563 i saw something yesterday which bothered me. i am sharing it here as a way to understand my own response, and to highlight the power that words can have over a photograph. i came across this photo on the main page of a photo website that i frequently read: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/amazon07.shtml the photo was fine, but the title 'lolita' troubled me. it seemed a terrible judgement of a stranger, a young child, seen through the narrow angle of a telephoto zoom. perhaps my reaction not unexpected because, as wikipedia explains, the label 'lolita' has "...entered pop culture to describe a sexually precocious young girl.". it seemed a terrible judgement of this girl to give that picture this title. a simple 'young girl in a hut' would perhaps have sufficed. so i wrote to the owner of the site, suggesting that he may want to change the label on the photo. that the title may upset some people, like myself. his response to me was: 'Given the fact that she looks to be about 13 years old and is pregnant, can you think of a better name?' that left me even more disconcerted. upon further investigation i found this text on the website explaining the making of this photo: "I photographed this young woman (girl) standing in a doorway. Her posture, smile and gaze are at once provocative and innocent, and her beauty undeniable. This was not posed, though she was obviously aware that she was being photographed." at that moment i felt that this label 'lolita' had become an act of power, of ownership of the girl, her history, morality, personality and motivations. without any consideration of her, her culture, her social space, her history. and equally i felt that the gentleman had taken his own reactions to her, reactions that are purely about the photographer's personal responses to seeing this girl dressed as she is giving him this look, and attaching a provocotive label on her. it is certainly not about facts (he did not speak to her, meet her, know anything about the motivations behind the gaze, etc. etc.) the photo continues to bother me. it remains on the page. that is of course the site owner's right. but it raises in my mind the always worrying question about the ability of words to so overwhelm a photo so as to completely change it meaning. or direct our thoughts towards only one meaning. john berger and jean mohr had experimented and discussed this issue in their works. looking at this picture makes me think that they were right. what do you think? asim 78 2007-05-15T08:08:14Z 0 2008-03-12T12:55:55Z false 13700 false 2587 2007-05-25T20:11:51Z stockholm true false photography_as_power_and_ownership___captions_and_photographs 1 2008-03-12T12:55:55Z 3333