Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Lolita Affair  (Read 66311 times)
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 16, 2007, 09:49:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Offense is in the mind of the viewer, not the pixels of the photograph.
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5498



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 16, 2007, 10:08:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You guys really think that this particular image is art?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whether it is or not, is irrelevant for the Lolita Affair discussion. There is art and then there is art. There are artists and then there are artists. I certainly do not equate Michael with Michelangelo, but in his own right he is doing what most artists do: trying to convey their vision of the world to the rest of us... sometimes artist's vision resonates with us, sometimes not, and sometimes only years later. In this particular case, the Lolita photo, Michael certainly managed to have it resonate with us, one way or the other. Whatever you might think of him as an artist, I have no doubt that his intentions in this photo were artistic. And by that I mean his impetus to share his vision of that part of the world and that particular moment, his impressions, associations and connotations, is the moving force of an artist.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pete JF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #22 on: May 16, 2007, 10:38:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ok... are we now back to discussing is photography art at all? Because in almost every photograph, "..everything there is delivered by.. " the subject in front of the camera. Or you are saying that only manipulated photographs could qualify as art? And does one need to manipulate the subject, or just the photograph of the subject, or both, to be considered artist?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117888\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I disagree with your statement that "in almost every photograph everything is delivered by the subject in front of the camera".

Photographers worth their salt are always dictating a point of view, getting you to understand their language through a combination of tools...Juxtaposition, light, point of view, manipulation, formal/informal treatment, moment, subject, exposure, presentation, framing/cropping, direction and, yes...well thought out titling of images in some cases...it goes on.

A simple and easy example..Ansel Adams. Did he rely on the subject to bring his message? not a chance, he controlled every image he made to the last extent.

Cartier-Bresson? He did the same thing in a different, but not so different, way.

I'm sorry, If you believe that everything is delivered by the subject then you are not understanding what goes into making great images. I'm not talking about trite, run of the mill images. I'm talking about successful images.

Of course, once in a while things happen and everything comes together by force of luck...but, to be able to keep doing it over and over again..you can't just depend on the subject alone to bring what is neccesary for a successful image.
Logged
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 16, 2007, 10:41:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael

Has the original description for the image in question been edited?

If i'm not mistaken,wasn't there,originally, an assumption of the young girl being pregnant.

Mark
Logged
perk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #24 on: May 16, 2007, 10:58:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR,May 16 2007, 08:07 AM
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lolita-affair.shtml

An old man that does not understand the modern world!
I have earlier reacted against Michaels policy of giving children i poor countries money for being on his exposures.
The Lolita business is worth more discussion, a discussion that he wants to avoid: In today´s world places like the internet is full of, among other things, pedofiles. We cannot just pretend they are not there. On the internet people like that easily finds fellows in thought. Sex abuses happen on the internet, but often pedofiles work togehter on the internet to find new victims.
What if they use your photo to find that girl and exploit her?

LETS NOT HELP THEM IN ANY WAY!

When Michael writes "Lolita" those scums take that as a confirmation by (normal)people thas children can/should be seen as sex objects.

Michael, your site is not as interesting as it used to. Now it is more a marketing platform, your images are beutiful but not exciting. And we do not share values on human integrity - yours are representive for a typical western old man, you do not understand the world!
Per
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 16, 2007, 11:21:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I guess I need help understanding the real issue...

Is it that people are astonished and/or angry that:

1) MR photographed a young (and obviously under-age by contemporary civilized-world standards) female,

2) that she is also pregnant,

3) that she is also obviously posing in a fashion that appears to be an attempt at sexually-provocative,

4) or the fact he provided the image with a name that clarifies all of the above implications?

Or possibly,

5) that MR, typically a landscape and travel photographer has now presented us with a travel image that begins to cross over into the realm of documentary/street/reportage,

6) that folks are surprised MR did not anticipate the turmoil his posting of said image would incur,

7) that MR is it a relatively successful photographic artist (in landscape, travel and street purview) and has made many of the not-so-successful jealous, and thus become a target for any time his toes get close to crossing traditionally-accepted societal boundary-lines?

