Time Light Box Images Of Growing Up Mormon: Cause For Angst?

[frankenstein]

So, you're saying that he has only taken 24 pictures of his "tumultuous" family? That, perhaps, the unclad backside of his brother-in-law has the only purpose in the world of being a springboard into a discussion of the Garment? Or that a young teen's writing "Sh*t" on his hand is sufficient cause to include an otherwise mundane picture of the kid in a national publication? Ain't buying today, thank you.

I have been very clear in what I have presented, that you have suggested the above is your interpretation of what you want me to believe to I have presented. The article is very clear that the photographer is presenting photos that reflect what he believes is his experience.

I never suggested any of the photos were meant to be a spring board for anything.

Among the hundreds or thousands of photos he took, these were the best ones? The most representative of real life in "Happy Valley"? Of his family?

I rather doubt that. He chose the photos that were presented (or at least he provided a culled selection, and the editors did the final cut—a word I use advisedly).

Further, as a now-somewhat-blind, former photographer, I offer it as my opinion that he is not a very good practitioner. The shots are poorly composed, poorly shot, and badly presented. There is no art in them, none at all. While they pretend to be candid, the subjects are boring, the backgrounds prosaic, and the actual photography grainy and flat. Candid shots are great, but there has to be a reason for shooting them. Few of these have a raison d'être—most barely qualify as snapshots, much less photographs.

Even the casual photographers I know would have trashed most of them: they're not worth keeping.

Finally, as others have noted, were I the subject of any of these photographs, I'd be more than a little upset that he would have the temerity to publish them at all, and more so that he chose an internet site. The children and the adults pictured here look ridiculous, and it's his fault.

Lehi

I just love it when one person tells another person what "Art" is, thanks for setting the record straight on what "art" is.

Everything in the eye of the beholder, that his style does not suit your fancy is simply his style not suiting your fancy.

And his style not suiting your fancy has nothing to do with the purpose of the photos, that purpose being to capture what he believe reflects his personal experience growing up LDS in Utah.

[thesometimesaint]

Frankenstein:

Then why did he and Time Magazine present it as a expose' of what Mormons believe and how they live?

[LeSellers]

I never suggested any of the photos were meant to be a spring board for anything.

Yet a picture of his brother-in-law going from the shower to the closet elicited an attack on the wearing of the Garment. Of the three thousand, six hundred forty-two possible captions, he chose one about the Garment.

His bias, the prism he wants everyone to see his work through, is obvious to the knowledgeable, but it's not us he considered his target audience.

You spent a good deal of your post attacking my definition of art. But that was a single sentence in a longer-than-usual paragraph, the topic of which was his bad photography.

You did not mention that fact that there is nothing in his "work" that commends him as a photographer, much less a fine arts guy (an assumption, I admit, but he did go to San Francisco school for the arts, as I recall—'snot worth going back to look it up).

Lastly, the whole thing was of no value, and would not have seen print had Mitt Romney not chosen to run for President this year. "Mormons" is hot right now because we're in the news, like it or not: attacking us is the epitome of hot. He's riding a wave, nothing more. Otherwise, I can't see who'd buy his "work" if this is any thing like representative of his portfolio.

Lehi

Edited December 14, 2011 by LeSellers

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein:

Then why did he and Time Magazine present it as a expose' of what Mormons believe and how they live?

Did they? Will you explain why you see this as an "expose" piece?

---------------

Lehi, there was no need to go beyond your quipe about what art is, the gist of the remainder of the paragraph is how in your opinion the photos lack artistic value, but since art is a matter of personal opinion, there is no need or reason to offer anything more than a comment of "thank you" for telling us all what art is.

And it is interesting that you made a comment about Jaybear and mind reading when you suggest that the article would never be published but for romney; a laughable position at best. What you are saying is that any article I can find about LDS people the publication of said article is directly associated with mitt romney political aspirations.

Edited December 14, 2011 by frankenstein

[selek1]

There is a greater-than-usual level of irony here.

Those insisting that the photographer be excused his bias, misrepresentation, and agenda in the name of "art" are the self-same crowd clamoring for tar-and-feathers and blasting the Church for "dishonesty" over the "translating off the plates" pictures....

I'd heard that "beauty was in the eye of the holder", but I'd apparently failed to realize that "art" is determined solely by its use in pursuing one's predetermined agenda.

[CV75]

Photographs

I find the “visual and emotional exploration of his own childhood and adolescence” (clearly his own arrested teenage malaise) profoundly unperceptive of him and uninteresting to me. Other than that, they are really crappy photos.

