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

[Senator]

I wasn't able to access the article...too slow loading. Will try again later.

Am wondering if his family feels it is a good representation of them. Would Time have to have their permission?

That's what I stated earlier; that if anyone should be upset, it should be his family.

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

Would showing a Catholic Nuns naked butt give you any insight into the meaning of the Nuns Habit?

[LeSellers]

Am wondering if his family feels it is a good representation of them. Would Time have to have their permission?

Once you view the slide show (an activity, btw, I do not recommend), you'd know that answer.

It is an attack on his family first and, by extension only, an attack on The Church of Jesus Christ. None of those photos portrays his sisters, his nieces and nephews, his in-laws, or anyone else in a reasonable light. Except for, as I recall, the Sword of Laban shot, the subjects of his lens all look to be in pain of some sort. His nephew, sitting on some sort of pipe-like playground equipment is explicitly in rebellion, the word "s**t" written on the fingers of his left hand.

Why would anyone display his family to the world like this unless his purpose was to humiliate them? In which case, I believe he succeeded beyond his hopes.

Lehi

[Senator]

Senator:

Would showing a Catholic Nuns naked butt give you any insight into the meaning of the Nuns Habit?

No. and I don't think that was intent of this photo either. Do you?

(I'm not actually sure what the purpose of the photo was......a bit random and childish in my opinion)

I don't know why "catching a Mormon without their garments on" was shocking to him, since in another photo, his sister is shown talking on the phone obviously without her garments on.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Senator

[Sky]

Well, the fact is, that the majority of LDS families are not active in the church.

What is your source for this?

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

Yes we do. His intent was to portray Mormons in as silly as possible light. To mock their beliefs in modesty.

[california boy]

Once you view the slide show (an activity, btw, I do not recommend), you'd know that answer. It is an attack on his family first and, by extension only, an attack on The Church of Jesus Christ. None of those photos portrays his sisters, his nieces and nephews, his in-laws, or anyone else in a reasonable light. Except for, as I recall, the Sword of Laban shot, the subjects of his lens all look to be in pain of some sort. His nephew, sitting on some sort of pipe-like playground equipment is explicitly in rebellion, the word "s**t" written on the fingers of his left hand. Why would anyone display his family to the world like this unless his purpose was to humiliate them? In which case, I believe he succeeded beyond his hopes. Lehi

Attack on his family? Attack on the church? And your evidence is a teenager showing a glimps of rebellion? You don't think that ever happens in Mormon families?

[Sky]

Once you view the slide show (an activity, btw, I do not recommend), you'd know that answer.

It is an attack on his family first and, by extension only, an attack on The Church of Jesus Christ. None of those photos portrays his sisters, his nieces and nephews, his in-laws, or anyone else in a reasonable light. Except for, as I recall, the Sword of Laban shot, the subjects of his lens all look to be in pain of some sort. His nephew, sitting on some sort of pipe-like playground equipment is explicitly in rebellion, the word "s**t" written on the fingers of his left hand.

Why would anyone display his family to the world like this unless his purpose was to humiliate them? In which case, I believe he succeeded beyond his hopes.

Lehi

Well, to be fair, his family must have given their consent for him to take those pictures, as well as to get them published in a magazine. So if the family was humiliated, they sort of brought it on themselves. I doubt the guy was forced to have his picture taken of him jumping out of the shower naked.

[LeSellers]

Attack on his family? Attack on the church? And your evidence is a teenager showing a glimps of rebellion? You don't think that ever happens in Mormon families?

My evidence is his slide show, from the first snapshot to the last one. The teenage rebellion was just one in 24 examples. More notably was the snapshot of his brother-in-law, We could look at the one of his sister with her looking disheveled, or his nieces in their messy bedroom. The whole thing was an ambush-of-a-thousand-cuts (okeh, only 24, but a picture is worth a thousand words).

Lehi

[William Schryver]

I am familiar with a few agenda artists. Their craft is secondary. It is beyond critique. Often I guess that's part of the schtick. Like saying, "What I'm doing is not about being skilled, it's about what I've got to tell the world. Telling the ugly truth- exposing the secrets that no one wants to admit."

Precisely!

As I noted in my reply to Shumway's complaint that I perceived in his photo essay exactly what he wanted people to perceive (that Mormons are culturally backward and oppressed): contrived art is bad art. All "agenda art" is transparently contrived. That said, some of it is still well-executed. In my opinion, that cannot be said about this particular collection of Shumway's photography, and I think the quality of his art suffers precisely because he set out with an agenda in mind.