The one thing I am sure of is that the image in question qualifies as art.  Whether or not everybody finds it appealing or even tasteful may be open to discussion, however as a documentary image, it clearly can stand on its own. And moreover, when viewed as a documentary image, it tells a complete story of one of the harsh realities of this world, regardless of the viewer's relative comfort at seeing it...  

Cheers,
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 01:16:48 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5498



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 16, 2007, 11:32:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I disagree with your statement that "in almost every photograph everything is delivered by the subject in front of the camera".

This is not my statement, I am just using your own words and bringing them a step further to the inevitable (il)logical conclusion. But glad you used Ansel Adams as an example: the fact he used meticulous methods to control his image does not mean he did not "...rely on the subject to bring his message...". His very message was the beauty of his subject. A great number of his photos are a simple representation of reality, or the subject in front of his camera. There are some more manipulated than others, but his control of the process was mostly intended to fight the limitations of the medium and technology available to him.

But your choice of the next example is even better one: Cartier-Bresson... His photographs are, taken literally, nothing but snapshots. And yet they are art. If there is a photographer in this world for whom you can indeed say: "...everything is delivered by the subject in front of the camera..." it is Cartier-Bresson. Just lifting his camera to his eye (and sometimes not even that) and pressing the shutter... resulted in art. Of course he chose where to point his camera, but that is about it. And I am not trying to demean Cartier-Bresson, just to prove you do not need to manipulate your subject in order to create art. In that sense, Michael's Lolita is very Cartier-Bressonian.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Olaf Bathke
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 16, 2007, 11:36:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Dear Michael,

I am very astonished by the title of this picture. With the first seeing of the picture at all an association did not arise with me that it could concern the presentation of any sexual attractions.

The title confused me not in such a way then, like your justifications on keeping the title.

How could you see in this picture a girl that presents sexual attractions?

How colud you hide yourself in your explanations behind an art term?

Did you speak with the parents of this girl? Did they agree with the title via a model release?

I hope that you dissociate yourself from your expressions!
Logged

greetings from Kiel/Germany

Olaf Bathke Photographer


+------Fotograf Kiel www.OlafBathke.de--+
+----PHOTO ART LOG------+
Fotograf Kiel

Fotograf Schleswig-Holstein
+------Fotograf Hamburg Hochzeit--+
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 16, 2007, 11:50:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't find this image any more provocative than a nude by Edward Weston.  In fact, I find it less provocative. Whatever sexual content is in it is suggested rather than outwardly depicted.  

The real issue is the freedom to create art, in my eyes.  The artist is free to create as his or her artistic preferences dictate. This is not journalism, or news photography.  This is not a reportage on the state of the Amazonian residents today.  

To this end this quote comes to mind:

The great thing about this thing we call art is that it has no rules.
Kim Weston
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 11:51:33 AM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
KristerH
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #29 on: May 16, 2007, 12:00:26 PM »
ReplyReply

The problem is that you are not living on an isolated island.

Children are abused around the world in a increasing amount every day. The internet is full of places where middelaged men view and discuss pictures of their Lolitas, young girls in a sexual way. In my mind a child could never be responable for his or her actions its always the responsibility of adults not to  abuse.
The use of the word Lolita in this case is very provocative. This could very well be a child who have learned the hard way how to make money by sexually attracting old men.

I think Mr Reichman should make a statement about this and not try to hide behind some art bullshit.


Krister Halvars
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2007, 12:06:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
An old man that does not understand the modern world!
I have earlier reacted against Michaels policy of giving children i poor countries money for being on his exposures.
The Lolita business is worth more discussion, a discussion that he wants to avoid: In today´s world places like the internet is full of, among other things, pedofiles. We cannot just pretend they are not there. On the internet people like that easily finds fellows in thought. Sex abuses happen on the internet, but often pedofiles work togehter on the internet to find new victims.
What if they use your photo to find that girl and exploit her?

LETS NOT HELP THEM IN ANY WAY!

When Michael writes "Lolita" those scums take that as a confirmation by (normal)people thas children can/should be seen as sex objects.