[LeSellers]

the gist of the remainder of the paragraph is how in your opinion the photos lack artistic value,

No, that paragraph was an assessment of the photographic qualities of the slideshow and, more to the point, of the photographer who took them and presumed to display them in public.

They were terrible pictures, poorly executed. As I said, if this was the only basis for judging his work (and it is mine), no one would pay for it as photography. Its only "value" was in its trash-the-Mormons quality. I judged it just as I would judge any photographs. He is a poor photographer.

BTW, what's a "quipe"?

And it is interesting that you made a comment about Jaybear and mind reading when you suggest that the article would never be published but for romney; a laughable position at best. What you are saying is that any article I can find about LDS people the publication of said article is directly associated with mitt romney political aspirations.

If we were to line up all the articles about Mormonism, so called, using a bar graph by year or month, and compare the numbers of such articles, my educated guess is that there'd be far more of them in years where Romney (or another Saint) is running for President, or the Church is involved in some action supporting traditional values. Most of them would be critical, and their quality would be poorer than the average in other years.

Lehi

Edited December 14, 2011 by LeSellers

[KevinG]

frankenstein:

Not even the kids smile. If I wasn't a Mormon and saw those pictures I'd believe the Mormons were the most dour, sourpuss. people possible.

Everyone in the pictures is thinking "oh no, here comes crazy uncle with the camera AGAIN! Isn't it bad enough he got a picture of dad's naked behind and put it on last years Christmas card?"

Seriously - this was an artsy fartsy photo exhibit of some guys extended family that happens to be Mormon. I could identify with the messy bedroom and the kid sucking his face into the vacuum cleaner. The wife in the clean apron with the hamburger prepped for hubby representing the "traditional gender roles"... Hahahahahahahahaha! Yeah, that really happens a lot in 2011.

[LeSellers]

Seriously - this was an artsy fartsy photo exhibit of some guys extended family that happens to be Mormon. I could identify with the messy bedroom and the kid sucking his face into the vacuum cleaner. The wife in the clean apron with the hamburger prepped for hubby representing the "traditional gender roles"... Hahahahahahahahaha! Yeah, that really happens a lot in 2011.

It was a lot less "artsy" than "fartsy".

Lehi

[altersteve]

I could identify with the messy bedroom and the kid sucking his face into the vacuum cleaner.

Hahaha same. I STILL do that.

I'm such a child inside.

[KevinG]

Hahaha same. I STILL do that.

I'm such a child inside.

Yeah- but you are now old enough to know you never let your cheek muscles go slack or the vacuum will rip the snot out of the inside of your mouth. That only comes with wisdom and experience.

[Mariner]

I find the “visual and emotional exploration of his own childhood and adolescence” (clearly his own arrested teenage malaise) profoundly unperceptive of him and uninteresting to me. Other than that, they are really crappy photos.

You will get no disagreement from me. I do not think they are photographs of a technical quality that would normally deserve attention from the photo editor of Time. In the case, what may be of interest to Time and its readers is what the photographer has to say, and not so much how he says it.

[KevinG]

I tried to do a series on growing up Amish and ended up with a series of rural landscapes and still life of farm implements.

[LeSellers]

he is not a very good practitioner. The shots are poorly composed, poorly shot, and badly presented. There is no art in them, none at all. While they pretend to be candid, the subjects are boring, the backgrounds prosaic, and the actual photography grainy and flat. Candid shots are great, but there has to be a reason for shooting them. Few of these have a raison d'être—most barely qualify as snapshots, much less photographs.

Even the casual photographers I know would have trashed most of them: they're not worth keeping.

Lastly, the whole thing was of no value, and would not have seen print had Mitt Romney not chosen to run for President this year. "Mormons" is hot right now because we're in the news, like it or not: attacking us is the epitome of hot. He's riding a wave, nothing more. Otherwise, I can't see who'd buy his "work" if this is any thing like representative of his portfolio.

I do not think they are photographs of a technical quality that would normally deserve attention from the photo editor of Time. In the case, what may be of interest to Time and its readers is what the photographer has to say, and not so much how he says it.

"Mariner" and I agree on very little, but in this case we seem to be saying the same thing.

The photos are of poor quality, and the only reason they were published was not the medium, but the message. In this case, the message is that Mormons are sad people, lacking in social graces, and no fun. This message suits Time because they do not want a Republican in the White House, and Romney is reasonably assured of the GOP nomination.

Lehi

Edited December 14, 2011 by LeSellers

[california boy]

Wow everyone freaks out when a photo essay is published that does not have the gripping control of the church's well oiled PR department to weed out the ones they don't want the public to see.

Having a minor in photography and having worked in that field my whole career, I just have to say to Lehi. You just don't get it do you. Not all photos are ment to be slick, composed, even in focus photos. Some stories are told better in bad light, and grainy film. It creates a different kind of image mood and tension. There is definitely a reason why Time magazine choose those photos. You can't see past the lack of tightly controled image of Mormonism to understand why they were selected.

[Mariner]

Wow everyone freaks out when a photo essay is published that does not have the gripping control of the church's well oiled PR department to weed out the ones they don't want the public to see.

Having a minor in photography and having worked in that field my whole career, I just have to say to Lehi. You just don't get it do you. Not all photos are ment to be slick, composed, even in focus photos. Some stories are told better in bad light, and grainy film. It creates a different kind of image mood and tension. There is definitely a reason why Time magazine choose those photos. You can't see past the lack of tightly controled image of Mormonism to understand why they were selected.

California Boy,

Perhaps you would be willing to tell folks why you think they were selected. While I do not disagree with what you say about creating mood and tension, let's face it - these are not very good photographs so there must be some other reason they are in Time.

What do you think that reason is?

Do you think that Time was right in publishing them?

Can you imagine that Time would in any way or at some time i the future regret their decision to do so?

Edited December 14, 2011 by Mariner

[LeSellers]

You can't see past the lack of tightly controled image of Mormonism to understand why they were selected.

No, I understand very well why they were selected. I've said so many times.

Care to articulate why you believe they were?

Lehi

[selek1]

Wow everyone freaks out when a photo essay is published that does not have the gripping control of the church's well oiled PR department to weed out the ones they don't want the public to see.

It's comments like that- and the persistent inability to distinguish between contradiction and persecution- that keep you from being taken seriously, California Boy.

Nobody has "freaked out". We were asked our opinion and gave it.

No rioting in the streets.

No campaign of intimidation and terror.

No acts of vandalism.

No acts of public defecation.

No drug use.

No assaults, no rapes, no STDs.

No boycotts, no sit-ins, no marches, no turning public parks into private land-fills.

Just thoughtful and reasoned disagreement with the presentation as offered- and as requested in the OP..

There is definitely a reason why Time magazine choose those photos. You can't see past the lack of tightly controled image of Mormonism to understand why they were selected.

On the contrary- that has been the entire point of the criticisms offered.

We cheerfully acknowledge that the there was a reason why Time chose those images and captions- and we acknowledge their right to do so.

We have simply pointed out that these photos- contrary to the author's assertions- are not representative of the Mormon faith or culture.

And that is no sin. It is contradiction, not persecution.

It is criticism, not censorship.

We do thank you, however, for admitting that the article and photos were intended to advance a particular agenda, rather than to offer an unbiased look at the Mormon faith.

Edited December 14, 2011 by selek1

[bluebell]

personal insults aside, I appreciate your time to comment.

It wasn't an insult, it was an accurate observation.

Was his statement of what the LDS teaches incorrect? That is, are his claims/statements about the teachings incorrect? If so, how are his claims incorrect?

Does the LDS Church teach against premarital sex?

It's the implication in the combined statements of a couple 'stealing' a kiss and 'the church prohibits many forms of physical contact between the sexes' that gives a specific impression which isn't accurate.

Does the LDS Church have standards for when garments are to be worn?

I don't have a problem with that caption. I thought the picture was extremely odd (the church requires garments to be worn but naked pictures are perfectly fine? You have to admit its an odd way to talk about garments)

Does the LDS Church only allow certain individuals in to Temple ceremonies, such entrance being premised on personal worthiness?

I remember this statement if he said what you have written here then i don't have a problem with it either.

"

On the Sabbath, all "worldly" activities, such as buying things, watching TV, playing video games, or even visiting friends, must cease. June 2011"

I know more than one LDS family who follow such on Sundays. My cousins were forbidden from changing from "Church Cloths" upon returning home from Church, there was even a recent (past 2 -3 years) talk from the Pulpit (Conference Center) wherein the speaker alluded though did not command that person should remain in their Church clothes all day long.

So what? That's my whole point. Some people have crazy families-it's a given, but don't imply that these crazy notions are church doctrine. Its' not asking alot, i don't get the problem you have with it.

It's fine if you read his words differently-i'm not trying to argue you out of your interpretations as i really don't care-but i don't read him the same way.

[frankenstein]

What is inaccurate about this:

L: Preston, my brother, and Annette, married less than an hour earlier, sneak a kiss before their wedding reception. The LDS church strictly forbids premarital sex and many forms of physical contact between the sexes. July 2005 R: My niece Sophie. December 2006

What inaccurate impression does that statement give, in the article petting is mentioned.

