Dueling Comments (Blog Note / Followup)

I love dueling comments, especially when they come in right next to each other, as these two did. (These were in response to my controversial inclusion, two posts back, of a video about wealth inequality in the USA.)

John Krumm: "I like my art blogs, and my art, occasionally controversial, and in the U.S., serious politics is always considered controversial. Look at Robert Frank's book, The Americans. It made many people uncomfortable. Do we really look that ugly in our inequality? We do, and it's hard to look at. Of course, political discussions, especially around economics, can feel uncomfortable in polite company, and at TOP, we are both polite and familiar. As a socialist, I often hold my tongue here, but this post on art and inequality is something we should be able to handle, even if people disagree."

darlene: "Me = John Camp x 10. [John Camp said, "I have to say I hate seeing political and economic commentary on a photo blog...I come here for photography, and value TOP for that." —Ed.] Bringing up politics in a photography blog is like serving pickles at a cake party—it leaves readers confused and frustrated, especially when they've voiced their annoyance over the years. But Michael? Oh no, he carries on like he's either blissfully unaware or just enjoys tossing the occasional grenade into the room. It's his blog, of course, and I'm just a visitor, but I can't help feeling a little insulted by his political takes. Maybe life's a bit dull for Michael, and ruffling feathers is just his way of spicing things up!"

Isn't that great? Can't get much further apart than that. I like dueling comments because I depend on comments to provide balance and also an array of viewpoints; it's probably the main reason I started "Featuring" comments (adding a selection of them to the main posts) many years ago. I've always looked for, and tried to include, dueling comments in the Featured Comments. I never wanted to be the only voice around here—I know my opinions are sometimes strong and sometimes contrarian, so it's better if it isn't "all me."

On the topic, however, I like what Rob Griffin said: "So much of photography and art is social commentary. To me, the distribution of wealth is an appropriate topic for photographers to discuss." And by the way, on the topic of wealth inequality, I wrote a very long response to Zyni's comment that, in the end, I opted not to publish. So Darlene and the others who objected to that video actually got off easy, and they don't even know it.  ;-]

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Alex G.: "All art has a political dimension, whether it’s its content, the context for its production, where and how it’s shown, the person who created it, or all of the above. To ignore that would be to be dishonest and incurious. The only reason you might do that is because the viewer is uncomfortable with that dimension of the work while enjoying others. My own feeling is that most of us can afford and would be better off to be less comfortable."

Stan B.: "'If my art has nothing to do with people’s pain and sorrow, what is "art" for?' —Ai Weiwei. 'To make people free is the aim of art, therefore art for me is the science of freedom.' —Joseph Beuys."

Comments

[Kirk]

Might as well go for the trifecta and throw a post about religion into the mix. I mean, why not? If it's a slow day in photography-land...

[Kye Wood]

A possible solution would be to post about Australia instead. We're practically USA-light. Trailing a couple of years behind the USA in a lot of ways.

Other than having free comprehensive healthcare for all citizens, almost no guns in public hands, compulsory voting and respect and trust in public institutions, we're practically twins.

Mainly because Rupert Murdoch has a stranglehold on media here too. And has been controlling politicians from all sides for decades.

I wish him a happy death.

[Omer]

When one becomes an adult, one realizes everything is political.

Ansel Adams, Robert Frank, Robert Adams, Robert Mapplethorpe, Diane Arbus, Helen Levitt, Mary Ellen Mark, and so on. All adults.

[Jamie Pillers]

Sorry I missed your original post about wealth inequality, Mike. Robert Reich made a very instructive online lecture series on poverty and wealth in America. I don’t have the link, but I’m sure it’s easily findable on the web. Also, my tax accountant once said to me “No one needs more than three times what a public school teacher earns to be happy”. I agree.

[William Lewis]

Heh. All art, and so photography, is political. Even St. Ansel couldn't avoid it (see his book " Born Free and Equal: The Story of Loyal Japanese-Americans" on the Manzanar Concentration Camp, work that may be all too relevant again soon...).

Even my attempts at landscape can slide into commentary - though usually when I'm trying to be political I get way too heavy handed and it fails. Still one can only take so many photos of collapsing barns, abandoned factories, rusting automobiles, wealthy McMansions before the economic commentary becomes blatant.

[Tullio Emanuele]

I have followed the comments to the previous post and refrained to comment because I realized that the subject is much more complex than it appears, but I am going to make some suggestions.

