Comments on: Why Alan’s Frustrated

By: Cactus

Cactus — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 05:09:44 +0000

The Bag’s done a super setup on this one!
My first take on the top photo of Hillary was how did they get that intimate photo without her getting annoyed. LOL! When you study the B&W it becomes apparent that she is stationed there by her handlers, and one person per is allowed for 15 minutes of fame (or probably 15 seconds).
Again, what a difference between the color and B&W shots of Obama at the deli. It looks like “someone” has cropped out all the black faces for the color shot (no pun intended). Frankly, I prefer the B&W in both cases, but more on that later, maybe.
I sympathize with Alan and his difficulties at getting the shot. Years ago I went to some camera clubs and they were mostly (maybe still are) men of a certain age all trying to get a shot of the scantily clad model of the day. I called them gang bangs. It sounds like the campaign trail is a lot like that, just different models. It almost makes one wish for the days of campaigning from the caboose of a train moving through the countryside.
Alan mentioned the RFK campaign and I remember photos and video of him greeting people all the way to the shot that killed him. That is probably why things are so scripted today. Perhaps the politicians are afraid of the people. Eric said there was a desperateness then. I think there was still hope then. Now we have seen all our struggles on the left taken apart, no smashed to bits, by this (and previous) administrations. Isn’t it possible that both the voter-citizens and the candidates are walking though the roles dictated by some formality of which we have now become aware and must play it to the end? Like actors in a Fellini film, we are unable to stop ourselves or to change our destiny.
Eric said: “…If 1968 is the gold standard of photography, 68 was the beginning of the end of unscripted politics.” It was also the beginning of the end of the democratic party. It just never recovered. Kill one president, kill his campaigning brother, and voila’, a silent coup. Jimmy Carter was just a hiccup. Clinton a republican in democratic clothes. And not a very good one.
Alan said: “Isn’t the candidate better served by being seen as who they really are, what they really stand for?” I wonder if we had seen who GWB really is in 2000, would he have been able to steal the election? Of course, a good, well-meaning, intelligent candidate may be better served. But how many of them run for office? Remember when the FL supreme court ruled that the votes must be counted (in 2000), the cameras shone on GWB and his temper slipped thru his facade. Suddenly he was a 2-year-old stomping his foot in a tantrum and immediately covering up his emotion by that little smirk. Had we seen this in October, would he have gotten as many votes?
Would being subversive, perhaps, be shooting the people/crowds around the candidate, but not the candidate? Maybe I’m just a cynical old fart, but has it occurred to anyone else that Obama and Hillary may have cooked up this “rivalry” between them just to get some press for her and soften up his chances for later?
Et, MonsierGonzo, you have given me something to think about, as always.
BTW, been having computer problems; trying to post for 10 days………hope it’s fixed now….

By: vwcat

vwcat — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:08:49 +0000

I forgot to ask you something. What are the candidates really like who you shoot? Are they so distant you don’t know or somewhat nice to you? Just kinda curious what some of them are like. Grouchy? I bet tired.

By: vwcat

vwcat — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:04:19 +0000

Alan, I find your photographs fascinating. I know it’s a pain and I’m sure alot of the scripted campaigns came as a rusult of two things. The country has become alot more dangerous and the Reagan controlled campaign. Well, three: 24 hr. news.
I do like the one of Obama in the alley talking to the lady. Was it really scripted or a candidate trying to get a little breathing time?
You said in one of your posts that during the RFK campaign there was alot of hunger and yearning – I expect this is from the faces of the people. I do know there is that same feeling today. I listen to Washington Journal on cspan alot of people lately sound forlorn. Unhappy and wishing and hoping. Wanting to dream again. I see that in some of the people’s faces of pictures I’ve seen but, It depends on the candidate. I see different looks in different campaign pictures.
alot of republican ones there is resignation and no happiness.
I see alot of upbeat and smiling faces in the Edwards ones.
I see alot of doubt and thinking and skeptical(?) maybe in the Hillary ones. Sometimes I see like the ladies being like at a get together trying to cheer on. I don’t see excitement.
In the Obama ones I see the same thing I saw when I was in Springfield on the day of his announcement. Those cold faces. Alot of people struck me as excited and hopeful. And cold and red.
This woman in front of me (we were where we couldn’t see him) and she weaved thru the crowd to catch a glimpse and came back thru. she was maybe in her 60s or 70s and I asked her if she saw him. she was in wonder and said yes. That look would have been wonderful for you to catch.