Shumway has other photo collections in his portfolio that I found very impressive--these among others:

La Chureca

Editorial

I think it is very instructive that, in my opinion at least, the quality of his work is much higher when he's not trying to shove an agenda down someone's throat.

Edited December 15, 2011 by William Schryver

[LeSellers]

Well, to be fair, his family must have given their consent for him to take those pictures, as well as to get them published in a magazine. So if the family was humiliated, they sort of brought it on themselves. I doubt the guy was forced to have his picture taken of him jumping out of the shower naked.

Until I see the releases, I have a very hard time accepting that they gave their permission.

Even with releases, it seems unlikely that they'd have permitted those specific snapshots.

Lehi

[california boy]

Senator: Yes we do. His intent was to portray Mormons in as silly as possible light. To mock their beliefs in modesty.

I think your reaction to seeing a naked backside rushing to the closet from the shower as being an example of mocking ones religion is exactly the reason why he showed the picture. Can you imagine any other religion feeling like it was an attack on their religion to show the same picture? If he had been a catholic husband or a protestant father, would the shot have been a mockery of their church?

The fact that Mormons compare showing someone naked to a nun or other clergy is exactly the reason why it makes this photo a comment on Mormonism. You clearly illustrated the difference between how Mormons view nudity and how other people in America view nudity For most people going from the shower to the closet naked is not an attack on their religion. The fact that this particular photo gets the most reaction from Mormons tell a lot about the differences in the lives of a typical Mormon home.

[LeSellers]

I think it is very instructive that, in my opinion at least, the quality of his work is much higher when he's not trying to shove an agenda down someone's throat.

The photos in "La Chureca" were, in my opinion, agenda photos, too, but the agenda was not hate-driven, as were those from "Happy Valley".

Hate has an ugly face, and it reflects in everything it animates. "Happy Valley" had that image in its snapshot images.

Lehi

Edited December 15, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

For most people going from the shower to the closet naked is not an attack on their religion. The fact that this particular photo gets the most reaction from Mormons tell a lot about the differences in the lives of a typical Mormon home.

You have missed the point.

The caption attached to the snapshot was not "Here's my brother-in-law running from the shower to the closet", it was "here's my brother-in-law without his garment". Do you see the difference? It's not subtle.

Lehi

[california boy]

My evidence is his slide show, from the first snapshot to the last one. The teenage rebellion was just one in 24 examples. More notably was the snapshot of his brother-in-law, We could look at the one of his sister with her looking disheveled, or his nieces in their messy bedroom. The whole thing was an ambush-of-a-thousand-cuts (okeh, only 24, but a picture is worth a thousand words). Lehi

This is my whole point I am making. How is a photo of a messy bedroom or a sister looking dishveled an attack on Mormonism? Are you claiming that all Mormons have spotless homes? All Mormons always have their hair combed? If anything other than a spotless home and hair combed is shown it is an attack on the church?? If the photographer wanted to "attack" the church, I don't think he would have choosen a messy bedroom to do that.

[Sine Saw Square]

Well, the fact is, that the majority of LDS families are not active in the church. So if you want a sampling of the majority, this essay might actually be representative.

If the majority of Mormons are less active these pictures and commentary apply even less. These photos are making statements against 'typical' mormon stereotypes. As he says, there is something lurking beneath the surface.

What does he claim lurks there?

• The begrudging housewife serving her husband his meal with her rebellion thinly veiled beneath a stoic exterior.
  
• A boy grudgingly mowing the lawn wearing church clothes. Who does yard work in a tie? Maybe Shumway's trying to say something about hypocrisy here?
  
• Multiple shots of children. Unsupervised, lonely, some in dangerous situations; on the roof or in the street. Those Mormon's have so many kids they can't watch them all, right?
  
• Newly weds portrayed as hiding behind a fence to sneak a kiss (even after marriage)- because as we're reminded in the caption text, the Church 'forbids' intimacy.
  
• It's important for Mormons to dress modest and wear garments- so here's an unflattering picture of the nekkid white dude with his tan lines and the comatose wife staring off into space. He's now exposed to a national audience. Get it? The irony. The mockery. (How did he convince his siblings to let him take this shot?)
  
• The guy dressed in a white robe, the kind you'd expect to be walking around downtown NY holding a sign that reads 'the end is nigh'. Oh not at all- he's just posing as Jesus for a religious painting! That's way more 'normal'. Happens in every mormon family. All the time.
  
• The kid and mom kissing 'how mommy kisses daddy'. Awkward.
  
• Hoses, mattresses, junk, cabinets, beat up boats in the yard, piles of clothing, scribbles on the wall. You know what kind of people this suggests they are.
  
