my lolita - captions and power

i agree with you.. the title for this picture is tasteless… in my eyes she is just a girl… pregnant or not… but girl.. .

Yeah, I agree it’s in bad taste and not respectful. Lolita is an object of sexual obsession, a lost love that died in childhood and been replaced by something innappropriate.

“What else do want me to call her?”

Well, what’s her name? Go over and ask her, or ask the fixer to ask, then call her her name.

exactly… maybe she is pregnant but she is still a child…
no need to put a label “lolita”… he doesnt know her story

And since when do our standards of when pregnancy is acceptable, become the standard to judge others?

‘she is 13, pregnant, what else do you want me to call her?’

That bothers me even more than the label. It shows indifference and disdain for the people he was shooting.

Too bad.

but… as we probably noticed (I hope we all did), this caption “lolita” just goes to show true about photographer (who wrote this) not about this girl

i think Brian’s comment is exactly right…it’s the photographer’s callous response that’s ugly and disdainful. i’m surprised by Reichmann’s response…he ought to know better. i photograph amongst other cultures, and always try to obtain people’s real names. when i can’t, i can’t… i just don’t give them made-up names. yes, he ought to know better.

This confuses me – how does the photographer both know her age and that she is pregnant but yet does not know her name. She doesn’t look pregnant to me, but rather the way she is standing might give that impression… Nor do I see a Lolita-ish quality, just a young girl who noticed a split second ago that she was being photographed. Either way seems shortsighted.

I don’t see the photographer’s name on the site. Is it the owner of the site who made the photograph? I agree, btw, with your post Asim. (I’d bet that one of the photographer “leaders” was photographing this little girl with his Nikon and 50mm while this photographer shot over his shoulder.)

It is really disgusting, his attitude is DISGUSTING, arrogant, with any sense of delicacy and respect specially for such an innocent subject, which in his mind may appear to be “photogenic” ( I think you might know what kind of photogenic I am talking about). I imagine that little innocent girl on the Amazon (Yes, pregnant and innocent),. Because reality is that in that remote area does not give them the choice to study, have not basic rights and are constantly expose to HUMAN PREDATORS which in a lot of cases are the cause why they got early pregnant. I would picture it another way: Imagine the photographer taking a photo of a well paid escort here in Brazil, then using an inappropriate caption which the subject ( the well paid escort –who for sure would have access to a fancy computer or any kind of media-) find and demand legally the photographer, then I think it would be another story. Unfortunately this little girl might not be able to write/and or read her own name, let alone find her picture on internet and fight for her own rights. This photographer is the kind of “person” that unfortunately one of us could or would find on our way, and deserve to have his ass kicked.
F..#$%!

Such caption is a one of the worst examples of manipulation done to the images.

But maybe he just shot stuff for himself ? Not documentaries, but enjoyable snapshots ?

It does not matter who did he shot for, it made it PUBLIC, It is published.

You know what I have a better idea. I would write an article on it and try to contact institutions here which are in charge of the rights of people in the amazon.

after clicking the expedition workshop link it looks like the fourth person, respectevly, the guy who took the pictures is Michael Reichmann and more, he is ‘the publisher and primary author of this web site’ as it stays written there. Is there any way of inviting him to read this discussion? it might give him a chance to reflect over his attitude, make some changes, maybe. I am too uppset of this whole ‘lolita’ thing, i’d rather not say what crosses my mind right now.

agree with you guys! One month ago i shot a reportage about a community of transvestites in Lima. Most of them were under age and sexually exploited. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the mood of the reportage turned out not that dramatic, sometimes even sensual (check it on my gallery). And that was because they were naturally sensual and just nice. But I never ever wrote any comment or gave “strange nick name” after these guys. I reported their names and objective facts about their life. Shooting a picture makes already a very strong statement from the photographer, and I think that you really shouldn’t go further..

The tag is inappropriate not only for its brevity — as if you could sum up this adolescent’s situation in one short term that is derived from another culture with very different connotations than those that are actually more descriptive and appropriate here — but also for its misunderstanding of the term lolita" — while I know that the word has become a catch all phrase, the fact is Lolita was a conniving, manipulative, cynical girl, a literary invention superbly wielded by the author in order to deflate the comfortable notions we all have about girlhood, innocence and American purity. It is a satire on cultures (old world and new world) as well as of hapless individuals. With all respect Aga, even considering her age and her different culture (which this photog clearly doesnt grasp very well), this girl is not “just a girl” though she is of course callow and vulnerable, una mujercita con poco mundo. The term is entirely inadequate: Nabokov’s wicked humor is entirely lost when one uses the term in the manner generally accepted by people these days, as in this very instance. However, I wouldnt entirely dismiss the photographer’s snap judgment - yes, it is a lapse in taste, judgement and understanding (which now that I think of it is everything documentary photography shouldnt be, so maybe we should castigate him harshly indeed!!!!) - but all the righteous indignation expressed here fails to acknowledge the fact that life in the barrios means that kids grow up quickly and in order to survive the girls learn very early on that they can control their environment and exercise some power by flaunting their charms. It is a trap of course, but I wouldnt idealize the situation too much – that is, the opposite reaction, evinced here on this thread, appears to me to be just as unrealistic, culture-conditioned and inadequate. This sort of thing is very common in the barrios here, for sure. So while I definitely feel that the term is inappropriate, there is still an uncomfortable reality here that you all are not addressing and I think that this discomfiture is important to acknowledge and define — though not with a term like “lolita.” on the other hand, I dont think naming the subject solves the problem at all. Susan Sontag made a similar point once (and which is discussed on Jim Johnson’s blog "here) the problem lies in what Marxist critics in the Lukacsian tradition called “reification” — how terms can impose limiting identities and thus ideological limits on our power to understand the nature of another person’s alienation or entrapment in a socially oppressive situation. Naming an individual it seems to me doesnt really solve the problem — it is a start maybe, but a fuller caption is really what is needed.