By: Alan Chin

Alan Chin — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:45:42 +0000

wawawa, very salient points indeed!
Of course on this blog I’m allowing myself to think aloud, I claim no more authority or wisdom on these matters than the next person, and I apologize if I come across as sanctimonious or full of myself. That defeats the purpose and legitimacy of anything I’m trying to accomplish, which, after all, is to get these pictures out there, and to get a conversation going.
I have to factor in my own innate cynicism, and the question of sympathy is an key one — I’d like to comment on this: covering a campaign, any campaign, is a bit like embedding — and any time you embed you give a measure of sympathy to the people you are covering. Along with that, however, is also the contrary impulse of rebellion, and to be instinctively against “the rules,” because you want to maintain some distance, and not drink too much of the Kool-Aid. So this dynamic, ideally, results in some balance and fairness. And this is true for me regardless of how intrinsically I may be biased towards or against any particular candidate.
PTate, yes, most of the time there are at least five or six photographers, if not more, around (AP, Reuters, maybe a local newspaper or two, maybe Time or Newsweek, the NY Times, the Wash Post, maybe one or two agency photographers like myself). But most of the photographers are fairly experienced, and fairly polite and helpful both to each other and with the people “handling” them. It doesn’t look like that because it’s a pack of long lenses protruding and flashes popping, photographers on top of each other, but actually we try to be decent and not get too insane. Sometimes it’s just a couple of us and of course that’s a lot better…
…and it’s true, when I think of RFK I am thinking of peak moments like when he gave the speech in Indianapolis the night the MLK was killed, moments so filled with drama and tension which we have not yet seen on this campaign. Although 3000+ American dead in Iraq is no small potatoes!

By: PTate in FR

PTate in FR — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:22:46 +0000

I am very late to this thread, but I would be very curious to see some pictures that Alan Chin admires from the 1968 campaign. It might help educate my eye. Perhaps in a later thread.
It seems to me that 1968 was an unusual campaign year because–as Eric points out–there was so much passion in the electorate. That was the year that college students went “clean for Gene” and were clubbed on the head at the Democratic convention in Chicago. That was the year that Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assasinated, and Joe McGinnis wrote the best-selling “The selling of the President, 1968″ about Richard Nixon’s campaign. There were many unscripted moments that photographers could capture because the situation itself was turbulent. People were exposed.
Lessons learned in 1968: try to keep candidates alive–a good thing–and treat politics as a marketing campaign. But both forces lead to campaign scripting.
Other things that occurs to me is that the US has a significantly larger population since 1968: 200 Million people then versus 300 Million today. That means many more people to please and larger crowds and more TV stations, more photographers, more journalists, more of everything. Only the population of NH and Iowa have remained more or less the same! And in 1968 the US media still had multiple owners and independent media outlets, whereas today, as we all sadly know, five companies control nearly all the media.
I would be curious to know how it works now. How many photographers were present on the occasions when Alan Chin took these pictures? It seems to me that if too many photographers/journalists try to squeeze into a cafe to compete for the unscripted moment, what you have is chaos, not verite. I wonder if local stations/papers did most of the coverage in 1968 so the photographer to candidate ratio was closer to 1:1?
Finally, it occurs to me that we are very early in the campaign season. Too early perhaps. Ambitious candidates are out practicing their moves, but electorate interest is fairly low. At this stage, everything is scripted, but over time, as things heat up, more and more will be unscripted. Events on the ground will start to break message control. I think 2004 will be the last campaign when the media will allow Rove-style candidate marketing.
The thing that strikes me about these pictures of Hillary and Obama is that they look like they are practicing their roles. Alan Chin may be frustrated that it is so scripted, but I wonder if Hillary and Obama are not having the same frustration. I have to believe that Clinton and Obama would also like to have authentic conversations with the voters.

By: wawawa

wawawa — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:14:55 +0000

Alan Chin, I think your work is great, but you impose your views on your subject matter. You say in your last post: “he or she should,” “be judged accordingly,” “We are not, and nor should,” “I refuse to accept.”
Therefore you are not sympathetic to the people you are photographing and therefore you are frustrated. As an artist, you should know this.
“Let the humanity rather than the pretense emerge.” Hello? Pot calling kettle? Who are you to be so judgmental and demanding? Where do you get your sense of entitlement? As an artist, I mean. If you don’t like them, don’t vote for them.
Maybe the photographers in 1968 were more sympathetic to their subjects than you are.

By: ummabdulla

ummabdulla — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:39:02 +0000

I’m enjoying this discussion, and don’t have much to add.
To me, Alan’s photos of Obama don’t give a different impression than the ones taken from the newswires. He seems likable and surrounded by people who are excited about him.
I doubt if any candidate thinks it would be better if the public saw the real person underneath. Real people make mistakes, get angry, say things they regret later, and sometimes don’t look so attractive. Obama says lives were wasted in Iraq and has to go back and apologize for misspeaking. Howard Dean screams and, according to the conventional wisdom, that’s the end of him. It’s absurd… but I can’t imagine having to watch your every word or facial expresssion like that.

