I think that article was interesting to read as a photographer.
I have always thought very highly of this photograph and Dorothea Lange as an artist. What I thought was interesting was the fact that the government owned all the rights to the negatives and the prints. The fact that she wasn't allowed to edit any of her own photographs is crazy. I understand the journalistic ideal of not editing pictures, to ensure the raw integrity of taking pictures.
I also that it was interesting that she wasn't very good at printing her photographs. That the only "art prints" that were made were for the Moma years after the actual pictures were taken. It seems strange that she wasn't an all around "photographer" in the way that we are taught to be, or it is stressed to be. That printing is just as important as shooting. And Lange didn't seem to print any of her photographs, never mind print them well.
I think the most striking thing about the article however, was the analysis about the process of shooting the pictures in the field, and the production and re-production of the image. How she just stumbled upon the image and only took five frames. How the woman, Florence Thompson, never made anything from the images, or the fact that a stipend wasn't given to her for her struggle. I think the whole process was very backhanded and to be honest, slightly over rated.
Blog for discussion posts + replies for ARTH 3560 History of Photo WWI-present (Spring 2015)
Pages
- Final Presentations
- Home
- NEW: Info + Updates!
- Syllabus / Info / Course Contract
- Schedule of Reading + Lectures
- Unplugged Classroom
- Plagiarism Tutorial + Certificate
- Sexual Violence + Title IX
- Photo + Surveillance: DUE
- Flickr
- Advertising Due
- Migrant Mother DUE
- D. Lange: Photo as Ag Sociologist
- Gladwell: Picture Problem
- Steiglitz + Camera Work
- Early Photo Processes
- The Dove Effect
- Surveillance IMAGES + READINGS
- Full Syllabus PDF download
- Study Images
- Extra Credit: Tues 3/10 Food Matters @Benton
No comments:
Post a Comment