Yes, G. Muj-Lindroos is right. It is Michael Reichmann who shot the photo. His name is not appearing because he is talking about the workshop he leads along with other photographers he mentions.

“In April, 2007 together with world famous photographer Jay Maisel, colour management expert Andrew Rodney, and naturalist Fiona Reid, I lead an expedition workshop on a riverboat on the Amazon.”

If you follow the link, you’ll find his name.

Reichmann does not have the sensibility of a photojournalist who has to take photos in different cultures all the time without a judgement. Richmann puts his judgement based on his western world view.

It just occurred to me what the crux is here: time spent with individuals. documentary photography gains in understanding and power as more time is spent with the people you photograph — not always perhaps but often enough — and of course what is lacking here is time spent with the girl to find out more about her and explain it. So what we are left with is a none too great pic and a brief tag wrested from its original context and with little real understanding of its full import and origin. Thus, in a sense, we get a sketch of an idea rather than a real idea with power to move the viewer and help us walk a little in the girl’s shoes. and frankly the cursory nature of this photog’s endeavor is manifest not only in the this pic but all over his blog.

I have sent over an email regarding this thread and have invited him to participate, or at least address the above statements. We shall see….

My thoughts, there is no accounting for taste, and Jon is dead on about the documentary photography statement. I find the image mediocre, but the caption is terrible not to mention the statement that follows, “We found the people of Amazonia to be universally warm, welcoming, and unhesitant about having their photographs taken.”

Matt, i was about to do the same. Jon is right, there is no accounting for taste but he definitely needs to learn a few things from here. i’m so angry at this …. damn’ i was almost doing what he did to the poor girl and give him ‘names’

I, for one, don’t think we can transform the like of Michael Reichmann with photojournalists’s points of view.

Reichmann’s title just berays his world view and judgement. Photojornalists’ mission is take photos without a bias and present them for the rest of the world, probably not lecturing the likes of Michael Reichmann. I am pretty sure that there are many Richmanns in the world.

but it’s worth a try. i would say it’s a duty, if it works or not. otherwise why bother to spend time and judge him here

bad taste? i think it’s more than that, the guy problably doesn’t have big moral value…or none, to do such thing.

Take pix without a bias? I strongly disagree. There is no such thing as objectivity or representations without “bias” — that is chimerical. Bias is important: “Having an opinion is part of your social contract with readers.” (Peter Schjeldahl). The ethical responsibility of a reporter, artist or storyteller of any ilk is not to avoid bias but to recognize and acknowledge it. Therein lies the power of storytelling.

well, after watching the guys website i think that he just leads a bunch of rich americans to some poor caboclo families wich get paid to have their photos taken… this has nothing to do with understandung an other culture or wanting to understand other people, its rather some entertainment programe for rich and bored people, who want to tell about their great adventures at home…and show such silly photos. to call the girl lolita just shows that he has no knowledge of whats going on there…maybe he should just spend more time living with the people that he photographs rather than shooting them with his 400mm tele from his luxury boat…

Don’t misundertand me although I just thought of that possibility. If you feel strong enough about the appropriateness of his title, you can write an e-mail to that effect.

Reichmann has his own freedom to name the picture as he did.

I once was corresponding with a photographer by e-mail. He is an Israeli soldier as well, as it turned out. I was appalled to find his attitude toward the Palestinians. Maybe I should have pointed out his biased view, but I just stopped the correspondence. I wish I could have continued the correspondence and was able to listen to his points of view.

On the other hand, my next-door neighbor, a Republican, is friendly to me, but had a strong view for the war in Iraq. Lately he changed his mind somewhat. He is unhappy with what is going on in Iraq. He is recalling how ugly the war was when he fought in World War II against the Japanese.

I’m pretty sure he has seen my anti-war sign in the living room window, but he continues to be friendly to me. I have been listening to him, but have not tried very hard to argue with him.

i wouldn’t make judgements on reichmann at this stage…none of us (so far in this thread) know him personally. what does appear however from his reply to Asim is that it was tasteless and offensive. he was probably overly defensive which clouded his judgement…and just shot from the hip.

reichmann’s website is well regarded within the photo community and is informative. does this excuse his tasteless reply?…of course not…but let’s give the fellow the chance to visit this thread, reflect on what he said…and perhaps he’ll explain himself. and i don’t think he’s a photojournalist…but rather a landscape photographer?

jon,

i agree. the concept of objectivity is an illusion. i look at the snapshot and caption in question, not to mention reichmann’s explanation, and wonder what an objective response from me could be. i have a 14-year-old daughter..

journalist or not, he is a human being, thus he may want to think for a second before applying labels to people he doesn’t know … otherwise, if he feels he is entitled to it, he simply opens the door to anybody he wants to label him. you don’t need to be a journalist to have some minimum common sense. it’s not about objectivity, it is just common sense.

in my opinion its absolutely necessary to deal with the story behind the people you photograph… why does the photographer not know the girls name? why is he so shure about the girl beeing pregnant? i can´t tell from this picture…especially in the amazon many children get worm infections, which also result in those big stomachs. best would be to ask the girl, but unfortunately she probably will never see her photo on the internet and can´t tell what she thinks about it.

The written word often tells more about the one who writes than about what (or in this case) who he writes.

luminous landscape is beside flikr the who is who in superficiality!

photographic invasion
“ME take picture now of you, ME later publish” hunga bunga… “ME don´t care about the rest”

I think Reichmann is treating the girl as his art photography object and he is not claiming to be a photojournalist.

His approach and that of a photojournalist are just different. The title “Lolita” comes from his imagination, however distorted that might be.

It is not possible to impose the understanding of a photojournalist on a non-photojournalist.

Art photography is imaginative while documentary photography has to be factual.

Tomoko, I don’t think that art photography, or any other kind of photograpy for that matter, is a free pass for not having respect for the one who stands in front of the lens.

if this is art photography, art photography is in serious trouble.

tomoko,

i don´t think that it is important wether he sees himself as an “art” photographer or as a “photojournalist”- its just the basics in dealing with other human beeings, its about respect to the girl, a thing which reichmann definitely lacks. and yes, he definitely treats the girl as an object, but thats a very wrong approach in dealing with others, no matter wether you want to photograph them or not. if he himself sees him as an “artist”, its even more important to know something about what you are photographing. at least those “artists” i know are very dedicated people, they are everything but superficial… but for me reichmann is a rolemodel for superficiality, at least for what i can tell from his website.

In my opinion, most everyone here is making a moral judgement on Reichmann by his title of the photo he took.

Art photography can be outrageous whether you like it or not. I was told by a friend that she did not agree with my title of one photograph she said she liked. In my case, my subjects are not human beings, so I can say whatever I liked.

In this case, Reichmann’s subject was an underage girl. Reichmann treated this as a sexual object. I don’t think his photo of her is a powerful image as art photography. It is almost like one of images photojournalists shoot, and probably that is why we are confused.

I don’t think it is possible to expect other photographers to adopt the MO of a photojournalist.

Tomoko, next time i see you around i take a shot of you, call you a lolita and smile, i’m just an artist. art nowadays tend to be outrageous, you know, just don’t feel hurt .. i’m in a sleezy mood, i feel like treeting any chick around me as a sexual object, pardon me, i can do what i please couse art excuses me, you know i simply forgot about the fact that you’re another human being, my pic is not going to hit the galleries, so that excuses me plenty, i’m just confused … a bit. Lolita was not ‘art’ shot in a studio. maybe that makes a difference

I have received an email from Mr. Reichmann, he has no plans to address the issues mentioned at this forum. He has however, stated that he would prefer to address the issue on his forum.

I am not in the habit of quoting people from personal emails, and will not do so here out of respect for Mr. Reichmann, suffice to say his opinion of our discussion, disapproval, etc is that it is ridiculous as far as he is concerned, and mentions that no apologies for the caption should will be made.

But, as Asim suggested in the title “Captions and power”, should be the topic discussed.

michael has a right to not respond. the object of this discussion was the act of captioning images. michael’s morality is not the issue here. we should not make it. he has made his position clear and i at least accept that though i do not agree with it. i would suggest that we not make this personal. i used the example of this picture to raise an issue, not to target michael personally. since his picture had provoked the thoughts and his words some consternation.

we should, if we continue this, concentrate on the issue at hand; how images are captioned, their ability to color our reading of an image, and how our prejudices can affect what we think we have seen and want to show. i felt that the image in question had a misleading and degrading title. that was my opinion based on reading the information about the picture and the photographer’s own words about how he arrived at his title. i wanted to hear how others would handle a situation like this and whether they felt the title was effective, misleading, whether it transformed the picture, how the caption was arrived it, our examination of our prejudices as we work with our own pictures etc. etc.

thanks all.

asim

I would say that it would be best to let Reichmann’s audience respond to his photo. Asim Rafique, the first poster, will have a choice of responding to Reichmann’s reaction or of ignoromg it.

The photo is that of a young girl who looks like being pregnant, but she is not naked. Reichmann just projected his own view onto the girl. We really don’t know her age, either.

I happen to have a photo of a tree trunk which has a protruded portion. I called the photo “Expecting.”

An elderly friend of mine once told me of her embarrassment when she asked a young-looking woman with her belly stuck out, “When are you expecting.” It turned out the woman she asked the question was not pregnant. I also had my own experience of thinking of someone in Baltimore to be expecting. I never asked the question recalling the embarrassment my elderly friend experienced. The woman here turned out to be much older than she looked to me, and I’m glad that I did not ask the question.

We associate the expanded belly of a girl/woman with pregnancy. We can’t think of other explanations.

Did he even bother to ascertain that she was pregnant? I remember from my Africa years that some parasitic infections also cause distended abdomens…

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lolita-affair.shtml

And thus spake Michael Reichmann…

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lolita-affair.shtml

Wikipedia “"Lolita is a slang term for a seductive, sexually attractive, or sexually precocious young girl”"

Reichmann: “Seemed appropriate to me.”

nothing more to add……

i wouldn’t worry… he’s a crap photographer, his captions r crap snd so is the website.

Nothing about the girl indicates that she is pregnant. To state that she is, without proof, is slanderous. Of course, the risk is small, given her apparent economic situation.

Her body shape and proportion, especially in that pose, is perfectly normal for a child of that age. Her pose is one of innocence, a normal reaction to the attention she found suddenly focused at her. It is the photographer who has sexualized her, exploited that innocence and turned her into a fetish object.

His title is not only inappropriate, it’s disgusting.

The only way the title may fit is if you go back and reread Nabokov. In the book, Humbert Humbert not only sexualized the child and molded her to fit his sick fantasy, he created the name “Lolita” from her more mundane name of Dolores. Here, the photographer has sexualized this girl, created a fantasy around her and given her a trite appellation.

The subject becomes not the girl, after all, but the sick imaginings of the photographer.

Asim, i don’t want to be rude, and i’m sorry to perhaps being reacting in a very harsh way, taking this thread to the morality site. But I can’t help it. sorry. it’s all connected. the girl is 13, surely under age, and the author transformed her in a sexual object when he gave that caption. it’ immoral and totally irresponsible. If people are reacting this way (and i know sometimes we react over our heads here, but not the case now) it’s because this image represents one of the worst aspects of photography. cheers all

To my eye, the girl appears about nine or ten years old.

It’s not a case of imposing undue morality.
It’s basic human decency.

The biggest issue, for me, is perhaps that the subject of the photograph most probably has no idea that she has been labelled as such, with all the baggage and moral judgments attached. I wonder if she were to know, how she would react.

The paramount relationship is between photographer and subject, and the former needs to make sure the latter understands the context, etc of the process of having a photograph taken, and how it would be used.

And yeah, in this example, I’ll make the presumption that this trust was never there.

He will not deign to participate here, but you can read his statement then send him your thoughts. mreichmann@luminous-landscape.com

Hi, this is my first post here because it was reading this thread that compelled me to join up so I could reply.
It strikes me that perhaps many of you have never actually visited the Amazon and have seen how these people live.
I think Reichman’s title is perfect given all the discussion it is generating. Here is a poor girl a world away from most of us. At a very early age she is making “suggestive” poses when a camera is pointed at her, implying that she is either trained or is instinctively trying to arouse sexual feelings with the possible goal of trying to sell herself.
I know this sounds harsh but I have been there and this is how it can be. I travelled up and down the Amazon from Recife to Manaus while working onboard a Princess cruise ship. We were continuously warned about the high degree of prostitution in the villages and cities we would be stopping at. In some of these places young girls who looked very similar to “Lolita” would literally grab on to you and try and drag you away. They would strip naked in front of you and beg you to take them in exchange for money. This is not an exaggeration.
This is an unfortunate way of life for many girls there and I do not believe Reichman’s photo and caption are exploiting it. I believe Reichman’s title is appropriate because this is a reality that not everyone is aware of. Now we are talking about it, which is the first step towards change.

The fact that the reality coincides with his phantasy doesn’t entitled anybody to apply a label on an unknown character. If he had met the girl talked to her, find out she was a ‘lolita’, the photographer would be welcome to tell herstory as such, a story that would be worth hearing. The sadness of a broken youth. But it looks like he is just applying labels without even knowing what he is talking about. The whole thread is about his lack of awareness regarding the picture he is presenting, not the fact that the pic happens to fit into the reality of the region.

Okay, this is your first post here. I would like to respond to your post but I refuse to do so if you don’t sign with your real name. Please do that pronto so we can discuss further.

o, my god….

working on a post, will put up tonight…i dont know which is more contemptable: Reichmann’s title or is dithering, self-serving, abominably superficial response to the serious questions raised here. That is finds this discussion akin to some orwellian moral-police is further indication of the “depth” to which he has thought about this entire issue: humuncilian for sure. I’ll address all this later.

I second Keith’s concern. I too am a bit shocked as well at photogdave’s reaction. Let me add to this that, just last year, I had a student from Brazil whose family was indignous and who’d left the rainforest basin to study in Brazilia and who’d have much to say about this (i’ve written him an email as well)…..this post is becoming increasingly depressing and harrowing, more about that letter:

photogdave: how about real names so we can continue this.

bob

Yes exactly, Bob. Reichmann’s title is bad enough, but the cavalier attitude of being above the fray and discussion because he considers himself an artist and as such his imagery does not contain social statements is well, just so much horseshit…..
More later from me too.

Originally, having wanted to stay out of this morass, the lilt and swerve of the ideas which are now bubling up have been compelling enough for me (rather pretentiously) to chime the hell in. Originally, I thought Mr. Reichmann’s label of “lolita” was, well, obnoxiously empty-headed and boorish, a typical example of thoughtlessness masquerading as clever acquity. It was depressingly infantile (intellectually, emotionally, and more-to-the-point, artistically) and wrong-headed: completely and untterly unfortunate and doltish. It never arrests: the ignorance and insensitively and idiotic nature of ourselves, each of us. So, okay i thought: he’s a regular guy making regular photographs (and no Mr. Reichmann, your work is not provocative—i’ll address that later) writing a blog filled often with platitudinous advice about photography and his endeavors. And so what: no harm no foul. Boorish and loutish as the title was, I thought: there goe’s a nother idiot (yes, i am using this word in its “vernacular” connotation since I do not know Mr. Reichmann personally): idiotic in the sense of this: has not insight into the use of words or the depiction of people he is photographing. He may be an intelligent person; however, his title certainly betrays that inclination. However, his bebuttle on his website and the recent attending remarks about this photograph with title suggests some anthropological insight on the behalf of Mr. Reichmann and young girls in the Amazon is beyond the pale: it deserves the proper confrontation.

Shine a light upon the flagging stones of shadow….

However, to counter MR. Reichmann’s obnoxious and wrongfully placed charge of a screed that the above members are a group of vigilante “moral police,” let me state at the outset that my objection to his empty-headedness as a question of morally but one more of insensitivity and alarming obtuseness. But, shit, I can say the same think about myself as well, on innumerable occassions. However, his own lecture to us is so filled with depressing and myopic understanding of the concerns of those who found his “lolita” lable depressing, inappropriate and reckless that I felt compelled to offer something for him to chew on. Remove the title: no, of course not, that’s his choice and his decision. Is this a witch hunt? Of course not. But let me state clearly that this is a forum to discuss photography (and other issues) and the bulk of the work being done here is documentary/PJ work and this community exists to discuss and confront and confound and entwine and entertain and exert life into the inert. That Mr. Reichmann is shocked only reminds me how deluded and isolating the internet has fostered the environment in which people continue to think and communicate….so it goes, god bless mr. rosewater….

Originally, after having read Asim post yesterday, and after having read most of the posts over the past 48 hours, I thought it not particularly insightful or beneficial to comment as most of the contributors to Asim’s questions have pretty much outline the essential and (YES, Mr. Reichmann) very important and critical questions raised not only by the “title” (which is, in fact, much more than words, just as your lamentable and lame discounting of the discussion that’s taken place here as is not sufficient to address that which you, especially as a blogger, have generated) but the entire nomenclature by which you attempt to defend your tedious and shallow interpretation of this young girl merits a response.

My first reaction a few days a go was one of disappointment, though unsurprising. The title is both borish and boring, just as is the photograph. As a photographer, I find Riechmann’s photograph completely uninteresting and slavish at best and, more to the point considering his defense of his “art” project (something that completely contradicts the reason why he went to the Amazon and his initial explanation of his trip and this photo), as an insightful depiction completely lamentable, but I digress.

Let us be specific, particularly since Reichmann’s has chosen (of all places) to use Wikipedia as his compass point around which he attempts to suture his justification for those who found the title risable. The etymology of the word is pretty simple: Coined idiomatically from Nabokov’s “Lolita,” the term has come to mean and suggest “slang term for a seductive, sexually attractive, or sexually precocious young girl.” What both Reichmann and Wikipedia fail to describe is the “meaning” “suggestion” and use of that definition. Unlike Nabokov’s Dolores, or Lol (in ankle clipped socks, standing all ….), “lolita” suggests a young woman, pre-teen who willingly and knowling endeavors to, through cunning and lithe-seduction, win over the heart and soul and prick of her edler paramours. Indeed, a “lolita” is a young girl who fucks older men, men who’d been stolen of their virtue by the unvirtuousness of these nymphetes….In other words: it is an old, addled fucks wet dream. A carnivorous male who, mistaken and misguided, sees in the light of the eyes of a child, who swims in the dreams of the turn of the swerving hip of a child, the maturation of their lascivious predilection. In other words: again: old men dreaming of fucking young, girls. This is what Lolita (the word, not the novel means: for Lol was in fact not the seductress,) as world and as suggested by Reichman connotates. Lolita, now more than ever, means that: young girls who willingly seduce and entrap and fuck older men, not boys, not teens, not friends, but older men: uncles, fathers, teachers, tour guides, etc. It is a delusion, a pipe-dream conjured by limpid men who in the details of children and blooming budding girls find their hope to abate their withering pricks and their disappearing mortalities. Lolita is a dream, an illusion, a chimera hoped for and even more now perpetuated by this kind of horrid ethnolography that Reichmann has engaged in.

Is Reichmann an immoral bastard, of course not (i hope). Is he foolish, insensitive, boarish and (in his most recent self-justification) depressingly irresponsible: HELL YES! He should be less disingenuous about his decision and his rather patronizing refusal to confront these issues.

He has, in fact, labeled her something that she is not: a python coiling around the unsuspecting loins and groins of men. Moreover, he makes the worst kind of labeling: in the gling of light captured in her eyes, in the pose, he has projected onto her his deep-seated ideas. What he sees as “titled a photograph of a clearly sexually provocative young woman with a word in the popular vernacular that, I believe, adds to its overall effect. It is not an editorial statement. it is the title of an art work…” is a ridiculously degenerative understanding of childhood, children and more importantly this young woman. I imagine what her or her family’s reaction would have been had they been told that she was being called a “lolita.” Moreover, he has the responsibility to understand the full relationship of that world. She is not a “model” acting as such or role playing but in fact is a young girl whose posed and his attendant and subsequent reaction (hunkered over his computer) is to label her as such. Art project? Christ, that’s lame. This wasn’t an art project nor was his original intend (gleemed by his original description) was not sensational or provocative (his photography is neither) but was an attempt to share with his viewers and admirers his work from his trip to the Amazon basin. As he has written elsewhere on his page, his photography is an exploration of the world and its color and light: a luminous appraising or praising (a doxology to light and the world of landscape and people). His recent reaction is nothing more than a superficial attempt to couch the lamentable title in a vernacular which he things will insulate him from criticism.

More importantly, while labeling her a young harlot (let’s be honest folks about the use of this world), he in no way attempts to explore the context of her life as a young girl, nor the attendant sexuality of her life or living. Sexuality is ripe in all of us and is particularly ripe in young, growing children. I know: I am a father and an uncle. However, the sexuality of children and pre-teens is profoundly different from the sexuality we adults experience: that is why pedophiles are so grotesquely confused and dangerous. Teens and often pre-teens explore their body because it is a confusing and fecund place, a gather of life and the tearing of limbs and emotions. Often the body transforms long before awareness (children play with their genitals, though this has no relationship to adult sexuality). What Reichmann sees as a “seductive” pose, I see as a young girl who is happy and playful and is fully enjoying the experience of being photographed by a stranger, who I’m sure was flattering. I see joy and arching, and even if during this moment there was something more attuned to “sexuality”, most likely that was something far far removed than what Reichmann’s has labeled “Lolita”…Lolitas are dreamed up by men bent over their computers gasping for air and for deathlessness encounter: a carnivorous hunger, unreal…

Moreover, this kind of labeling actually deserves to be challenged and should be and I am profoundly disappointed by his reaction. This is not about the morality of sexuality, but about the morality, as Robert Go and others have written, about labeling a child, a stranger, something that she neither knows nor understands she is. I challenge Reichmann to send his picture to the parents, the village of this girl and to translate the title and discover their reaction….

the issue about “art project” is also assinine. The photograph was presented as a “documentation” of his trip, just as the images beneath, to the Amazon. Just as with all the work he shows on his website, the photo was a depiction of the world that he encounters. He has never (and i spent a fair time looking at his galleries and reading his blog posts in the last 3 days) once promulgated the idea that his photography is some kind of “provocative art project.” To the contrary, he has at times railed against a visual aesthetic that does not “beautiful” or depict the world in the “luminous” cask of light that surrounds this waking life. In fact, concerning this young girl, he wrote affectionately of her and the people of this village, in glowing and complementary terms: open, effusive, helpful, gregarious, etc. This contravenes the very idea of the world “lolita” which, in its mean (venacular and otherwise) suggest a Machivellian desire for power: sexual power. Moreover, he aligned himself in the tradition of using that trip to document the people he met and encountered: he didnt use them as some kind of visual apparti for some conceptual idea. Is Mr. Reichmann confusing “aesthetic” project with “art” project? The usual tripe that comes up when people don’t know really how to define their work or what they are after. It is clear, Mr. Reichmann is a photographer of nature and enjoys photographing nature and also enjoys photographing people and neither his work nor his words betray this, until the other day when suddenly he was countering the arguments about “lolita” with the notion of his work acting as a agent provocateur a la people’s perception of (what?): girls, amazon girls, indigineous people?…..

The more troubling aspect is the recent discussion of prostitution among Amazon villages/people: the question of prostitution and exploitation in this area and throughout the world (the developed and the undeveloped). I am even more horrified to thing that Mr. Reichmann’s simple and innoculous photograph is now the spearhead for a conversation about child sexual slavery and exploitation. Come on. It’s a simple not terribly interesting or technically good photograph about a young girl who was, most likely through the joy and fascination of being photographed by a north american tourist, playing in front of a lens. That MR. Reichmann has insight into the working of her world or the workings of prostitution is grandiose and far-fetched. He took a simple photograph and to suggest that his title is an invocation of the reality of this, or other, young girls lives is even more preposterous and irresponsible than M.r Reichmann’s laborous title.

This work is not anthropolic nor ethnographic. There is no context of this girl’s life or her environment nor does the photograph shed any insight into the emotional, economic, physical, familiar, social landscape of her life. I don’t judge Mr. Reichmann for that, because he’s simply making an amateur-like photograph of a young girl. That he called this young girl a “lolita” is more indicative of him, frankly, than is the reality of her or any of the girls in that or any village’s life. If the intention was to create a documenting photograph(s) about the life of a young girl, fine: it wasnt. If the intention was to make an art project about his reflections and interpretations of preternatual pre-teens chasing white north americans, fine: but it wasnt. That he called her a lolita IS STUPID AND EXPLOITIVE! I challenge him to show the image and the title to his guides and to the people in the village or offered him the opportunity to meet the girl.

In the end, my ridiculous diatribe is just as overly bewildering annoying as the title of the picture and as just as emptily prolix as his diatribe against this community.

We have responsibilities to what we say (and what we mean by those things: the meaning of who we are) and we have responsibilities as photographers: we have an engagement with this world and that bares responsibilities: not judicial but human. This judgment may be harsh but I equate his argument (the most recent one) with the following: i shoot my neighbor and his daughter, spend a few hours with them shooting candid shots and then later call my picture: daddy and his little whore, because I wish to: 1) create a provocative art project, though I failed to tell my subjects; 2) believe that there is some sexual tension that exists between them that they are not aware of, but i have so much insight as to warrant that, or 3) its my blog, i’ll do as i wish; 4) whore is just a playful word anyway, no harm no foul or 5) the word little whore suggests the nature of the wink of light that exists between the father and daughter as they were holding each other….etc etc etc…..

i dont know which is worse: philistines or ignoramuses…..

in the end, it is distasteful and depressing and more to the point categorically exploitive. I am sure she has no idea what she’s been labeled and I am sure her parents do not know either. That we have the right to say and photograph and suggest is one thing that we understand the culpability of our ignorance is another. LOLITA’s exist as figments of the imagination, primarily: fantasy that men have generally speaking. that children are sexual creatures is a truth that all parents understand and come to terms with, but their sexuality has almost nothing to do with adults, unless it is within an exploitive environment. That children sell their bodies are encouraged to do so, to lure tourists is an enslavement shackled upon them by adults, we dispairing, carnivorous adults…

It’s a shame primarily that MR. Reichman didnt just do the reasonable thing: admit that it was an idiotic and superificial and unfortunate title and leave it at that…..

the length, including my own boring (boorish too?) rant is an indication of this…..

frankly, he should be ashamed……and embarrassed for his lax judgment and thoughtLESSness….

sincerely,
Bob Black (my real name)

forgive the poorly written post….

If I took a photo of Reichmann on the street where he lives then titled it ‘fantasist’ or other names that spring to mind then I guess he would be onto his lawyers straight away.

For the record: i have sent my thoughts to Mr. Reichmann in an email as well, in all fairness inviting him to discuss this. I do not wish to bait him. However, I do wish that he deeply reconsider his tact and orientation to this…..

bob

I think it all depends on your interpretation of the word Lolita. Personally I’m going with the more innocent version. I looked up ‘Lolita’ on the free online dictionary and it came up with ‘A seductive adolescent girl’. So we have ‘seductive’ which according to the same dictionary can mean ‘pleasing to the eye or mind especially through beauty or charm’ and ‘adolescent’ youth, in the process of becoming an adult etc. Ok she looks a little younger than an adolescent to me but either way you all seem to have leapt on the most negative interpretation of the word. I find it interesting that there are a lot of views being expressed, lots of people attempting to impose their own world-view on someone being accused of imposing his world view inappropriately. I think this whole issue is being blown out of all proportion. Photogdave has probably decided to stay anonymous because he senses some of that mob mentality I see going on here.
Ok, got that off my chest. Have fun everyone.

John: im not sure about mob mentality. i think the problem is this: when you call someone, a girl, who you do not know “lolita” you do have a responsibility to understand the implications. I think what troubled me was his justification later. It was a silly title to a photograph that was clearly an affectionate one. Mr. Reichmann IS NOT a lech or pervert or immoral or any of that. It’s just thoughtless and not terribly clever. the problem is that we should be aware of the consequences of calling someone, innocently or not, something. I may call my friend (in russian) durak (fool) and he may laugh or he may be offended but i have to accept the consequences of that: more importantly neither she nor her family (i suspect) is aware of the label and the connotation. THAT is what i object to. Im not imposing anything: he’s free to do and think as he wishes (i would, also) never ask him to delete his picture/title, whatever: that would be anathama. It wasnt until the discussion of prostitution and the retaliation on the blog that got my dandruff up.

But, I also aknowledge that my own patronizing post was overblown, overwritten (poorly at that since i wrote it in a fever of typing) and most likely overstated. However, calling a young girl a lolita (even innocently) is boorish, totally boorish, not immoral. That he rejects this possibility and hides it in the nomenclature of “art project” or “moral police” is really depressing….

anyway, it is blown out of proportion (especially my stupid rant), but a reasonable approach would have been the thought behind else….

sorry for my tiresome post.

bob

last post from me (i promise) ;))))))>..

I hate “politically correct speech” as well and in no way to i wish to suggest that sexuality is not apart of people and that people should and shouldnt call people lolitas or whores or motherfuckers for that matter (that’ be me ;)) ), only this: the power of language comes from the understanding of the stories contained in them: if we dont understand the words we’re using why speak??>..

it’s not about using some kind of profolactive for speech, the opposite: allowing speech to bloom through our consideration of meaning…..

hope that’s more clear and less emotional ;)))

b

Has anyone here read Nabokov’s novel, Lolita? Reasonable persons would no more condemn MR for using the title than they would Nabokov for having originated it. I suppose the thought police also condemn Hellenic civilization for originating the story of Leda and the Swan. Not to mention Homer for his treatment of Briseis. Come on, people. Get real. Nice photo, Michael. Keep up the good work. I’ve enjoyed Luminous Landscape for years (always informative and challenging from an artistic point of view). You deserve better treatment than this. Everyone does.

MR didn’t call anyone “Lolita.” That is the title of an image he made. It’s just an image. If someone on the tour had painted an image of the scene which Reichmann photographed and had titled it “Lolita,” would the Thought Police still object? Neither image IS the person depicted. “Lolita” expresses something that MR felt the image communicates. It is part of the art object. It is not a person. Applying a title to an image does not characterize the person depicted in the image. Some of the people on this site seem to think that MR has said “the specific person depicted in this image is worthless, slimey, immoral, or depraved.” Similarly, a lot of people think (totally wrongly) that Nabokov wrote a depraved and immoral book. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Michael’s image makes you uncomfortable, go read Lolita. AAAUGH! I can’t stand the Thought Police. What would Orwell think?

Stuart: i have read Nabokov (more than once) and it seems that you have misconstrued the point, just as the vernacular use of “lolita” has nothing really to do with the novel, except the cursory origin: young Dolore “seduces” (that’s Humbert’s take) on a fragile and soulful man. In fact, as Jon correctly pointed out above, in many senses is not about “lolitas” at all such much as it is about morality, language, (language: my sin my soul…“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tonge taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta”…, incidentally, language in russian is yazik, which also means tongue, though Lolita was written in english of course), etc….

photographs depicting, provoking, exploring, understanding childhood sexuality are fine, just as books about pedophilia for example are fine: i would never never prohibit/ban/avoid discussion (written or spoken) or depiction, written or spoken of anything….i’ve seen photographs from a russian photographer of people having sex with corpses (art images) including with children photoshopped into the mileiu, and fine: let’s deal with the carnivorous animal we are: the more its out in the open, the better we deal and understand, period.

Michael’s image does not make me, personally, uncomfortable. The opposite: i find it not terribly interesting, photographically speaking. However, I do think it is a complimentary photograph of a young girl, a girl who is smiling and whom Michael enjoyed photographing: all good to me, no problems. My objection is that she is NOT a character in a novel; she is not a role playing actress: she is a real girl who does not know that she has been labled a “lolita” including the sexualized language that he’s now used to describe her in his defense.

That you believe this an Orwellian attack is, in fact, an example of Orwellian doublespeak. If, for example, the girl and her family knows that she’s being used as an art project: hell yea, go ahead, no problem. That you, and others, have villified us and grouped us as a “mob” of the morality police is petty: maybe as petty as you think our questions insight: that’s quite a rubic indeed. Lolita, i might had, a precursor (and im not talking of Lol the character and one who’d not lived in a kingdom by the sea), a writer who wrote in the 19th century a short story exacting that of Nabokov’s, 75 years prior…..the…

that you enjoy his blog and his photography is fine and I havent made any judgment morally about him or his work, but about the use of the title and his consequential “explanation” and justification: which is really what for me started this nonsense….

Okay: i retract the didactic bullshit.

I leave it at this: naming this photograph Lolita is as idiotic and superficial and irresponsible (he has the right to all of that) my own imbelcility with continuing….

thought, as orwell reminds, is a dangerous thing, when dispensed with teaspoons….

bob

This is not about MR, this is about the power of captions.

Secondly, this is not about personal points of view with regard to semantics, but more about a responsibility, at least in our paths (PJ/doc), to take consideration of the notion of cultural perceptions.

Sadly, this discussion, as usual here at LS, has become tangential, not a fault of the participants, but more a problem of process and communication.

Remember: The title of the post, was about the power of captions and context.

In this case “Lolita”, is a choice, perhaps a poor one, to caption an image absent of context. MR chose to disregard the wealth of perspectives embodied within LS. We have chosen a craft that is primarily concerned with images and context, as such we have a responsibility to perform our craft with surgical precision; the lolita fiasco is reason to heed Asim’s point about our choice of captions absent context.

Finally, and this is not a dig at MR, let us not forget that MR is a landscape and nature photog, he runs a website that obviously showcases his and his reader’s passion for light and how to capture it. I hope that when this settles, that MR and this community can realize that we both have something to gain from each other.

Enough of my “can’t we all get along” BS, I still stand by my opinion that the caption is tragic and the picture well, an easy grab. After all in such an environment with such an opportunity, one would hope to at least avoid the easy grab and dig a little further.

-M

The photograph of the young girl by Michael Reichmann is a social document. For him to state the opposite does a disservice to documentary photographers everywhere.
“This photograph is not documentary, nor a reportage image. It is art (or at least that’s its intention). It has no social, political or moral message. " —Michael Reichmann.
To further say that it has no message is also wrong.
Title or no title, he has created a document reflecting the reality of life for a young girl of the Amazonia. (This is my interpretation. Feel free to come up with your own.) And it might be art, but it is a social document. The two things are not mutually exclusive as Reichmann seems to state. Would he agree that Diane Arbus’ "Man at a parade on Fifth Avenue, N.Y.C. 1969” is art and not a social document? To state that could get you thrown in the art police jail, it seems.
This is to make the point that just because the photographer says that somehting is art, does not necessarily make it so, and apriori, exclude it from all other possible classifications. Especially when the object in question is posted to a public access site that receives 40,000 hits a day.
Secondly, the title of the piece is pejorative. I don’t care what the attitude of the subject is, the photographer has decided to add a charged, derogatory name to the image which represents the young girl. No one needs to run to their Wiki or dictionary to understand the meaning of ‘Lolita’. It has entered the vernacular with a direct meaning that supercedes it’s literary nuances. Would we even be concerned with this image if it were called “Amazonia girl in doorway” ? And lets put the shoe on the other foot. Brazilian photographer comes to the US and photographs Mr. Reichmann’s daughter or niece, titles it similarly and posts it on a much-traveled web page.
Thirdly. I really would expect more of a measured and frankly, intellegent response from Michael Reichmann. To just brand those with a contrary viewpoint as ‘morality police’ is really pointless. There are very serious concerns about words, power and imagery that were raised. At least the issue could have engendered a response that took into account the seriousness of the participants. Nobody was saying, “take the photo down”. We see a problem with the relationship between the photographic document and a loaded title. Yes the photographer has a right to name his work as he sees fit. I mean ‘Piss Christ’ probably raised a few hackles in it’s day. But it was displayed and it was debated. That’s all I would like to see is a response from the photographer that did not rely solely upon denigrating other photographers and their opinions, and which showed the artist’s openmindedness.

