Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Photographs by an LDS Church member reflecting on his upbringing as a Mormon have been selected by the photo editors of Time magazine to be posted on their Time LightBox web page. One would think this a great honor (the spread appeared on the same page as the headline for the Top 10 Photos of 2011).Is there no way to remove the link?If this was a sister running from the shower naked I wonder if it would be allow. BTW, I don't ware my garments in the shower either. This is exploitation in my opinion. Did they give consent for these pictures...the children a certainly not able to understand this...
LeSellers Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) so what was his agenda of these photos?Assuming by "these photos", you mean those in the "La Chureca" series, it was to evoke pity and even charity for the children.If you meant the "Happy Valley" snotshots, it is clear he meant to demean his family and belittle The Church of Jesus Christ.LehiP.S.: I was going to correct the typo "snotshots" to "snapshots", but I like it better this way. LS Edited December 15, 2011 by LeSellers
Sine Saw Square Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Maybe Time is showing how an outsider views Mormonism. We already know how Mormons view Mormons. Everyone and everything is perfect.As I asked earlier, why would Time pick someone who in their own words admits that they have 'problems' with the community they are portraying? Would they feature the work of a person with "issues" portraying a black community, a jewish community, a gay community?So what is Shumway saying with this photo essay?
Sky Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Maybe Time is showing how an outsider views Mormonism. We already know how Mormons view Mormons. Everyone and everything is perfect.I don't think everyone and everything is perfect. We just don't appreciate being portrayed as cultish hillbillies. 2
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 As I asked earlier, why would Time pick someone who in their own words admits that they have 'problems' with the community they are portraying? Would they feature the work of a person with "issues" portraying a black community, a jewish community, a gay community?So what is Shumway saying with this photo essay?I certainly have seen photo essays of all the communities you mentioned that were not what those communities would like to portray. If for example the gay community could control every photo taken of them, there would only be loving gay couples dressed in modest clothes walking down the streets of America. And quite honestly, most of the gay people in my life live normal lives, go to work, do laundry, vacuum, and come home to someone they love. This might surprise you but most gays don't even own a g-string. Does that help you deal with unflattering pictures of Mormons???
Senator Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I don't think everyone and everything is perfect. We just don't appreciate being portrayed as cultish hillbillies.Wow!That's a bit judgemental.I happen to live in a rural, predominantly LDS community, where many families could easily substituted for this family.
LeSellers Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) Grant Wood's famous painting "American Gothic" portrays a couple in an unflattering light, by most standards. But, a close examination reveals that the man and his sister are wearing their (probably) nicest clothes. Their faces are clean (too clean for a farmer just coming out from the barn with a pitchfork), and, although they are haggard and dour, they are not pathetic. The painting has an appropriate background (a nice, "middle class" house). It's not a hit piece, although not a propaganda piece for middle USmerica, either.Shumway's subjects look bad, from start to finish. Their stage is cluttered and clumsy. They look bad, and purposely so.The point is, you do not have to denigrate someone to show him is his "native environment". You can be kind without sacrificing your art. Only an agenda-driven piece, like "Happy Valley" is under compulsion to show the worst side of people (not a specific reference to his brother-in-law's portrait, but it's a great example).Lehi Edited December 15, 2011 by LeSellers
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I don't think everyone and everything is perfect. We just don't appreciate being portrayed as cultish hillbillies.Thank you for acknowledging that not all Mormons are perfect. And I completely understand not liking to be portrayed as cultish hillbillies. Gays don't much like the photo essays of them running around in g-strings. But we don't control the image that some photographers like to constantly portray our community either.
LeSellers Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) I certainly have seen photo essays of all the communities you mentioned that were not what those communities would like to portray. Have you seen them in Time?That was the reference.Further, were they done by "apostate" Blacks, Jews, or homosexuals?Lehi Edited December 15, 2011 by LeSellers
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Grant's famous painting "American Gothic" portrays a couple in an unflattering light, by most standards. But, a close examination reveals that the man and his wife are wearing their (probably) nicest clothes. Their faces are clean (too clean for a farmer just coming out from the barn with a pitchfork), and, although they are haggard and dour, they are not pathetic. The painting has an appropriate background (the local church house). It's not a hit piece, although not a propaganda piece for middle USmerica, either. Shumway's subjects look bad, from start to finish. Their stage is cluttered and clumsy. They look bad, and purposely so. The point is, you do not have to denigrate someone to show him is his "native environment". You can be kind without sacrificing your art. Only an agenda-driven piece, like "Happy Valley" is under compulsion to show the worst side of people (not a specific reference to his brother-in-law's portrait, but it's a great example). LehiSo now you want dueling paintings where I show you for example "Potato Eaters" by Van Gough which is also considered a masterpiece as not showing them in the best light?? This is ridiculous road you are traveling.
Calm Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) I looked at his website version, are the pictures the same? No captions. Many of the faces look annoyed for being intruded upon. He states that Happy Valley has the highest depression rate in the country...like to see where he got his data. Is the explanation given for his project the same as at Time?Why in the world would any parent give permission to publicise a picture of their kids in underwear? The names are given even. Even if we discount the predatory aspect, I cannot imagine any kid not being totally humiliated if their friends saw them. They might have been convinced it was a laugh to begin with, but after enough teasing.....I think it very unkind and self centred of any adult to post such pictures. Even if the kids didn't know better, they should have especially since we can't discount the predatory aspect. Edited December 15, 2011 by calmoriah
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Have you seen them in Time? That was the reference. Further, were they done by "apostate" Blacks, Jews, or homosexuals? Lehilol of course I have see unflattering photos of gays in Time magazine. They were shot by right wing gay hating conservatives.