• And so on...
  

At least that is what you read into it.

It seems as if many here take this kind of thing personally.

I don't take this essay personally at all. I see very little of my life in these photos. I neither live in Utah valley nor consider myself conventionally "Mormon" in culture. I can't speak for others here obviously. My concern is why Time would pick someone who admits they have problems with a community to be the one to show that community through a series of pictures. Would you trust someone who said they disliked Jews to photograph the life of a Hasidic community in New York? Wouldn't Jewish people be justified in calling out misrepresentations in how their community is selectively represented?

[california boy]

The photos in "La Chureca" were, in my opinion, agenda photos, too, but the agenda was not hate-driven, as were those from "Happy Valley". Hate has an ugly face, and it reflects in everything it animates. "Happy Valley" had that image in its snapshot images. Lehi

so what was his agenda of these photos?

[Sky]

Garments are a sensitive enough subject as it is – let alone bringing in a naked man jumping out of the shower into the picture. That’s not a good segue to talk about the temple garment – especially when they are sometimes derisively referred to by insensitive people as “magic underwear.” Mormons don’t really talk much about garments even amongst themselves.

[california boy]

You have missed the point. The caption attached to the snapshot was not "Here's my brother-in-law running from the shower to the closet", it was "here's my brother-in-law without his garment". Do you see the difference? It's not subtle. Lehi

No I didn't miss the point. All my comments were directed exactly on that point. The photographer is specifically making a comment about the garment by showing the photo. Please reread my other posts on this photo.

[california boy]

My concern is why Time would pick someone who admits they have problems with a community to be the one to show that community through a series of pictures. Would you trust someone who said they disliked Jews to photograph the life of a Hasidic community in New York? Wouldn't Jewish people be justified in calling out misrepresentations in how their community is selectively represented?

Maybe Time is showing how an outsider views Mormonism. We already know how Mormons view Mormons. Everyone and everything is perfect.

[LeSellers]

This is my whole point I am making. How is a photo of a messy bedroom or a sister looking dishveled an attack on Mormonism? Are you claiming that all Mormons have spotless homes? All Mormons always have their hair combed? If anything other than a spotless home and hair combed is shown it is an attack on the church?? If the photographer wanted to "attack" the church, I don't think he would have choosen a messy bedroom to do that.

You keep changing your point.

You said that I was wrong in saying it was an attack on his family, now you're back to saying we think it was an attack on The Church of Jesus Christ.

The disheveled sister and the other examples I highlighted were attacks on the family. No one wants his picture displayed to the world like that when alternatives are readily available, as they must have been, unless Shumway had only one roll of film and has visited his family once in the past, say, six years.

The best attacks are those that appear at least marginally benign. He knows his target audience well: those who subscribe to Time are, after all, predisposed to dislike The Church of Jesus Christ. I'd guess the subscriber list includes a lot more progressives than conservatives, more socialists than libertarians.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Please reread my other posts on this photo.

I'd really prefer not to.

Lehi

[William Schryver]

The photos in "La Chureca" were, in my opinion, agenda photos, too, but the agenda was not hate-driven, as were those from "Happy Valley".

Hate has an ugly face, and it reflects in everything it animates. "Happy Valley" had that image in its snapshot images.

Lehi

Well, I guess when it comes right down to it, most art does have some kind of "agenda". In other words, all artists are evangelists: they want you to see things the way they see them. The difference between his "La Chureca" photos and the "Happy Valley" photos is, in my opinion, that he permits his subjects to be spontaneous; to be who they really are within their environment. The "Happy Valley" photos, on the other hand, are contrived in the sense that you can clearly see that he "staged" his subjects; they are not existing spontaneously within their environment, he is manipulating them to convey a message that is not authentic. As I noted in one of my comments, it's as though you can hear the photographer whispering, just before he clicks the shutter: "Now remember to look as sad and depressed as you possibly can ...".

[Sine Saw Square]

La Chureca

Editorial

I think it is very instructive that, in my opinion at least, the quality of his work is much higher when he's not trying to shove an agenda down someone's throat.

I agree. I purposely did not critique his technique. I am not a photographer-yet I'd say he has skill. I really like the photos you linked to actually. It's his symbolism (in "Happy Valley") that is handled ham-fistedly. Using editorial photography techniques to show "real life" but relying on staged poses has about as much veracity as "reality television".

[Senator]

What is your source for this?

My recollection of past discussions on this board. That world wide the activity rate is somewhere around 35 - 40%.

There, how's that for proof!!!!!