Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
How do you mean that björke? Why do you construe it as 'corrosive'?
What you wrote:
But they're too emotionally close - (mann i mean) to be art. For me. It's impossible to distance the author from the subject enough.
Which was quoted out of context (why I said "non sequitur"). Still -- the idea that closeness disqualifies art is imo a horrible sentiment. What distinguishes art from craftsmanship (don't forget, we're discussing images here that are clearly being received as "art"), at least since the 1800's, is the idea of the artist's personal internal emotions, discoveries and realizations finding external outlet. There is no "too close."
Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
...the photographer absolutely dominates the subject into submission.
Light on the surface is ultimately all you get. The photographer needs to confront this fact when making pictures, whether through direct action of the power of chance. Whatever your greater purpose, you own it to the work itself to do whatever you can, whether it's Mann's watery idylls or even journalism (Natchwey: "I need to make pictures that are eloquent")

BTW, Jessie Mann is on the back cover of SHOTS 95 ("Books-Words"), and inside too. So is Sam Portrera:


Sam Portrera, March 2006

Too close?