John Brown

[Happy Monkey]

What you seem to be saying is that she is an artist. And that you see that as derogatory.

[footfootfoot]

I have to think about that.
I don't see being an artist in general as derogatory, I consider myself an artist. I think it is just her approach to / treatment of, her subject that I dislike.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Say John Brown to Americans, this is what they think of, and hardly anything or anyone other.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

I'm saying a few things, none of which is charitable about the photographer.

1. I feel she is capitalizing on the suffering of the soldiers. The feeling I get from looking at the photos is that it is about her rather than them.
2. She uses the technical and aesthetic aspects of photography to push her ideas about her subject. It is extremely far from objective and it is also manipulative. Not that it should be objective, but it is important to point that out since it isn't always obvious to people that the camera does in fact lie the moment it is turned on.

You lost me. Do you object to the agenda you perceive in her work? Do you feel the public is being unknowingly duped by the effects/style of photograph? Do you feel her agenda doesn't jibe with the subjects agenda?

"Tomoko in her bath" strikes me as extremely theatrical in the lighting and printing, much more so than Berman's picture. While Berman maybe trying to push an agenda, we have no way of knowing if the agenda is hers or the subjects......or both. Berman may have sought out subjects with the same agenda as she has, or her agenda may have been determined by the wishes of the victims.

You know much more about this manipulating photographs than I'll ever know, but I though every photographer, in every picture, was trying to tell a story,....trying to set a mood,...trying to convey a feeling? In other words manipulate the picture to manipulate the viewers perception.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

In the end, it's all about her.

That's your own perception. To me it's just a surreal picture of a young couple which dreams about a happy future were shattered because of an unnessecary war, but nonetheless decided to continue with their marriage which asks a lot of courage and dedication of both.

Sure we'll never be sure if it'll last, but at least can't we give this couple the benefit of the doubt?

This picture was not manipulated, the drama comes from the principal characters itself.

[Elspode]

I have to agree with Bruce...the Tomoko shot was *totally* lit in an artistic, dramatic fashion, right down to the stark and documentary quality lent to the subject matter by the use of black and white film and a relatively high contrast print.

The pic of the soldier and his bride is, if anything, more of an unposed snapshot, something to which anyone who has ever owned a camera can relate. What it says to me is, "These people are people who could live next door to you. This could be your brother, your sister."

Both photos use artistry to communicate their points, but certainly the color shot is far less staged in any sense.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

That's your own perception. To me it's just a surreal picture of a young couple which dreams about a happy future were shattered because of an unnessecary war, but nonetheless decided to continue with their marriage which asks a lot of courage and dedication of both.

Sure we'll never be sure if it'll last, but at least can't we give this couple the benefit of the doubt?

This picture was not manipulated, the drama comes from the principal characters itself.

If you look at the res of her work you will understand what I am talking about. I am not refering to that picture specifically but her work as a whole.

I agree with you about the picture of the couple, and I certainly don't mean to cast any doubt on the couple or their feelings for one another.

As for the Tomoko shot, it wasn't "lit" at all. It was dramatic light, but if you know about gene smith's work he shot in "available light" and didn't carry along lighting gear. In fact, many people say he shot in "available darkness" because he often worked in situations where there wasn't any light. In that particular shot the window was the only source of light in the bath and he couldn't have shot it from the other direction since there wasn;t anywhere to stand. As it is "contre jour" or backlit is not a desirable position to be in to photograph. He did what he had to.

I understand it is hard to have a discussion about these photographers with out you knowing much about them or their manner of working, but if you look at a larger body of work, learn a bit about the photographer's method of working you may see what I mean.

Apologies if I sound condescending, I don't mean to.

[footfootfoot]

And Elspode: unposed snapshot in front of a painted studio backdrop?

[Elspode]

Unposed snapshot in that the couple is not looking at the camera, not holding their bodies in a certain fashion...in other words, the picture was taken during a moment when they weren't standing prepared to be photographed, despite their physical location.

[monster]

I think the "controversy" lies in that they are being presented as wedding pictures, but the very essence of the wedding pics is missed -the smile, the touch, the looking at the camera or into each other's eyes.

They could well be the between-pose shots, but those don't go in the album.
I suspect they were not taken on the wedding day. Maybe that's the norm here, I don't know.

Does anybody feel that the groom's face looks as though it might be less badly injured on the other side? He seems uncomfortable (emotionally) to me -his head looks a little bowed. Not that that would be surprising in the circumstances, but it has me wondering...

[Elspode]

Grafted skin over burns can be very taut until it has been stretched through many painful therapy sessions. He may simply be unable to hold his head up any straighter than that due to the grafts.

Even if this pic had been completely posed, the pathos is still plenty present. For things to be otherwise would be like saying that just because Ansel Adams really knew how to make pictures of Half Dome look amazing, that Half Dome is not striking in and of itself.

[footfootfoot]

http://www.ninaberman.com/index3.php?pag=prt&dir=marine

[xoxoxoBruce]

It looks like nobody smiles in any of her pictures.

[zippyt]

Foot , I dont' see that as so exploitive of any agenda , just pics of a dude that did his duty , was scared by it , and is trying to get on with his life , a supportive girl friend ( now wife ) will help , it will NOT be easy , but hell what in life that is worth haveing IS easy ??

[footfootfoot]

OK I'm not talking about the pic of the marine at his wedding. I am talking about these pictures and I object to the way she lit them. I feel it is cheap.
http://www.ninaberman.com/index3.php...t&dir=imagesph click through the set.

The use of flash combined with the daylight is done in a way that creates a ghoulish atmosphere, the over saturated colors adds to the surreal ness of the images. It is more appropriate to a freak show than some one who wants to show respect for her subjects.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy for a minute that she gives a shit about the people she is using. I doubt she even kows their birthdays.