Speaking of Joel Meyerowitz...

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...

John E.


--
John Emmons
IBA

"when hatred calls with his package, refuse delivery..."

Have you tried contacting his publisher with this question? I don't mean look
at a website, but actually use a telephone, or email, and give sufficient time
for a reply. They might possibly be able to provide a more reliable answer
than most Usenet denizens.

Steve

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:29:02 GMT, "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...

John E.

Yes I have and I'm anxiously waiting for an answer.

I think I know it already but hope I'm wrong.

Contrary to what it may have sounded like in my earlier post, I'd like to
think that a photographer of his reputation and talent would do what I and
I'm sure others would call "the right thing".

I agree with his premise that the scene deserved to be documented and the
images saved for posterity, I'm just not convinced that claiming that as a
motivation only to then turn around and make it be about a for-profit book
and print exhibition is the best way to preserve the history. I sincerely
hope I'm wrong.


John Emmons

"Steve Goldstein" wrote in message
...
Have you tried contacting his publisher with this question? I don't mean
look
at a website, but actually use a telephone, or email, and give sufficient
time
for a reply. They might possibly be able to provide a more reliable
answer
than most Usenet denizens.

Steve

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:29:02 GMT, "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...

John E.

Hi:

I'd like to play devil's advocate here...

I've worked in publishing and for large publishers for years. You can
call them, and they may even point you to someone who'll hand you a
party line about their balance between "doing the right thing" and
staying in business. The truth about publishers is they are a business,
and only one thing matters--profitabilty.They do what they do ONLY to
make money, not to fill some "greater good" of bringing a tragedy to
light. And if they do do this--donate proceeds to charity or some other
charitable act--they do so to further their business, to get a tax
break or further their public relations efforts, not because it's the
"right thing" to do.

As for Mr. Meyerowtiz, just because a person is a photographer (or in
the greater sense, an artist), doesn't mean they should do these types
of studies with the primary drive being to contribute proceeds. Think
about your own jobs--many of us love what we do (I work in publishing
and can think of no better job than making books), but we would not do
it for free. Nor would we give away a large portion of our earnings to
charity just because "it's the right thing to do." If Meyerowitz (and
other professional photographers) weren't making good bank on what they
do, there would be no impetus to conitunue and no resources even if
they did choose to continue. As for arrogance, it's just a way to gain
access to subject matter. I know that I myself have used my position as
a photographer (albeit an amateur) to get into places where others
couldn't go. Meyerowitz's arrogance was just a tool he used to get his
job done.

BVStaples


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...

John E.


--
John Emmons
IBA

"when hatred calls with his package, refuse delivery..."

Hi:

I'd like to play devil's advocate here...

I've worked in publishing and for large publishers for years. You can
call them, and they may even point you to someone who'll hand you a
party line about their balance between "doing the right thing" and
staying in business. The truth about publishers is they are a business,
and only one thing matters--profitabilty.They do what they do ONLY to
make money, not to fill some "greater good" of bringing a tragedy to
light. And if they do do this--donate proceeds to charity or some other
charitable act--they do so to further their business, to get a tax
break or further their public relations efforts, not because it's the
"right thing" to do.

As for Mr. Meyerowtiz, just because a person is a photographer (or in
the greater sense, an artist), doesn't mean they should do these types
of studies with the primary drive being to contribute proceeds. Think
about your own jobs--many of us love what we do (I work in publishing
and can think of no better job than making books), but we would not do
it for free. Nor would we give away a large portion of our earnings to
charity just because "it's the right thing to do." If Meyerowitz (and
other professional photographers) weren't making good bank on what they
do, there would be no impetus to conitunue and no resources even if
they did choose to continue. As for arrogance, it's just a way to gain
access to subject matter. I know that I myself have used my position as
a photographer (albeit an amateur) to get into places where others
couldn't go. Meyerowitz's arrogance was just a tool he used to get his
job done.

BVStaples


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...

John E.


--
John Emmons
IBA

"when hatred calls with his package, refuse delivery..."