1. We are officially in the “banana zone” see Raul Pal on Utube for the definition.
2. The thesis of the video about wealth inequality is possibly much worse than what has been depicted in the comments. The reason is simple, it fails to mention the real possibility that government intervention may exacerbate the problem. Like it has happened with the stimulus money during COVID.
3. It’s also possible that there is a solution to the problem ie: abandon the fiat monetary system and start using Bitcoin. Before rejecting this idea, keep in mind that some of the strongest supporter of a Bitcoin standard were at the beginning against it. It takes(at least) 100 hours of studying to understand the problems with fiat and the strength of Bitcoin.
4. As far as the issue of mixing photography with politics… what about Group f/64?

I don’t mean to argue, and much less offend anybody, just “food for thought “. Cheers

PS. Bananas have become a meme, not sure why. About a baker’s dozen with bananas as a theme?

[robert e]

"No politics at dinner", "no politics on photography blogs", "no politics here", "no politics there" and pretty soon, you have no democracy. Which side of that are we on?

[Robert Roaldi]

Some people are sure sensitive. Political comments are pretty rare around here, and I didn't think there was enough of it to complain about. Maybe next time someone will sell a photograph at auction at a crazy price so the post will be more relevant to photography. :)

Should "prankster art" be an official category?

[Jeff]

It's an "open mike" post so a video about wealth inequality is just fine. I enjoy the way you present a wide range of topics from diets to toasters to chess to stereo speakers and I always learn a lot from them. You also have a good audience so I enjoy your readers' replies to them. Even with these intermittent deviations your content is still 95% photography so keep up the good work and thanks for your thought-provoking writing.

[Rob L]

The only folks who benefit from not talking about politics are villains. Heck, we're photographers, we're supposed to show people uncomfortable truths.

[Chris Bertram]

It is the "art" we ought to be more sceptical of than the politics. Do we need a prestige category of artefacts that unites across different crafts the outputs thought worthy of special commendation and cuts within crafts between those outputs and the others that are less worthy of our admiration?

[Sean]

I second Alex G’s responce. There are many reasons to pick up a camera, but for me, socially driven commentary is one of the greatest. I see Mike’s political and economic posts as an extension of the concerned school of photography.

[Charlie E]

As with many aspects of modern life, I think people need to take a step back and consider if it's worth getting upset when their specific needs aren't catered for at all times.

What I enjoy about TOP is that it's a broad church, and there's many topics and view points. It also means I enjoy or even read every post if I'm not interested... Like all of the internet. I am happy to live with that because that's life.

[SteveW]

Art/Photography/Music, etc, etc....are reflections of our culture and society.

This is the kind of art I like best, although I don't make that kind of art myself, I mostly have photos of cats.

[Ed Hawco]

The video on income inequality isn't even overtly political. It's economic. It's social (not "socialist"). It's even-tempered and factual; no shilling of candidates or political parties. No calls to action or rants and raves.

Why does that bother people? Why do people not want to understand the country they live in?

Please don't change, Mike. That video was entirely appropriate in the context of the post (the six million dollar banana). It was a commentary on the skewed nature of the art market (relevant) supported by a video on the skewed nature of wealth inequality. Nailed it.

Mike, when you off on a tangent your readers can trust you to keep it informative, to not fly any flags, and to not get all frothy at the mouth like so many so-called "political" media outlets. It's refreshing. Don't stop.

[Jayson Merryfield]

To argue that the original post is political is to call the mere acknowledgement of facts political.

If those particular facts make you uncomfortable, it's probably more profitable to ask yourself WHY you feel uncomfortable, rather than attempting to silence the messenger.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I certainly agree that art, possibly all art (at least all significant art) has a political dimension.

Having one doesn't mean I necessarily want to discuss it, though. I have plenty of political discussions, but not really enough art discussions (or even interesting photo tech discussions).

[John Boeckeler]

I'm only an occasional reader of the Online Photographer, more interested in the photo than the political commentary. When I want politics, I turn to the WSJ, NYT, and the Free Press.

[Dale]

I disagree with the notion that all art has a political dimension. I've looked at photos by Adams, Bullock, Kenna, the Westons, Caponigro and many others that seem to have nothing to do with politics. Add to that various paintings by Monet, Van Gogh, Hopper, etc. That's not to say that their makers didn't have political viewpoints; they certainly did. And I'm sure that through some strained efforts, one could assert that there's something political in all of those works. Not all see it that way.

[I see your point, but Ansel Adams for one did see a lot of political content in his pictures. He was a lifelong conservationist and environmentalist, and a longtime activist for the causes he believed in. I recall he even met with then-President Ronald Reagan to make a case for his causes, and he was given numerous awards and honors for his advocacy work. --Mike]