>A Matter of Perspective: The Privilege of White Males in

>>2981392
Where was the problem exactly? The author has phrased the title as an SJW clickbait and then goes rambles about the works of non-white photographers, which is fine. It feels as though the author was forced to shoehorn white mails with an implication of a problem in the article to get it published, so he went with the laziest possible attempt. Even that article on color film being racist from a few years back had more substance to it.

Frankly, it isn't mine or anybody's fault if brown/yellow/vagina/xir/ayylmaos aren't out there making their point of view into photos. If a ghetto google can afford those expensive sneakers, he can certainly afford an acceptable camera to get started. Even less relevant in my country where the government showers you with money for doing nothing.

>>2981392

Zzz..

Petapixel ought to get some journoes that're not steeped in the "white guilt" shit, and put these freshly-graduated interns in charge of press release rewrites only. Probably they wouldn't give such a podium to a white supremacist either.

>>2981392
Careful OP. I posted this article before and got banned for "trolling", even though I was trying to have a serious discussion.

>>2981454
It must be hard to admin on a site like 4chan. I guess for stuff like this it would come down to the wording of the OP.

Like, this article posted and OP says something like "RACE WAR: THIS IS HOW THE NIGGERS ATTACK US" or some bullshit would obviously be trolling and baiting where as the same article with the OP saying "Lets discuss the merits of this particular article and have polite and civil discourse" would obviously not be. The inbetween is where it gets difficult. Admins might make mistakes once in a while but as the poster you kinda have to just accept that sometimes with a topic like this your intentions for posting may not be clear and move on.

>>2981392
Another in a long line of pretentious useful idiots for the left. They wonder why Trump beat Hillary, well all of this white bashing could be the answer. I did not vote for the attention whore either.
But next we will see an article on how the white man stole the invention of the camera by some revisionist historian. That also seems to be the other latest misinformation trend.

File: 1480705499601.jpg (50KB, 666x339px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 666x339px

>A Matter of Perspective: The Privilege of White Males in Photography

Is it just me, or does all this privilege feel a whole lot like hard work?

>>2981619
speak clearer, cuck. no one will lambast you if you reveal yourself to be a liberal or a conservative, but take a side, spineless friendo.

>>2981621

even if it was easy work, it was good nice to look at work. did you see the pictures? a fucking thug coon with his arms up in a cotton field. LOL BRILLIANT SOCIAL COMMENTARY PHOTO OF THE YEAR.

>>2981392
I don't think white privilege extends to photographers since photographers tend to be the most disrespected form of artist who actively get confronted in the field and treated generally like shit by all people unless you somehow can explain to them that you aren't trying to steal their soul with your magic box. I mean, I'm not even white and I feel the prejudice.

Of course I am open to anyone who disagrees and will gladly fight them outside if they think otherwise.

>>2981646
>who actively get confronted in the field and treated generally like shit by all people unless you somehow can explain to them that you aren't trying to steal their soul with your magic box.

Ahaha, perfectly said. These people don't think photos are art, they're just self-conscious and worried about their image being tainted by a device that is completely indifferent to whatever they're trying so hard to conceal.

File: 1480612032079.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

Well, I'm sure this thread will be a thriving hotbed of intellectual fervor, insightful discussion and astute observation. It'll be just like the salons of Paris!

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-12 at 06.48.36.png (3MB, 1150x1424px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1150x1424px

>>2981683
4chan is the public sphere of 2016

>>2981646
you're misunderstanding his point, he's not saying that white photographers have an easier time in the field or whatever.
he's saying that historically, prejudice as well as the high price of equipment and processing has served as a barrier to entry for poorer minorities/women looking to get into photography - let alone looking to "make it" as an artist - and as a result a lot of the artistic canon that we all refer to for examples of "good photography" represents an exclusively white POV.
the article is really poorly written but that's not really such a ridiculous thing to say.

1. White patriarchy in control of means/relations of production
2. Base determines superstructure
3. So culture/art is structured and shaped by white men

4. The Privilege of White Males in Photography

The evidence is there

>>2981706
What a dumb argument, "only rich people can do rich people shit", not only is it not true, cheap cameras have been available for decades, it's not relevant, of course only the people that CAN do something get famous for it.

Not to mention every major milestone in photography was achieved by a white male, this is our culture, please stop appropriating it. By all means enjoy it, but don't think you deserve any recognition for it based on the colour of your skin or what's between your legs.

Black people have had access to paint for decades too, yet every famous black painter just shits out clown vomit naive tribal bullshit.

Maybe, JUST FUCKING MAYBE, black people are not as good as white people at art. But apparently that's racist, but saying black people are better at running is absolutely fine. If niggers spent more of their formative years drawing instead of stealing it wouldn't be this way.

>>2981725
>If niggers spent more of their formative years drawing instead of stealing it wouldn't be this way.

Why do you think this is?

>>2981728
Because their ancestors spent more time stealing than drawing.

Not like they should be complaining, what would you rather have a higher chance at being; a professional sportser or artist.

The difference is i don't flip my shit when every white guy doesn't get a 50m head start in the 100m race.

>>2981725
>cheap cameras have been available for decades
Disregarding the stupid shit in the rest of your post, I'd love to see your list of famous photographers who have used cheap cameras. Especially those during the formative years of the medium, like the author of the article is talking about. Please, go ahead.
In fact, I'll start it for you:
1. Terry Richardson
2. ???
Now it's your chance to shine, bub. Surely hcb was using a coolpix and not a leica.

You fyvking faggots

>>2981737
Miroslav tichy

Ansel said himself the most important quality of a camera was the 12 inches behind it. So he can go on the list.

And leica didn't used to be a "luxury" camera maker, it was the staple beater body since the great war and at the time very affordable when compared to the much more popular, larger formats. So yeah, put hcb in the list, along with klein and capa.

Even leibowitz admitted that the iphone is good enough in the right hands, so put the rich jew woman on the list too.

I can buy the best running shoes in the world, usain still gonna beat me in timberlands.

>>2981747
Sure, Tichy is a fair point. Though his work is not mainstream influential as much as it is a curiosity. He's an outsider artist, not an influencer.

A whole lot of photographers have said "the camera doesn't matter," but if they didn't actually get famous making photos with cheap cams they don't matter. The whole point of making this list is to prove your point that you don't need expensive equipment to get famous.

I have no clue whether Leica was "more affordable" than larger formats (probably, I guess). But in 1955 a Leica IIf body, without the lens and after the IIIf had been released so way outdated, cost $120. That's over $1,000 dollars today.

And again, I agree that cheap cameras can be used to take great pictures. But barely anyone has made a living out of it, let alone gotten famous enough to influence photo history in a significant way, and therefore your point that "there have always been accessible cameras" is a completely invalid argument.

>>2981749
>no one has made money on cheap equipment then continued to use cheap equipment.

What a fucking surprise that is eh.

In other news, famous football players don't use walmart cleats.

Fucking hell, i want to say you're trolling, but you're not, you're just reallllllly stupid.

>leica was still expensive.
Back then 50% discounts in store weren't unheard of, especially if you could haggle or were jewish and it's only since the resurgence of film in the digital era that leica prices have skyrocketed. Fuck, even 10 years ago you could pickup a working leica ii body for under $200.

The cheap stuff is always the unfashionable stuff, currently that's plastic film slr bodies, i got my f90x for $40, which any nigger can afford and get better results than with a $1k leica.

Medium and large format fell drastically from favour for a good 15 years, i remember seeing complete horseman setups for $100, my mamiya tlr and 3 lenses was $80.

>>2981712
transfluid gendersexual self-described minorities of color should then create their own system where they are in control. More doing, less incoherent whining.

>>2981752
LOL just give it up, none of those photographers "made their money on cheap equipment." Ansel Adams came from a family of lumber barons. You're an idiot if you truly believe that a woman or black person could walk into a store in 1920, buy an affordable camera, and make a name for themselves as a professional photographer. Just listen to yourself.

>>2981755
>implying anyone has ever made a name for themselves using generic, average equipment in any field.

>implying every straight, white male can instantly make a name for themselves as a pro photographer with a rabble and a kit lens.

Musicians, artists, writers, sportsmen even fucking architects will spend their first paychecks getting the equipment they want rather than use the equipment they've settled on.

Stop blaming your lack of talent on your shitskin.

>>2981757
...and we're back at the beginning again.
Nobody's implying that white people have it easy as photographers these days. The only point being made is that photographic history is largely white. That's fucking it.

>>2981758
And dreadlock history is largely black.
What's your point? Apart from other cultures/races may need time to bring their level of recognition/skill up to the native populace, photography was invented by white people, for white people. That's fucking it.