Michael, your site is not as interesting as it used to. Now it is more a marketing platform, your images are beutiful but not exciting. And we do not share values on human integrity - yours are representive for a typical western old man, you do not understand the world!
Per
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You will think I am rude, but your posting is really silly, and takes things out of proportion. To most of us it is just an innocent picture.

And Michael Reichmann's site has always been a marketing platform, with some free reviews, articles and forums that many of us enjoy. There is no free lunch in life.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 12:07:50 PM by Slough » Logged
ecemfjm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2007, 12:20:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I think no one may remain indifferent with the picture, the same way no one may remain indifferent looking the images, day after day, of hundreds of people, including children and pregnant women dying on their way to reach Europe from Africa. Or the Sebastiao Salgado pictures of workers or children. Or...

But only sick people can see even a bit of indecency on them. I do not think MR picture is art, but it is a picture that removes consciences and makes you aware of other realities that you may not want to realise they exist. If the picture calls for something it is for action to remediate poverty and exploitation, not to kill the messenger.

Regards

Manuel
Logged
alastairbird
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2007, 12:25:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Please.

This

is

a

child

we're discussing here.

She deserves to be protected at all costs.  Michael should have given more thought to the connotations of using 'Lolita' as a title, for her protection, if for nothing else.  Regardless of everything else, he should have erred on the side of caution and not slandered her person or invited such conversations as the one we're having here for the sake of an 'artistic' image.
Logged
troyhouse
Guest
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2007, 12:36:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please.

This

is

a

child

we're discussing here.

She deserves to be protected at all costs.  Michael should have given more thought to the connotations of using 'Lolita' as a title, for her protection, if for nothing else.  Regardless of everything else, he should have erred on the side of caution and not slandered her person or invited such conversations as the one we're having here for the sake of an 'artistic' image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I myself thought it was a good photograph until I read the title. She wasn't being sexual until Michael added it. I still think its a goood photo if named "untitled". Turning children's innocence into sexuality is a aweful thing to do to a child. Ant the arguement that those days are over because of the internet and rap videos is hogwash, each and every person is accountable.

By adding the word Lolita, he has went from letting us decide what we feel about the photograph to telling us he thinks she is sexy.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 12:40:10 PM by troyhouse » Logged
paulnorheim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2007, 12:40:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi folks!

   I don`t have strong opinions pro or contra the picture or it`s title. However, the moral indignation directed at the issue, makes it bigger. Meaning: the more you throw in your moral indignation on behalf of that girl, trying to protect her, the more you run the risk of the picture becoming a BIG DEAL. However well intended, the consequences may be worse for the girl.

Let´s consider a worst case scenario: the picture & discussion brought to the mass media (newspapers, TV...)? Who would be partly responsible for that, dispite their good intentions?
 
So, on behalf of the anonymous girl: shall we try to avoid making her a kind of celebrity?
By stopping this thread, and the other threads, I`m convinced that we have a better chance of protecting her.


Paul
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 01:11:09 PM by paulnorheim » Logged

paul norheim
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2007, 12:53:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I am afraid this has got very out of hand.

I have been critical of Michael in the past..aka site info wise..but on this one..sorry but he has done nothing wrong at all.

I was not offended..(I think its also a good photo)...I have no problem with the use of the word either. This was a shot taken from his words in the moment..and its in good taste.

Sadly if you look at photographs now...you have so many limitions..why is it people were ok about a photo of a small childs bottom 50 years ago and not now? Why can't we take pictures..in good taste..without people throwing their hands up?

We are living in a sad world indeed..and yes I have children too.

Shame on those moral police fools...they are the ones who help create a society of fear and distrust. That is why when you go out with camera now the police are onto you.....people look on you with suspicion.

Lolita is a word and just that. Whats the big deal?
Logged
alastairbird
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2007, 01:03:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am afraid this has got very out of hand.

I have been critical of Michael in the past..aka site info wise..but on this one..sorry but he has done nothing wrong at all.

I was not offended..(I think its also a good photo)...I have no problem with the use of the word either. This was a shot taken from his words in the moment..and its in good taste.