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
[...]
Contrary to what it may have sounded like in my earlier post, I'd like to
think that a photographer of his reputation and talent would do what I and
I'm sure others would call "the right thing".

Yes. I would call it part of the Social Contract.

BVStaples wrote:
Hi:

The truth about publishers is they are a business,
and only one thing matters--profitabilty.They do what they do ONLY to
make money, not to fill some "greater good" of bringing a tragedy to
light. And if they do do this--donate proceeds to charity or some other
charitable act--they do so to further their business, to get a tax
break or further their public relations efforts, not because it's the
"right thing" to do.


That's exactly one of the things wrong with America today: "Let's make
a profit and to hell with anything else".
Look at health insurance. People are allowed to die because they don't
have the money to buy medicine.
Look at the pharmaceuticals and sky-high drug prices.
Look at insurance companies and Katrina victims - they refuse to honor
claims even as they pocket record profits.
Look at the auto companies, notably Ford. They figured it would be
cheaper to settle a few law suits than to save lives by fixing their
cars.
Look at the corruption in politics. Look at Enron, Abramoff.
Look at banking and credit card gouging.
The list is long.
It would not be far from the truth to say that government is instituted
for the purpose of protecting people from the excesses of business.

How ridiculous for the OP to single out Mr Meyerowitz here.

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.

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

How ridiculous for the OP to single out Mr Meyerowitz here.

I was only presenting an opposing viewpoint here. I happen to agree
with you that the economics of our society today is out of control,
feel it must breakdown at some point, and when it does, it won't be
pretty. It definitely needs a radical reform, one that will take years
and the unconditional commitment of individuals, businesses, and
governments to make reform happen. And it will take time--this is the
thing that business won't concede--they want the $$$ NOW. Governments
cowtow to businesses, and the individual--well they're the worst of
all. Anybody who owns stock does so for short term profit. If the
company that they own a piece of doesn't perform, individuals dump that
stock. I've never heard any individual who owns stock say "Well, the
company didn't return a dividend this year, but that's OK because they
did the "socially responsible thing." Hell no, stock in a company like
that would fall like a lead sinker.

As for Meyerowitz, he's doing what any artist throughout time has
done--create art AND try to continue to eat. He's just doing a better
job of it than most. We hold artists in awe for their work, covet them
for their lifestyles (they must go to great parties, and all the
beautiful people want to be around them), and condemn them for their
arrogance and when they take advantage of the system. It's easy to be a
critic, to criticize and condemn someone like Mayerowitz for having no
social conscience, from afar. Are we so sure that greed and personal
gratification were Mayerowitz's only goal in photographing Ground Zero?
Is it possible, that aside from the $$$ Mayerowitz makes from this
project, that there is some redeeming value to the body of work? Why
can't the chronicalling and witnessing to this tragedy stand on its own
as contribution to "the cause?" The work should have merit in its own
right. And if so, then artists like Mayerowitz need to profit from
their efforts in order to continue creating socially significant work.

In conclusion, I agree that pure profiteering and using one's position
to gain access to otherwise off-limit areas with the ultimate goal or
personal gain isn't right. But until reform happens (which is a long
way off), it is a fact of life, of survival, that company's have a
single goal - M-O-N-E-Y, and that artists must do what they can to make
$$$ in order to continue to make art.

Curiouser and curiouser...

BVStaples


Bob G wrote:

[snip]

That's exactly one of the things wrong with America today: "Let's make
a profit and to hell with anything else".
Look at health insurance. People are allowed to die because they don't
have the money to buy medicine.
Look at the pharmaceuticals and sky-high drug prices.
Look at insurance companies and Katrina victims - they refuse to honor
claims even as they pocket record profits.
Look at the auto companies, notably Ford. They figured it would be
cheaper to settle a few law suits than to save lives by fixing their
cars.
Look at the corruption in politics. Look at Enron, Abramoff.
Look at banking and credit card gouging.
The list is long.
It would not be far from the truth to say that government is instituted
for the purpose of protecting people from the excesses of business.