keith:

yes, exactly. that’s what i was trying to write earlier, but didnt’ have the patience to write more succinctly…..that’s the heart of the dark matter…

thanks,
bob

“"forgive the poorly written post….”"

Bob & Keith, thank you for that profound analysis.

to illustrate the real issues behind this image (instead of this flippant and sophistical discussion of “art” vs “documentary” photography), here is some hard data for you all to swallow — it comes from a World Bank report on the Dom. Rep. but I imagine that Brazil is not far behind:

“The age of onset of sexual activity in the Caribbean is the lowest in the world
(Blum, 2002, as cited in World Bank, 2003a). Data from the Caribbean Health Survey showed that of the 35 percent of students who reported having had sex, initiation occurred before the age of 13 for nearly two-thirds (including 82 percent of males and 52 percent of females), surpassing all other regions for which data is available (Halcon, 2003). In a related study, early initiation of intercourse was found to be predictive of weapon-related violence and gang involvement (among boys and girls), and alcohol use and running away (among girls) (Ohene, 2005). Teenage pregnancy in particular is a pressing concern as it is an important contributor to delivery complications at birth: the Dominican Republic ranks fifth in the Latin America region in number of births among 15-19 year-olds, nearly double the average for the region (Table 5.2). For more detailed discussion of individual level risk factors and program responses see Annex 5.1.”

This whole tread sounds like the Don Imus incident on radio. Sorry, I do see the point about a bad caption on a mediocre photo…but the sanctimonious outrage is a little much.If there was no caption there would be no comments.Just a so so photo. We have all seen the Steve McCurry pic of the Afgan or Indian girl. Was that an issue? No but for only one word…Lolita.The"Bonfire Of The Vanities"syndrome seems to exist even here on LS. Any Al Sharpton wannabees here?

Btw, for clarity’s sake, my comment about art vs documentary was not meant to include Keith’s perfectly logical response — I was referring to the statements made above his.

michal: damn, you were precocious ;)))))))))

greg: sanctimony is something indeed that plaques everyone and yu’re right ’bout that, but it aint about vanity and it aint about Tawany either mate,

jon: dont get the implication of “the statements above”, but that’s okay, i’ve said my peace…

cheers,
bob

Have you seen just how much it costs to participate in this Amazon workshop?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/workshops/amazon.shtml

How many VII workshops can you get for that?!

yes, I know… it was rhetoric…

Sorry to revive this, I dont want to beat a dead horse, but I thought that this was interesting. The author has posted the following comment on his blog and someone here on LS noted it in the Alerts section:

“This photograph is not documentary, nor a reportage image. It is art (or at least that’s its intention). It has no social, political or moral message. But as art sometimes is, it is intended to be provocative. It is intended to make the viewer think, ponder, wonder, be amused, be aroused, be confused, be challenged. Many pieces of art, photography or otherwise, have titles. This sometimes helps differentiate them from other pieces by the same artist, but sometimes the title is an intrinsic part of the objet d’art, sometimes giving it context , sometimes to guide the viewer, and occasionally to be enigmatic.”

I only cite it because I find the categorical distinctions to be so poorly understood — so many questions are begged it is hard to know where to start: because this photo is putatively a work of “art” it therefore carries no “social, political or moral message”? How is that possible? ALL utterances carry such messages, there is no escaping it. Art for art’s sake died with Oscar Wilde and even Wilde would never be caught making such an illogical statement. Then he contradicts himself yet again when he begins to discuss art’s role as provocateur. Finally the stuff about the purpose of titles is just more obfuscation: are we to assume that the title “lolita” is somehow intrinsic here? — the writer is clearly very confused. Wow what a mess of sloppy thought. Since when is Art free of moral consequence? And would we want it to be? that would rob it of its power.

Anyway, even though the author didnt like the reaction he got from all of us, clearly he was asking for it: " as Art . . . it is intended to be provocative. It is intended to make the viewer think, ponder, wonder, be amused, be aroused, be confused, be challenged" — well it certainly did provoke everyone so why should the author beef about it? Strikes me as somewhat disingenuous, or just another instance of his muddled thinking I suppose.

art? what a dodge!

Jon,
Just out of curiosity,do you remember the “Piss Christ”photo by Andres Serrano? Sort of the same dilemma between words and a bad image. The Serrano pic becomes famous but “Lolita” burns and dies. Neither was a photo worth looking at but for the title. Any thoughts here? You’re better than most at these academic distinctions.
G.

I doubt if he has any notions of what art is or can be, from what I gather he is pretty one dimensional guy, a my buddies and me type, like that Dick Cheney thingie.

“So many questions are begged it is hard to know where to start”…exactly, Jon. I didn’t. The whole thing reminds me of a parish camera club but with money. There’s an underlying confusion about notions of art / craftmanship and art / picturesque. Can’t really be bothered, though…

Maybe her name is Lolita.

Maybe the photographer is a pervert.

There is no thing as a moral or immoral work of art. There is only the good or the bad… Discuss, with apologies to Oscar Wilde.