Calm Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 CB, did you see his "True Men" collection? What did you think of it if so?
LeSellers Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 of course I have see unflattering photos of gays in Time magazine. They were shot by right wing gay hating conservatives.So, you're tacitly agreeing that Shumway is the left-wing, Mormon-hating equivalent of the photographers you despise?The big difference is that Shumway is picturing his own family. Something I suspect has not happened with homosexuals, Jews, or Blacks.Lehi
LeSellers Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I cannot imagine any kid not being totally humiliated if their friends saw them. They might have been convinced it was a laugh to begin with, but after enough teasing.....I think it very unkind and self centred of any adult to post such pictures. Even if the kids didn't know better, they should have especially since we can't discount the predatory aspect.Progressive agenda has no kindness.Lehi
Mariner Posted December 15, 2011 Author Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) Is there no way to remove the link?If this was a sister running from the shower naked I wonder if it would be allow. BTW, I don't ware my garments in the shower either. This is exploitation in my opinion. Did they give consent for these pictures...the children a certainly not able to understand this...Pa Pa,Not sure which link you are referring to here.If the question is directed to me, could you be more specific?Are you asking me to remove the link to the Time Light Box web page that is embedded in the OP?If so, why? De-linking the Light Box photo essay will not make it go away.If you are asking me to de-link the "nekked backside" image from the photo essay, you are asking something that is well beyond my capability (and probably illegal). Edited December 15, 2011 by Mariner
thesometimesaint Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Lehi:It has nothing to do with being progressive.
Sine Saw Square Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 And quite honestly, most of the gay people in my life live normal lives, go to work, do laundry, vacuum, and come home to someone they love. This might surprise you but most gays don't even own a g-string. Does that help you deal with unflattering pictures of Mormons???What do g-strings have to do with the discussion? The gay people I know live normal lives too. Glad we agree. I don't think you understood my point though. Please show me a negative essay authored by someone who admits they have problems with their subject group- in fact- has left that community and is critical of it- AND is given the spotlight of a mainstream magazine like Time. If a negative expose on gays or any minority was given such a prominent platform as Time you KNOW there'd be an amazing amount of protest from members of that minority (and other media sources too).
LeSellers Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 So now you want dueling paintings where I show you for example "Potato Eaters" by Van Gough which is also considered a masterpiece as not showing them in the best light?? This is ridiculous road you are traveling.You continue to miss the point.I'm not proposing dueling artists. I'm saying one does not need to be cruel, as Shumway was, to show reality. Art does not require belittling the subject to reach the artist's goal. It is not about showing them in their "best light". It's about avoiding their worst.The latter is Shumway's approach, the former, Wood's.Lehi
Calm Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Apparently at least one of those in the pictures disagrees about her brother's view about Utah.http://www.livingmom.net/2009/10/back-in-utah.htmlThere are MANY reasons as to why we chose to move back. An accumalation of several little things all led to our realizing that we had spent the needed time in Texas. After much meditation, returning to Utah was the answer we receieved that would be best for our family. We are so EXCITED to be back and we missed our dear friends and community here. Thank you to EVERYONE who has helped with our return. I think, more than any other lesson we learned while in Texas, we truly saw the need for community. And boy, we so appreciate the one here on a much deeper level. The pictures of the family and her story in her own words portray quite a different attitude: http://www.livingmom.net/about/
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 CB, did you see his "True Men" collection? What did you think of it if so?I haven't seen it. I tried to Google it, but didn't seem to be able to find it. Do you have a link?
volgadon Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 You continue to miss the point.I'm not proposing dueling artists. I'm saying one does not need to be cruel, as Shumway was, to show reality. Art does not require belittling the subject to reach the artist's goal. It is not about showing them in their "best light". It's about avoiding their worst.The latter is Shumway's approach, the former, Wood's.LehiIn most cases a good artist will at least have some sympathy for his subjects. I found this exhibition sorely lacking in that regard, and I'm not even keen on Wasatch Front culture.
Sky Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Wow!That's a bit judgemental.I happen to live in a rural, predominantly LDS community, where many families could easily substituted for this family.Sorry - I meant no offense to all you rural Utah and Idaho LDS people. But that doesn’t reflect my experience growing up LDS in suburban Denver.
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 What do g-strings have to do with the discussion? The gay people I know live normal lives too. Glad we agree. I don't think you understood my point though. Please show me a negative essay authored by someone who admits they have problems with their subject group- in fact- has left that community and is critical of it- AND is given the spotlight of a mainstream magazine like Time. If a negative expose on gays or any minority was given such a prominent platform as Time you KNOW there'd be an amazing amount of protest from members of that minority (and other media sources too).LOL,LOL, LOL, Are you trying to tell me you have never seen photos in a national magazine, or video on national television of gay men dancing with nothing by g-strings, or with their shirts off in tight gold sparkley shorts, or drag queens, or... Need I go on???Do you know what my father told me when I came out to him? He said "You can't be gay because you don't look gay." Now just where did he get the idea that gay men look a certain way???In fact, I would love to ask the question "When are gay men EVER portrayed as normal guys. I will give you a perfect example. If you have ever seen the series "Modern family". It has a gay couple in it. One of the gay men (played by a straight actor I might add) is this over the top hysterical flamboyant gay man. It is so offensive to me and my partner, we never watch the program. Yet all of our straight friends seem to think it is hillarious.Perhaps you can name ONE show on television that doesn't portray being gay as some freaky squeeling man. I am afraid you are gonna loose this argument in a big way.
Recommended Posts