey expect that their photographs will make a 
 difference in the way the viewer feels or reacts toward the subjects 
 portrayed and that in the long run their photographs will make a difference 
 in the world.  Upon viewing their photographs you might feel compelled to 
 contribute to a charity, work for hunger relief, consume less yourself.
 You can't really say that about photographs of a flower pot or a sunrise.
  >>

Actually, if Ms. Sontag has demonstrated anything at all, it is the viability 
and serviceability of the Second Amendment.  That is to say that anyone can 
say just about anything about anything.  There are plenty of 
environmentalists, horticulturists, campers, hikers, birdwatchers and nature 
lovers in general who can be and are deeply moved by effective photographic 
portrayals of "natural" subjects.  These folks would argue vehemently that 
preservation of natural phenomena and the environment in which they and we 
flourish is the highest form of human endeavor.  They are prepared to open 
their wallets accordingly.  Of course, it would be difficult for Ms. Sontag 
to suggest, let alone argue effectively, that the nature photographer 
assaults the sunset or rapes the rose bushes.
Finally, it may be time to invoke the Minimata theme yet again, as an example 
of how the human and environmental concerns of a given photographer can 
become inextricably entwined, with attendant risk approaching that taken by 
the combat photographer in a war zone.  Generalizations often lead to 
strained logic and irresponsible hyperbole, as pointed out so well by others 
in this thread.  Photography is simply too grand a concept and too high a 
calling to be reduced to formulaic banality by any facile and superficial 
popular philosopher.

Joe Sobel

Joe