I don't understand you people. I think you are arguing in circles and meaningless ones at that. The ancient Romans took over the known world, going to Cartagena and destroying not only the civilization there, but also destroying the Great Library At Alexandria. and also destroying the greatest repository of books in the known world. Much of what was lost has never been recovered and never will be. The Romans crucified their slaves who were perceived to have done wrong. Every where they went they spread their infamy.Does that mean we should destroy Rome and claim that the architecture and great paintings are not art? The Medici did not hesitate to kill off their opponents when it helped them to forward themselves, or for one of them to marry despite the fact that he was pope and had two children, yet they commissioned some of the great art of the world. Should that be denigrated and destroyed as not being art? While we're a it, how about the Roman church? Lets just look at the time of the Nazi dominance. The church worked hand in glove with the Nazis, turning over to them Jews and others who had escaped Germany and were trying to escape Europe. Let's destroy Vatican City along with all the cathedrals and other amazing architecture as being tainted by the moral turpitude of the Pope and others of the church at that time. Helen, your arguments are specious and juvenile. Whoever said there are absolutes is wrong, there are no absolutes in this universe, every time someone pronounces one, someone else defrocks it. Just because you decry the behavior of an individual or even a country, doesn't mean that you can downgrade the good works which have been done. We might as well say that the roman roads ( many of which are still in use) weren't worth talking about since they destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple there in 7AD. If we suddenly found that Ansel Adams was a covert Ku Klux Klanner, would that make his photos less than we perceive them at present? I think you are getting morals and art confused. Perhaps Leni was a Nazi, perhaps not, that doesn't change the masterly work she did for whatever cause. Does that mean that the present White House Photographer is a talentless fool because he deigned to work for that incompetent ( at best ) bunch in Washington?
Originally Posted by Curt
I think many of you ought to realign your perceptions with reality. This thread long ago lost track of the original question which had nothing to do with politics but simply of the merits of a single photo. Can you stay on topic?