Calm Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Go to brianshumway.com, it will have a link there...-----I have visited the blogs of several of the family members of those pictured and the family looks not only loving and happy (and the shots are often obviously not posed) but a lot of fun. I would post links here but personal info is included so I won't. I am only mention that I have read them to allow them the chance to speak for themselves. Anyone wanting to read more specifics can do the same tracking as I did.
california boy 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. LehiWho is arguing that point. Of course one does not have to be cruel to portray a subject. I would agree with your analysis completely. Different artist portray things differently. Do you think that is wrong???
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Go to brianshumway.com, it will have a link there... ----- I have visited the blogs of several of the family members of those pictured and the family looks not only loving and happy (and the shots are often obviously not posed) but a lot of fun. I would post links here but personal info is included so I won't. I am only mention that I have read them to allow them the chance to speak for themselves. Anyone wanting to read more specifics can do the same tracking as I did.Thanks for the link. Wow, he has done the same expose on gay people as well. Now doesn't this take all the wind out of the sails for Mormons. Or am I suppose to be freaked out about how he portrays gay men? Any of you Mormons feeling like you should stand up for the "horrible portrayal" this same photographer did to the gay community???? Thought not.
KevinG Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 So what is Shumway saying with this photo essay?My family is darn tired of me coming at them with a camera. That is the message I got.
Calm Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 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.I find it extremely hypocritical that Hollywood media in general acts so judgmental about how some others promote hate, phobias, etc. while they go along their merry way making money by promoting the very stereotypes they condemn. The show Will and Grace was proclaimed as so groundbreaking in its sympathetic and complimentary portrayal of gays, yet the producers rejected an actual homosexual who is a great actor (with a wonderful voice) because he was too "straight" and instead hire a straight actor to portray their 'progressive' gay. Now that is an agenda, one I find very offensive.
thesometimesaint Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 california boy:I find that televison shows don't do a very good job of portraying ANY family in a good light. The father is usually a bumbling oaf, or a physical tyrannt. The mother is either a loving scatter brain or "I am women, I am strong type". The male children are either stupid, feckless, or bores. The female children are wannaabe prostitutes or bookworms.
KevinG Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 So, this wasn't a "real" mormon family?Wrong. It is not necessarily a representative Mormon family. The picture (pun intended) is much more diverse and complex. In that respect the Church PR photos are more "real" than this photo essay in their portrayal of Mormon life.
Wants2know Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I did not like most of the pictures, regardless of it's connection to Mormon doctrine or not. Who takes pictures of children playing on a roof? My inference with that one was that mormons have too many kids to keep an eye on. I don't think it gave a positive perspective of Mormon life - but maybe he wasn't intending to? Does anyone know this person? I'd love to hear the author's comments.
thesometimesaint Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Wants2know:By their fruits you shall know them.
Calm Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) Thanks for the link. Wow, he has done the same expose on gay people as well. Now doesn't this take all the wind out of the sails for Mormons. Or am I suppose to be freaked out about how he portrays gay men? Any of you Mormons feeling like you should stand up for the "horrible portrayal" this same photographer did to the gay community???? Thought not.I couldn't view the whole thing, I found it too distasteful that he claimed that he was celebrating the feminine side of these men, the one that society refused to allow them to freely express and then he seemed to do his best not to do that, not to focus on their beauty and strength but instead went for the shock factor, absolutely ignoring the real potential in his subjects, equating femininity with clothing choice. Perhaps that was okay with his subjects as they at least were adults and would know the implications of their chosen attire and positioning though I wonder if they agree with the finished product's presentation, but I found it completely contradictory to his stated claim which made the photos feel like intentional tricks or gotchas....and if there is one thing I can't stand it's mind games. Edited December 15, 2011 by calmoriah
KevinG 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.Care to elaborate on how your experience helped you form this conclusion? That sounds like a personal family dysfunction to me.As for me and mine we have weaknesses, sins, messy rooms, unfinished homework, head colds, Brethren and Sisters who we find lacking, arguments, bad days, etc. The only perfection in Mormonism is eternal and at the hands of the Savior. 2
KevinG Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) 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.I don't appreciate those photos either. But the Folsom street fair and sisters of perpetual indulgence don't help your argument.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???And yet somehow those men are caught in public during parades and street fairs committing lewd acts in front of hundreds and thousands. I have yet to see a photo essay catching them running to the bathroom trying to hide from a camera. Edited December 15, 2011 by DaddyG
Calm Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 . We already know how Mormons view Mormons. Everyone and everything is perfect.of course, that is why our lessons are always about how great we are and never about how we can improve as individuals, families or community.