Sadly if you look at photographs now...you have so many limitions..why is it people were ok about a photo of a small childs bottom 50 years ago and not now? Why can't we take pictures..in good taste..without people throwing their hands up?

We are living in a sad world indeed..and yes I have children too.

Shame on those moral police fools...they are the ones who help create a society of fear and distrust. That is why when you go out with camera now the police are onto you.....people look on you with suspicion.

Lolita is a word and just that. Whats the big deal?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Barry, are you serious?  
'Model Release' and 'exploitation' are just words as well.
Does Michael have a model release for this image?  
Did he get her permission to use her image to market his site?  
Do you think she and/or her parents, even if they gave signed permission, would be happy if the photo of her ran with a title that suggested she was possibly sexually available?

I think not.  The title (word) changes everything in this image.

As for the 'art' argument - The context of the image, on the title page of a site that has ads all over it, totally removes it from the artistic realm. (as if it ever belonged there, anyway)  This is a commercial endeavour for Michael, he profits from the ads and from the sales of the videos.  

If he were to put this image on a site with only his fine-art images, then the 'artistic merit' argument could be made.  It would still be specious, but it would stand.  In a commercial context such as this, it's indefensible.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 01:15:32 PM by alastairbird » Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2007, 01:08:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I also took part in the unbelievable discussion on the DP Review site and this is what I said (under the title "PC Gestapo rides again"):

"The word Lolita and its associated definitions and connotations, do not imply a statement on subjects character, but a statement of fact. In other words, it is descriptive, not normative or judgmental. It is Mr. Reichmann's right to see the world though his own eyes and interpret what he sees in his own way. If the first impression he had was that word, so be it. He could be right or he could be wrong, but he has the right to be wrong (known as freedom of speech).

One of the roles art has is to provoke. Mr. Reichmann did provoke us to think about the word and the image, the circumstances and societies, morals and dilemmas. And for that I am grateful to Mr. Reichmann and his art."

Reading Michael's subsequent reply I found it interesting that he raised the same issue, the provocative role of art.

I find it appalling that we have to defend the very concept of freedom of speech years after the fall of Soviet Union, and even in countries that served as beacons of that freedom for the rest of the world. Apparently, "freedom haters" are not limited to Taliban only. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thank you for expressing my thoughts exactly in a way I couldn't have done, English not being my mother tongue.
Logged

Nikos
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2007, 01:30:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Whatever sexual content is in it is suggested rather than outwardly depicted. 

I completely agree.  But the fact remains it can be viewed as a documentary image -- does not have to be, but can be -- and any sexual inference is being depicted by a probably pregnant (or at least suggestively-plump) and obviously quite young, female...  As such, regardless of whether Michael intended it or not, viewed as a documentary image it most certainly depicts the state of this particular Amazonian resident today...

Of course one could choose to view it as a cute travel snap of a chubby little native girl, playing dress-up complete with lipstick and make-up...  But I submit if that were the case, the image would not carry the title it does.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 01:35:52 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Pete JF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2007, 01:35:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, as a parent,

If i saw a picture of my young daughter and tagged with the superficial definition of LOLITA and then posted on a web site that people all over the world read...you can be sure that Michael would never forget my face after I walked into his gallery a couple of days later.

Seriously, Michael, you made a stupid mistake here and you need to realize it.  No, you have not made a profound statement...Yes, you have made a sarcastic, disrespectful statement. All that without the balls to find out who this MINOR is and ask her and her parents if it 's ok to beam her image across the planet with the suggestion that she is a Lolita underneath it.

It's not the picture..it's the tag.

Easy to do this when you are continents away. Michael, would you have the balls to do this if you lived in the village down the road from where these people live, using an equivalent term in Portuguese? I doubt it.


Morality police? Michael, I'm sorry to say, I think you are showing an incredible lack of respect to many and particularly to the family of this girl. You have seriously objectified her. It has not a damn thing to do with the morality police, it has everything to do with the respect police. Your statement with regard to this incident shows that you haven't considered all the angles on this thing. In fact, it shows remarkable arrogance and that you hold a quite bit of contempt for the many people who disagree with you.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad