Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
I never mentioned you Donald. I know you and we have corresponded privately, remember at one time you wanted to come to live to Mexico. I just think is a bad idea, and besides it is another dead horse that gets beaten every so often, there is nothing new about poverty and you can find deprorable situations in every country.

It is one thing to go and photograph the country and if you find and interesting person to ask them to take their picture and another to go there with the mind set that you are going to "photograph the poor."

OTOH Donald, your last comment IMO is invalid. It is the same argument Witkin used. Just because locals ask you does not make it a good idea or something that is ethically right.

In the end is up to you, but why concentrate on the bad when you can concentrate on the good?

While this is taking the discussion off the original topic, I think that your response merits an answer from me.

I understand your viewpoint. I respect it. There are of course, as in most things, several ways of viewing something.

I would like to propose an alternative interpertation.

I think that we can agree that there is proverty in many countries. There is also violation of children and trafficing in humans for slavery and prostitution. We violate children by using them in sweat shops in many places. If we focus only on the beautiful and good in life, are we not ignoring and denying that the bad and the ugly also exist? While on the one hand you view a depiction of poverty as a violation of the poor, I view a depiction of poverty as an aid to their plight.

My basis for this is that if we hold up to the "fat cats" of the world the reality of poverty, violation of human rights, descrimination, and all of the other things that we would rather not see are we not making it damned difficult for them to deny that this reality exists?

Just my views on the matter.