Speaking of Joel Meyerowitz...

John Emmons wrote:
If you know of any other photographers blatantly profitting from the death
and suffering suffered at ground zero, please share that information as
well.

John:
You need only go to corbis.com and do a simple search by the date
9-11-01. One simple search will reveal 375 photos for sale/license
including some that I find horribly intrusive and offensive. For
example, image DWF15-847823 shows someone receiving the last rites. Do
you really think that photographer is contributing something to the
family of that person? Go to amazon.com and similar searches reveal
numerous books and tapes and movies in every variety all meant to sell
and make money. I don't really have an opinion on Joel Meyerowitz. I
just repeat that singling him out as the bad guy is foolish and as
arrogant as you claim he may be.
Tom Keenan

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
As the "op" let me respond.

Singling out specific examples isn't ridiculous, it's more accurate than
making sweeping generalisations.

Asking a simple question, as I did, isn't ridiculous at all.

I see a photographer doing something that on the surface seems wrong to me
so I asked if anyone knew more about what he was doing, including his
publisher. So far no one has responded with any pertinent information,
including the publishing company.

If you have any actual insight, please share it.

If you know of any other photographers blatantly profitting from the death
and suffering suffered at ground zero, please share that information as
well.

I've left out the traditional news photographers as documenting tragedies
is
their specific job. Unlike Mr. Meyerowitz, who's specific job is unclear.
On
the one hand he portrays himself as a social documentarian, on the other,
he's a commercial artist, on yet another, he's selling his work for
advertising, and on still another, he's advertising for free labor for his
studio.

John E.

Sebastiao Salgado's work is clearly 'social documentation', and it has
helped to improve the conditions of many of those he has photographed too -
but he doesn't do it for free. Dorothea Lange's work with migrants during
the '30s depression is in a similar category, and she was paid (by the US
government)for doing it. I am not saying that Meyerowitz is either right or
wrong, since I don't know the exact details any more than, it seems, anyone
else here does - but I do think it is just that he is paid for his work,
otherwise it wouldn't have got done.

To take a blunter analogy, should Meyerowitz do his documentation work for
free while all the construction workers rebuilding at the WTC site are paid
for their work? Or should they be expected to work for free too?

As I said, I don't know the precise circumstances, but I think it is wrong
to presume that anyone 'should' do something for free, and wrong to suggest
that artists should work for nothing when builders (and, yes, doctors,
nurses and firemen) are paid. Maybe Meyerowitz will donate some or all of
the profits, maybe he won't - if it were me I would, but that should be his
personal decision, no one else's.


Peter

I singled him out cause he's the biggest gorilla in the room. Some scumbag
selling an intrusive snapshop on Corbis or elsewhere clearly doesn't carry
the same weight as Meyerowitz or his publiser, Phaidon Press.

That's not me being arrogant or foolish, that's just reality.

John E.

"Tom K" wrote in message
ups.com...

John Emmons wrote:
If you know of any other photographers blatantly profitting from the
death
and suffering suffered at ground zero, please share that information as
well.

John:
You need only go to corbis.com and do a simple search by the date
9-11-01. One simple search will reveal 375 photos for sale/license
including some that I find horribly intrusive and offensive. For
example, image DWF15-847823 shows someone receiving the last rites. Do
you really think that photographer is contributing something to the
family of that person? Go to amazon.com and similar searches reveal
numerous books and tapes and movies in every variety all meant to sell
and make money. I don't really have an opinion on Joel Meyerowitz. I
just repeat that singling him out as the bad guy is foolish and as
arrogant as you claim he may be.
Tom Keenan

Salgado donates profits from his efforts into helping those he documents.
Lange's work helped the FSA set up programs to help those in need during the
dust bowl and the depression.

I've always thought it a bit odd that Salgado markets books mainly about the
working and migrant poor, people who have little or no chance of ever seeing
the work but at least he puts back into that from which he takes.

Getting paid is one thing, using the tragedy of an event to profit is quite
another. It's a matter of scale I suppose, I can distinguish a difference
between a newsphotographer documenting an horrific event and drawing a
salary and a commercial photographer using his contacts in city government
to get access to a crime scene than publishing a book of photographs.

I can also distinguish the difference between a construction worker and a
photographer.

I didn't presume that anyone should work for free, I asked a question. And I
certainly never suggested that an artist should work for free.

As for it being a personal decision, well maybe. Seems reasonable to me to
expect a person profitting from the death and destruction of an event like
Sept. 11th to give something back, particularly when they were working on
private property and using other people as subjects.

Which leaves me to wonder if Mr. Meyerowitz obtained model releases from the
people he photographed... the questions never stop.

John E.

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
As the "op" let me respond.

Singling out specific examples isn't ridiculous, it's more accurate than
making sweeping generalisations.