[bluebell]

What is inaccurate about this:

L: Preston, my brother, and Annette, married less than an hour earlier, sneak a kiss before their wedding reception. The LDS church strictly forbids premarital sex and many forms of physical contact between the sexes. July 2005 R: My niece Sophie. December 2006

What inaccurate impression does that statement give, in the article petting is mentioned.

In my opinion, it gives the impression that mormon doctrine dictates kissing before marriage is a sin. I mean, what forms of physical contact does the church prohibit before marriage? Could the amount that you've come up with accurately be described as 'many'?

[Daniel Peterson]

For what it's worth, here's my take:

The photographs are okay as photography. Not terrible. But not particularly distinguished or memorable, either. The people in them are portrayed as very glum, which must represent a decision (for whatever his reasons may be) on the part of the photographer, and the general depiction seems to intend to make them look rather like like the poor in Appalachia. I would say that it's fairly obvious that the photographer wishes to portray his subjects as somewhat alien, as The Other.

The captions also seem to have that agenda, making Mormons seem rather weirder even than, in fact, we tend to be. The general Mormon rule about doing "sabbathy" things on the Sabbath, for example, which might entail -- as it does in my house -- minimizing or eliminating frivolous television (but maybe still allowing a wholesome film or a worthwhile news program or documentary and certainly permitting general conference and Tabernacle Choir broadcasts and programs about Church history and the like) and not doing sports or parties or, as a kid, playing with friends, becomes, in the captions, a blanket ban on even visiting friends (evidently even if they're in the hospital or, as in my case, in your monthly Sunday-night reading group) and a flat Verbot against watching any television whatsoever.

And the short essay accompanying the photos savored very strongly, in my judgment, of a certain smug superiority. The photographer, it tells us, read Sartre and Fromm and Nietzsche when he was sixteen, so, of course, he couldn't be contained within the shrunken thought-world of Mormon provincialism depicted in the photos. (Coincidentally, I read Nietzsche and, to a lesser degree, Sartre and Fromm -- who was quite in vogue then -- when I was sixteen, too. Maybe even slightly younger. And yet I didn't leave the Church. That was, in fact, the very period when I was becoming active. So it doesn't seem that reading Fromm, Nietzsche, and Sartre necessarily takes one out of Mormonism, the essayist's suggestion notwithstanding.)

[CV75]

I tried to do a series on growing up Amish and ended up with a series of rural landscapes and still life of farm implements.

At least you got to "bundle"!

[california boy]

California Boy,

Perhaps you would be willing to tell folks why you think they were selected. While I do not disagree with what you say about creating mood and tension, let's face it - these are not very good photographs so there must be some other reason they are in Time.

What do you think that reason is?

Do you think that Time was right in publishing them?

Can you imagine that Time would in any way or at some time i the future regret their decision to do so?

Sure I would be glad to. If you follow Times Lightbox series, you will understand that the purpose often is to show a slice of life that may be different from the common perception that is out there. For example, they would not show an Amish family in a horse and buggy or raising a barn. They may how how an Amish family functions behind closed doors. It show a different look at often stereotype images.

I think Time is showing a Mormon family that is different from the smiley faces so often pushed by the Church's PR department. Mormon families have just as many quirks and challenges behind closed doors that the public does not always see. This photographer is showing a very intimate glimpse into his personal family. And that is what Time is showing. it is not about perfectly composed photos. It is about slice of life glimpses when they are least expected.

Of course I think Time should have published the photos. Why wouldn't they? This is what they do. Noting new here. It is a magazine.

What do you think they would regret? That they did not show the same image the church pushes out? Nope, I don't think they will regret any of it. Perhaps you can tell me why Time would have any reason to regret publishing this photo essay.

Now the one question I have for you. What do you find to be the most false view being presented in this photo essay? What doctrine is a complete fabrication?

[wenglund]

Wow everyone freaks out when a photo essay is published that does not have the gripping control of the church's well oiled PR department to weed out the ones they don't want the public to see.

Having a minor in photography and having worked in that field my whole career, I just have to say to Lehi. You just don't get it do you. Not all photos are ment to be slick, composed, even in focus photos. Some stories are told better in bad light, and grainy film. It creates a different kind of image mood and tension. There is definitely a reason why Time magazine choose those photos. You can't see past the lack of tightly controled image of Mormonism to understand why they were selected.

I find your reaction amussing given that not more than a year ago, when, as a part of a Prop 8 thread, I posted several unflattering pictures of gays taken at a gay pride parade (pictures obviously not approved by the gay propaganda ministry), and you and Daniel went ballistic.

Yet, now that you share the bile of the photographer in question and the negative bent of the editors and publisher, you wax self-righteous, looking down your nose at those expressing objections.

A polite word for this is "ironic."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 15, 2011 by wenglund