Sky Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 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???These are the kinds of things we see in the gay pride parades that happen every year in every large city around the country. Most people in the LGBT community seem to have no problem with it and even see it as a good thing.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.Brothers and Sisters
KevinG Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I think Shumway was going for something like this:...trying to invoke a Dorthea Lange type image. The photos were short of this quality. That was not what was offensive to me. It was the commentary trying to be edgy and provoke a reaction. That fell short too.Overall I didn't get much angst from the essay. I'd be more offended if it were my family and my nephew or brother decided to try and catch me without my underwear, or show my girls messy room.
Sky Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 In 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.I’m not saying I agree with him, but I think he does have at least a certain amount of sympathy for his subjects. From the TIME article:Even though Shumway no longer shares his family’s faith, they are still bound together. “I love to see my family and photographing them over the years, I feel, has brought us closer. They’ve totally accepted me, even though I’m no longer Mormon. I give them pictures, and some even have them framed on their walls.” Shumway said. “I feel that photographing my family in Utah is cathartic, especially in the very beginning. For a while I did have a love-hate relationship with Happy Valley and Utah. Going back year after year, I feel now I’ve come to accept this place, what it is and how it operates.”
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Pa Pa,Not sure which link you are referring to here.The one that takes through the photos were there is a nude man.
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 These are the kinds of things we see in the gay pride parades that happen every year in every large city around the country. Most people in the LGBT community seem to have no problem with it and even see it as a good thing.Brothers and SistersPeople in the gay community that like gay pride like gay pride pictures. The majority of gay people in the United States and San Francisco in particular neither participate in the gay pride parade nor do they attend. Many think it is a joke. If you have ever been to a gay pride parade, you will find that it is mostly straight people watching it. In San Francisco, it is the single largest event the city puts on. Over a million people come to watch the gay pride parade. Believe me, there are not a million gays in the Bay Area.But to deny that it is at least part of gay community would be untruthful. I would say the same about these photos in the Mormon community. I know enough Mormons that you could take similar pictures of their messy homes and unkept kids to know that it is not a complete frabrication.You are right. Brother and Sisters did have a sane normal gay couple on it. Too bad it is cancelled. But thanks for the reminder.
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 of course, that is why our lessons are always about how great we are and never about how we can improve as individuals, families or community.Mormons like any other group don't mind showing their imperfections amongst themselves. They just don't want a national magazine portraying them in an unflattering way. Hence this thread.
Deborah Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Mormons like any other group don't mind showing their imperfections amongst themselves. They just don't want a national magazine portraying them in an unflattering way. Hence this thread.Mormons don't claim even in public to be perfect. What they don't appreciate is someone with an agenda portraying them as a group inaccurately.
lachrymolotov Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 What if someone was just portraying their family and their life from their viewpoint and then everyone else misinterpreted what that meant and got angry? Who would be the foolish party in that scenario?
KevinG Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Mormon Pride parade:Gay Pride parade:[not safe to post]
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I don't appreciate those photos either. But the Folsom street fair and sisters of perpetual indulgence don't help your argument.And yet somehow those men are caught in public during parades and street fairs committing lewd acts in front of hundreds and thousands. I have yet to see a photo essay catching them running to the bathroom trying to hide from a camera.Yeah our community is pretty diversified. And perhaps because of the photos you have seen or maybe only heard about from Folsom Street Fair, you think that all gays behave this way. Or even that a lot of gays behave this way. The gay community is probably even more diverse than the Mormon community is. Which is probably why so many on this thread are so unhappy with a slight variation of what they want the Mormon family portrayed in Time. The more narrow of view of what a Mormon should be, the more offensive photos that divert from that narrow definition becomes. I get it.
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Mormons don't claim even in public to be perfect. What they don't appreciate is someone with an agenda portraying them as a group inaccurately. And just what is his agenda again?
KevinG Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 What if someone was just portraying their family and their life from their viewpoint and then everyone else misinterpreted what that meant and got angry? Who would be the foolish party in that scenario?What if my brother decided to mock my belief in modesty and wearing a sacred garment by posting my bare nekkid behind in a national photo essay? Who would be the dead man in that scenario?Again... I'm not offended or full of angst. The comments defending the essay or comparing it to photos of gays in full parade regalia are more offensive than the essay itself.I think the photos are average and a weak attempt at a Dorthea Lange type essay. The commentary is weak and condescending to the photographers "normal" Mormon family. The context during a national campaign where a Mormon happens to be running for President is not a coincidence be it an attempt at empathy or a mild slam. I can't read the editors mind so I can't tell which it was.
Recommended Posts