You're right. I don't know if there are any newspapers or other journals that "reported" his behavior.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
It is PURPORTED behavior, yes.
In the absence of solid evidence, I suggest all here just skip the subject and get on with the craft of photography — so far this thread is totally devoid of it, so your point is??
APUG is not about speculating on a long-dead writer's supposed tilt at smut.
“The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see." ~Edward Weston, 1922.
No, I disagree with the majority of what passes as psychiatric "diagnosis" even with living patients, let alone deceased ones, and I have the same contempt for unsupported speculative criminal implications. Justso there are no misunderstandings, I think there are few punishments too harsh for proven child molesters. But really, enough of that. I'd rather talk about his photography.
Originally Posted by BrianShaw
What I've seen of it hasn't impressed me greatly, so I won't defend that.
Well, what can I say?
Originally Posted by Wayne
Go ahead... start the talk about his photography. I'll chime in as appropriate. What exactly hasn't impressed you? Some of it is lousy, and some of it is very nice. I like his images in which the children assume a 'character". Xie in the Chinese outfits are generally well lit and very well outfitted. Very creative!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Wow... cat got your tongues?
I'm interested in talking photography. If we can't talk philosophy and intent... how about lighting? I assume that his still lifes were shot at the Ashmolean. What a dank place that is. How does one suppose they were lit -- artificial light or natural. Most of his work seems to be natural light and the still lifes may be also. Any insights?
No one has mentioned Jacques Sturgis.
Okay, here you go. One photograph of Alice Liddel, taken by Lewis Carroll:
Originally Posted by BrianShaw
I wish you lot would get a dictionary between you - Most of the time I can work out what you mean, (reported/purported) - But in this instance I take it that Jock Sturges is being referred to - Yes, I have his book "The Last Day of Summer" here on the desk to check the spelling of his name
Originally Posted by artonpaper
So, having mentioned him, what is the point?
Here in Australia in my opinion we have the King of the Creeps defended and lauded by a bunch of purblind arts experts - I refer, of course, to Bill Henson - I was going to scan an image from his 46th Venice Biennale 1995 catalogue, but there is no way a scan from these dark catalogue images would survive the process of scanning and loading and still be readable
I refer to BH as here is a photographer who works with very young models, covering them in stuff and mutilating the images to form a large montage - More recently his work at the Roslyn Oxley gallery 9 was held by the police for a while, although to me these portraits verged on the innocent - BH has actually canvassed for models through a school, but I will have to re-read David Marr's "The Henson Case" 2008 for the exact reference - David Marr was a journalist who I used to respect, but no longer
Yes, nasty pix are alive and well in Australia - This is in my personal and owned opinion
Now to cop the flak, but I am used to it
Last edited by John Austin; 02-23-2012 at 02:31 AM. Click to view previous post history.
That's why I read literature from a bookshop or library and not via APUG. I find better descriptive and analytical skills.
John might like to have a crack at the Art Gallery of New South Wales for having a vast retrospective of Henson's work, some from the Venice Biennale, with nary a ripple of whinging from any quarter. The Oxley event was a major beat up
from people that you wouldn't share air with. I believe one of yours is called Sattler?
For anyone still reading: why do you think that Carroll was so sloppy with his surrounds; there's often grotty old bits of carpet on the floor and junk in the backgrounds of some of these "creepy" shots.
I recommend the Princeton album, too. The reproductions are quite small, but so were LC's prints.