Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'll ignore the heavy sarcasm and try to explain this simply: photography is all about selection. If you want to create an arresting documentary image, poverty simply photographs better. For example, if you have a row of fairly ordinary houses in a typical market economy where there are a range of incomes. At the end of the row is one falling-down shack. Unless you a photographing for a chocolate box, the falling-down shack is more photogenic than the row of ordinary houses. The ordinary houses may be economically more representative, but a photograph of them will be too ordinary, uninteresting, maybe cutesy. Banal. On the other hand, snap a shot of the the falling-down shack and not only do you have a more interesting picture, you will be considered a deep social commentator. Now, if all you do is photograph the "shacks" and never the "houses," you have Salgado's world. Powerful images, skewed sample. Simon Stevens North East Washington, DC (not usually thought of as the Bible Belt). >Simon Stevens said: >> >> Unfortunately for Allan, the positive side of market economics >> translates photographically into the banale. >> >> Simon Stevens >I must have slept through the lectures in economics where the concept of >"banale" was covered. Could someone refresh my memory about this? Oh, and >could you also tell me what Simon is talking about? >RP Johnson - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html