Asking a simple question, as I did, isn't ridiculous at all.

I see a photographer doing something that on the surface seems wrong to
me
so I asked if anyone knew more about what he was doing, including his
publisher. So far no one has responded with any pertinent information,
including the publishing company.

If you have any actual insight, please share it.

If you know of any other photographers blatantly profitting from the
death
and suffering suffered at ground zero, please share that information as
well.

I've left out the traditional news photographers as documenting
tragedies
is
their specific job. Unlike Mr. Meyerowitz, who's specific job is
unclear.
On
the one hand he portrays himself as a social documentarian, on the
other,
he's a commercial artist, on yet another, he's selling his work for
advertising, and on still another, he's advertising for free labor for
his
studio.

John E.

Sebastiao Salgado's work is clearly 'social documentation', and it has
helped to improve the conditions of many of those he has photographed
too -
but he doesn't do it for free. Dorothea Lange's work with migrants during
the '30s depression is in a similar category, and she was paid (by the US
government)for doing it. I am not saying that Meyerowitz is either right
or
wrong, since I don't know the exact details any more than, it seems,
anyone
else here does - but I do think it is just that he is paid for his work,
otherwise it wouldn't have got done.

To take a blunter analogy, should Meyerowitz do his documentation work for
free while all the construction workers rebuilding at the WTC site are
paid
for their work? Or should they be expected to work for free too?

As I said, I don't know the precise circumstances, but I think it is wrong
to presume that anyone 'should' do something for free, and wrong to
suggest
that artists should work for nothing when builders (and, yes, doctors,
nurses and firemen) are paid. Maybe Meyerowitz will donate some or all of
the profits, maybe he won't - if it were me I would, but that should be
his
personal decision, no one else's.


Peter

John Emmons wrote:
I know he used a large format camera for much if not all of the work
featured in his latest book but...
Does anyone know if he or if Phaidon Press is donating any of the proceeds
of the sales of his book to any of the various charities that have sprung up
in the wake of Sept. 11?

I've looked at his website and can find no sign that he or that they are
doing so.

It seems to me the height of arrogance for a photographer to claim some sort
of moral high ground in order to get access to a place or an event to
"document" it or for an "archive" only to have the photographs used to sell
a book and prints.

I also see that Mr. Meyerowitz has recieved several grants to help further
his work, and that he is available for public appearances at a price, seems
ironic somehow he is also looking for some unpaid help at his studio, no
doubt he's too busy hawking his latest project to deal with such things as
answering the phone...

You forget Pablo Picasso and "Guernica," arguably the most graphic
depiction of the consequences of war on innocents in the 20th Century.
How can you question the motives of an artist in depicting a subject
that he chooses? Joel Meyerowitz is inarguably one of the great LF
photographers of the 20th Century. He does not need the money, I'm
sure. Even if he does, it's to the benefit of posterity to have a
vision of a catastrophe thru the eyes of a great artist. Get off your
moral high ground and tread along with us who value and learn from
great photographers, who dare shift their vision, for whatever reason,
from the abstract to realism, or vice versa. They are simply teaching
us that art is all around us; we only need to see it.

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
Salgado donates profits from his efforts into helping those he documents.

Exactly: he chooses to donate some of his profits, but the fact he does the
work at all is what generates those profits and the existence of that body
of work probably does a great deal more in itself than the simple monetary
value of the profits he donates - a body of work that exists only because
Salgado is able to make a living out of doing it.

Lange's work helped the FSA set up programs to help those in need during
the dust bowl and the depression.

Yes, it was the US FSA that commissioned, and paid, Lange to do the work.


I've always thought it a bit odd that Salgado markets books mainly about
the
working and migrant poor, people who have little or no chance of ever
seeing the work but at least he puts back into that from which he takes.

Always reminds me of the dichotomy at the heart of the Arts & Crafts
movement, whereby the very philosophy underlying the craft production
methods meant that no crafts-man could afford the items made.

[SNIP]

I didn't presume that anyone should work for free, I asked a question. And
I
certainly never suggested that an artist should work for free.

Fair point, no you didn't suggest that - but this thread seems to have been
extrapolated to suggest that extreme position, and it is the extreme to
which I was responding.

I agree wholly with your abhorrence of profiteering from tragedy - but there
is a blurry distinction in the middle ground between that extreme and the
idea of wishing to turn the artist's eye upon the tragedy, and still wanting
to make a living.