By: ice weasel

ice weasel — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 05:21:06 +0000

Alan, you and I, we agree on so many things. We really do. And I wouldn’t condescend to describe your hope in the system as idealism. In fact, let me go further and say that more idealism is what this country needs. Less deal brokering and more principle would go a long way.
With that said, unlike you, I do think a far too large a group of citizens are dumb, either self-induced or just not up to the task. Another large group are too lazy to be involved. And I think the media, the candidates and in the interest groups that sponsor both are well aware that a little propaganda (or a lot) goes a lot further than some hard honesty. Can we really ignore the message of history and not say that in more than 50% of the cases, we elect people who all too accurately reflect our own moral problems and ethical challenges. At least 50% of our elected are filler. They look good on TV. They go to the right church. They’ve managed to keep their own skeletons better hidden than most of us. And perhaps it’s the lust for power, not altruism, that motivates these politicians more often than not.
So while I envy your optimism, I don’t see the political realities we live with changing. I wish it were enough that our elected officials could be honest with us, could be more open and candid. But if those same elected officials wish to stay in office they know that reality is only popular on networks shows. What American voters want is hyper-reality. They want an abstraction. They want ideal. No one, not a single person in this coutnry, I would put forth, believes that they would have really preferred to “have a beer with george bush” more than John Kerry. But it sounds good. It’s easy to say and repeat and Kerry was as easy to skewer, for all the wrong reasons, as Al Gore was.
I know that my opinion of others speaks to how I view myself. While that reality makes it more painful, it doesn’t make my view less accurate.
But enough of that. I really wanted to explore the idea of being a subversive photographer on a campaign. And then I thought about the idea and really, how subversive could one be? The first time you published something that was too real, too off topic, you’d be gone, right? I mean to say, I assume that unless one has behavior like that of a ninja, you’re really just forced into doing what they want, aren’t you? That’s what you seemed to be saying above. So if that is the case, what’s the next step? What are the cracks in the armor that might allow a little light to shine inside these campaigns and reflect back to us some information? Do those cracks exist?
Alan, thanks again for responding. I really enjoy seeing your work here. I look forward to seeing more. I hope we see more from you and through you.

By: Alan Chin

Alan Chin — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:44:57 +0000

“What you suggests better serves the public but not the candidate. What serves the candidate best is to do exactly what they want you to do, stay on message, get all the required shots in the approved manner and nothing more. Anything else, again, from the candidates perspective is a crap shoot and people running for president seldom get elected when they throw their fates to the winds.”
I absolutely, unequivocally disagree with this. If a man or woman is, in their own perception, strong and smart and wise and fast and seasoned enough to run for, and assume that they will be good at, being the President, then he or she should be confident, bold, brave enough, to stand on their strengths, to be straight, and to be judged accordingly.
And I say this not as idealism, but as analysis of democracy, and as not assuming, as a lot of people seem to, that the average voter is an idiot, and that the American people are stupid.
We are not, and nor should the media and press stop trying to see things as honestly as possible. I am NOT “missing” it at all. Quite the contrary. I continue to believe in and have some faith in this system of ours. Obviously it’s easy to be cynical and not trust anything, and to perceive that “spin” is everything.
But it isn’t, really, as our current President is finding out. No amount of “staying on message” changes the reality of facts and of decisions made, of real consequences as a result of politics.
I agree that I and my colleagues cannot pull rabbits out of hats, and I, too, understand why they do it, as ice weasel so well described. But I refuse to accept that we would have a worse system for the candidates if they would be less controlling.
Isn’t the candidate better served by being seen as who they really are, what they really stand for?
Isn’t the candidate better served if cynics, doubters, critics, and observers like all the intelligent people reading and commenting here are less jaded, more willing to listen to the candidate’s message?!?
Isn’t the candidate better served by being unafraid of how photographers portray them? I mean, one minute a candidate can look like a rock star, the next moment like a plastic blow-up doll. Such is the pliable and malleable and accidental nature of photography. Let the humanity rather than the pretense emerge.
In the end, if they did that and I want to bring up that coverage of RFK in ‘68 again — you’d get pictures like that and not like these pictures of mine here — what could possibly serve them better than that?!?
What helps us helps them. To think otherwise is for them to insult their own intelligence, and ours also.

By: catfood

catfood — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:22:25 +0000

Thanks very much to Alan for the valuable insights.