If you did watch it, and were able to make it past the pig slaughter (yeah, if you did not see it, be aware, pig throat slitting, head chopping with axe to follow), nice job. I should note, though, that the pig incident is not what I really remember about the film as being most poignant. The film's ability to present both sides of a debate about the ethics (though the film never uses this word) of a documentary artist, his subject, and the viewer remains with me more strongly. That is, the film, even in presenting on a real debate on a real (memorable) subject nonetheless leaves the viewer in the middle (unlike, say, a Michael Moore film, which adamantly takes a side on its subject). The viewer, therefore, still has some contemplation at hand.
Does Shelby Lee Adams's photography exploit those he claims he is merely showing to the world, the world into which he continually reminds the viewer he was born? Remember, the one "holler" dweller who claims she's been "schooled" (ie, went to college) is the only one of them to also claim that the photos are exploitative. In contrast, another (near the end of the film) sees nothing wrong with the types of photos Adams takes, and she presents some pretty clear justifications for such a view. Which is correct? Is either correct? Do their comments expose more about the artistic and viewing processes than necessarily about the validity of their claims?
As you can read from my post here, we are not so much interested whether or not you like the week's film as much as we are in the ways it engages you, the ways it is put together, and the effects that such construction have on the viewing process. Moreover, with a film such as The True Meaning..., we can make argumentative claims about the ways the film is also a document about the tension between artist, subject, and viewer (really, though, this is fodder for discussion with every film).
Dr. Roberts took the words out of my mouth! =)
ReplyDeleteI appreciated how this documentary presented the topic in an unbiased manner. It showed "both sides of the story" rather than the side of the documentarist, which I believe gives it more credibility. It presented the facts and left it up to the viewers to decide whether or not they thought Adam's was exploiting them.
While watching it I would come to take one side and then later realize that I also agreed with the other side, therefore leaving me on the fence. In a lot of ways I can see why people would think that Adam's is exploiting them and I can also defend the work itself. I do not believe that Adam's (or possibly the documentarist) did a good job of potraying himself in an agreeable or believable manner.
The only reason that I do not think that Adam's is exploiting them is not because of his personal claims of friendship or the accounts of the people that lived in the "holler" but rather the idea that art should not be censored or PC (politically correct). If Adam's worried about how people would percieve his work, or if it would be offensive to this person or that, and therefore edit it, would he still be considered an artist, would his photography be as effective?
So to sum this up, Should artists be held up to standards of "social responsibility" in the same way as politicians? If so, how would this affect the world of art?
I really liked this film because it was one of the few documentaries that I have seen that doesn't take a clear side but instead presents the facts and arguments equally. That being said, I'm on the "he's exploiting these people" bandwagon. Rachel I like your views and understand your point, however I don't see it as Adams having to edit or censor his work. It’s not the subjects of his work that's the problem, it’s the way he captures them.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary itself was actually the reason I found Adams’ work so exploitative because while the documentary captured a happy close knit family that just so happens to live in the boonies, Adams’ pictures capture menacing looking poor almost trashy people that look like what outsiders think of the rural south. Why not have a few color photos of the family interacting with each other while smiling and laughing?
The funeral scene for instance captured the family laughing together in the family room and then the ones crying in the showing room. Why didn't Adams take a picture then through the wood post separator instead of making them pose while staring at the camera with fake grim expressions on their face? I think Adams really in his mind thinks he’s helping these people and sharing their story but to me there is no story that he’s sharing instead he’s just promoting the fear and mistrust that people have of hillbillies.
I think these types of debates can get a little frustrating at times. Art is about interpretation and fighting over who is right and who is wrong is in one way productive because it allows us to understand audience perception better, but at the same time it is also a dead end because there is NO right answer. I think the most sensible approach is to listen to the artist and try to understand what his or her intentions really are (if such info is available). After that, the rest is up to the imagination, and isn't that what makes art...art?
ReplyDeleteBTW, I agree with Rachel an artist's vision should be respected. Yeah, there's certain boundaries that shouldn't be crossed but as viewers we should be open minded and not judge a man's vision just because I interpret it one way, when really there may be several ways to look at it.
ReplyDelete