To take an example: I have a body of B&W work from the WTC site that I did
in the early '80s, and of recent colour work from there post 9/11. I could
see myself making up a show of powerful - sometimes uplifting, sometimes
poignant - contrasts from those two sets. If I do that I will certainly not
fail to charge for the prints I sell: I need to do that with any exhibition
I show, and if I couldn't then I'd be showing something else instead and
that work simply wouldn't get seen. Personally I'd want to donate some of
the profits, but I'd still need to keep enough to pay for the time I was
working on it instead of some other project. Now, that to my mind is not
profiteering: I'd make as much (or more) money from showing something else,
but I'd quite like to show my WTC work and to have it seen. If I was making
much more money from that than I could do by showing some other body of
work, then the line gets much blurrier.



Peter

Bandicoot wrote:
"John Emmons" wrote in message
...

Salgado donates profits from his efforts into helping those he documents.


Exactly: he chooses to donate some of his profits, but the fact he does the
work at all is what generates those profits and the existence of that body
of work probably does a great deal more in itself than the simple monetary
value of the profits he donates - a body of work that exists only because
Salgado is able to make a living out of doing it.


Lange's work helped the FSA set up programs to help those in need during
the dust bowl and the depression.


Yes, it was the US FSA that commissioned, and paid, Lange to do the work.


I've always thought it a bit odd that Salgado markets books mainly about

the

working and migrant poor, people who have little or no chance of ever
seeing the work but at least he puts back into that from which he takes.


Always reminds me of the dichotomy at the heart of the Arts & Crafts
movement, whereby the very philosophy underlying the craft production
methods meant that no crafts-man could afford the items made.

[SNIP]


I didn't presume that anyone should work for free, I asked a question. And

I

certainly never suggested that an artist should work for free.


Fair point, no you didn't suggest that - but this thread seems to have been
extrapolated to suggest that extreme position, and it is the extreme to
which I was responding.

I agree wholly with your abhorrence of profiteering from tragedy - but there
is a blurry distinction in the middle ground between that extreme and the
idea of wishing to turn the artist's eye upon the tragedy, and still wanting
to make a living.

To take an example: I have a body of B&W work from the WTC site that I did
in the early '80s, and of recent colour work from there post 9/11. I could
see myself making up a show of powerful - sometimes uplifting, sometimes
poignant - contrasts from those two sets. If I do that I will certainly not
fail to charge for the prints I sell: I need to do that with any exhibition
I show, and if I couldn't then I'd be showing something else instead and
that work simply wouldn't get seen. Personally I'd want to donate some of
the profits, but I'd still need to keep enough to pay for the time I was
working on it instead of some other project. Now, that to my mind is not
profiteering: I'd make as much (or more) money from showing something else,
but I'd quite like to show my WTC work and to have it seen. If I was making
much more money from that than I could do by showing some other body of
work, then the line gets much blurrier.



Peter


Vultures.

Hasn't this subject been "worked" to death? The 911 attack was a long
overdue response to the USA's daily deadly meddling throughout the world
.. As our media mouthpieces so often say - it's time to move on. The
original 911, by the way, was in 1973 when the US gov't (under
nixon-kissinger) decided that the democratically elected gov't of Chile
was not in the US's interest and had to be removed, with fatal
consequences for President Allende and many many civilians. This yet
another US overseas crime - read about what the US gov't aided and
abetted he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

The fact that 5 yrs after the event JM decides to take loving LF images
of the wreckage is a cheap shot. There are more than enough records
without having to see it in large format, too. A waste of time and film
unless one rally appreciates town dump or junkyard-and-trash pictures.
The site was cleared of evidence before any forensic work could be done
and should be graded and levelled into a parking lot.

John Emmons wrote:
I know he used a large format camera for much if not all of the work
featured in his latest book but...

Does anyone know if he or if Phaidon Press is donating any of the proceeds
of the sales of his book to any of the various charities that have sprung up
in the wake of Sept. 11?

I weigh in with those who wonder why you've singled out Meyerson? The
fellow does have to eat and probably has a few other bills to pay as
well. Likewise the publisher. There is no imperative to donate because
there was a disaster. Did abc/nbc/cbs/fox/papers/radios donate any of
their revenues during the months following the event? It was certainly
a "draw" for them making lots of advertising money... (perhaps they did
donate, I don't know, but if they donated millions it would probably be
proportionately much less than if Meyerson donated $10K or even $100K).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

I weigh in with those who wonder why you've singled out Meyerson?

MEYEROWITZ - http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/

TO J.E:

Personally even if it was solely self promotional the very
perfected/profound nature of his imagery will go beyond the personal
motivation. Like pictures from Gettysburg or Crimea or any other
historic place and time. Using ones clout to do the images is nothing
new,...for what its worth he or anyone else will never be Ansel Adams in
terms of fame- regardless of the project, AA was a fluke, most of us
will be relatively nameless Blank's in time Get use to it!
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

Lange's work helped the FSA set up programs to help those in need
during the dust bowl and the depression.

Right, but did they do anything for the subject of Lange's photograph?
Within her horizon of need? I think not.