RE: ಠ_ಠ
October 3, 2012 at 2:03 pm
(This post was last modified: October 3, 2012 at 2:04 pm by CapnAwesome.)
Meh, still seems pretty gimmicky to me. I don't care about the child nudity in this instance, people who see naked children and associate that with sex are the ones with the problem. However the whole thing seems pointless. They make a statement, 'the coal mines are polluting the water.' The coal mines say 'no we aren't' they show a picture of a child in brown soapy water.
That means nothing. It doesn't constitute proof, or truth or anything else for that matter. Maybe the coal mines are polluting the water, maybe they aren't, but offer me proof not some picture that could mean anything.
It's not journalist photography though, it's staged. It's clearly staged. You think the journalist stumbled into that bathroom?
That means nothing. It doesn't constitute proof, or truth or anything else for that matter. Maybe the coal mines are polluting the water, maybe they aren't, but offer me proof not some picture that could mean anything.
(October 3, 2012 at 11:59 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Journalistic photography is far from exploitation - unlike the dead fetus pictures your cohorts are so found of displaying on the roadside.
It's not journalist photography though, it's staged. It's clearly staged. You think the journalist stumbled into that bathroom?
