Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Salgado Revisted
From: George Lottermoser <imagist@concentric.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:50:21 -0600

mlpowell@directvinternet.com (Matthew Powell)2/12/025:12 PM

> Well, in an individual work, that can be possible. But even 
> then, if it's
> one of Riefenstahl's photos of Nazi Germany...

I will not comment on, and certainly will not defend her ethics,
morality, politics, etc.. 

But, alas she created some powerful, artistically grand, and
technically fine photographic images. Propaganda? Of course. I
have a nagging feeling that every image has a propaganda aspect
to it. 

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of
information reflecting the views and interests of those people
advocating such a doctrine or cause.


Some propaganda has a benign (or even positive) effect, while
other propaganda has a malignant effect. Does the photographer
have a responsibility in this regard? I believe absolutely yes.
The issues that these threads touch on can expand to: What is the
propaganda effect of advertising? Benign or malignant? And on and
on.

George


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Alastair Firkin <firkin@ncable.net.au> (Re: [Leica] Re: Salgado Revisted)