RE: [Leica] The fine line between art and pornography

[Tim Atherton <tim@KairosPhoto.com>]

> 		Tina wrote: "the subjects of the photographs seem to me to
> be exploited objects rather than human beings.  That is my definition of
> pornography."
>
> 		There, at last, in all of this discussion, is a comment
> worth giving some thought to.  Thank you, Tina.
>

which brings us around to ideas like McCurry's NG Afghan Girl, Nachtwey's
poor families living on a railway line somewhere, Slagado's gold miners, or
victims of a flood in the Midwest or a hurricane in Miami, sobbing and
surrounded by what's left of their worldly possessions and the many others
who are photographed in our own countries and around the world - perhaps in
circumstances they didn't want to be photographed in, perhaps agreeing being
no one else was paying them attention, or they felt compelled in some way to
allow it because their community was receiving aid from the US or Canada and
their representatives were showing the photographer around, or they were
never even given a choice - snapped by someone from the first world wielding
a Leica and it was really in order to sell magazines, newspapers, make sure
the photographer gets his or her paycheck at the end of the month.

Oh, no doubt the photographers were sincere, they wanted to tell a story,
make a point or whatever. But by the sounds of it Ashkan Sahihi is also
sincere and has a point to make? And the subjects of his work also seem to
have willingly agreed - perhaps even signed and agreement to that effect.

So which subjects are the exploited objects?

When we take a photograph we so often do just that - we "take" something -
how equitable is the exchange?

tim

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