>>2981760
>by white people, for white people

That's racist, it's just white people using power + prejudice to monopolise a market, again. Poc should be given equal free access to everything white people pay for, it's only fair after what you did to us.

>>2981728

their brains arent capable of creating, but of predatory and parasitic behavior. its a biological thing. see africa, see the docu the empire of sand, they were left LOADS of machinery, inventions, railways, what did they do with it? engage in endless machete wars, voodoo and tire sandals, they just cant see beyond basic functions and needs.

White women also have an advantage over other people, look at wedding industry and the corny instagram lifestyle aesthetic

Bunch of cheesy white bitches named Matilda making a lot of the money

>>2981782

i hate ameriniggers. blacks from all over the world arent like this. but this special mix of assholery and entitledness could only come from mixing the dumb african animal and the dumb gun obsessed hick. fucking hell.

What a load of shit.

Why the fuck it's always about skin color. Like there are no white people from 3d world countries like eastern Europe that are living much more shittier lives and many of these groups were oppressed for fucking centuries. Like take somebody from Moldova or Ukraine or whatnot and almost any ghetto black, even poorest, will be richer and have more social guarantees than they ever had

Man, white males are the most fragile people on the fucking planet. Look at all the defensiveness in this thread.

You really are a bunch of wailing children.

>>2981921

>too stupid to realize he's whining

I'm sure the market itself didn't help any minorities either. Do you think a camera shop owner is going to be so progressive minded in the 30s or 40s to sell to anyone darker than his photopaper?

>>2981931

Whining about what?

>>2981706
>he's saying that historically, prejudice as well as the high price of equipment and processing has served as a barrier to entry for poorer minorities/women looking to get into photography

Oh really now?!
I was a poor white in Detroit as a kid, and had to pretty much do a paper route, and mow lawns to afford my cameras, and film. You see the difference is in wanting to put forth the effort to earn the money to get what you want. When you are born poor you pretty much have two choices in life. 1 You complain about it, and do nothing, and 2 You work hard, and get out of it. The problem is we have too many number ones that think life is unfair when they are born poor, and expect everyone else to help them, or feel sorry for them.

>the article is really poorly written but that's not really such a ridiculous thing to say.

Oh it is past poorly written. It is again whiny pretentious dribble. It is ridiculous on its very face. The whole blame every last thing on somebody holding them down has worn thin with most people. Well except for those doing the whining. and those stirring the pot of discontent.

White children are encouraged to develop talent and enjoy their youth so their parents can dote on them.

Non-white children are encouraged to make up for their missing father and spend all their time on chores.

Found your culture difference. Most people don't like to get into new things once they're older because they feel like it's too late.

>>2982125
>You work hard, and get out of it.

lmao

>>2982134
Interesting observation but I disagree. The single mother thing is really happening across all cultures/races.

I was raised by a single mom and while not having a grown man around to act as a role model and fill certain gaps my mom fortunately never expected me to be a surrogate dad or slave away with chores. I didn't get out of doing chores but I don't know a lot of kids that did.

>>2981624
>implying everyone is either liberal or conservative

sounds like you're leading the worlds worst socratic seminar

>>2982125
while you are correct in your observation that if you work hard you succeed, you have missed the entire point of this discussion.

Based on where someone lives or their race, it'll be harder for them to succeed, even if they put in the same amount of work, perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Aspects of systematic racism as well as where you live are things that are totally out of someone's control.

>>2981392
i mean if you want to use their own arguments against them, it was all white guys who invented photography

of course I don't MEAN that, but these people are moralizing scum with nothing better to do than complain about other people actually doing things. they are of no consequence.

>>2981737
Daido Moriyama

>>2982258
BS
My black friends I grew up with, who also worked hard got out of poverty as well. We used to talk about all of the people who complained about why everyone was holding them back. Two of them retired very rich after selling their businesses, but then that does not fit the accepted narrative does it?

>>2982517

lmao

File: Computers are racist.jpg (69KB, 452x201px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 452x201px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2007:11:28 23:29:44
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	452
Image Height	201

>>2981706
Poor white kid here. Can confirm your should go fuck yourself thinking that the correlation of wealth is paired with race and not culture/background.

File: 367.jpg (68KB, 600x367px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x367px

This people living in shit must feel so ''privileged'',ha?

>>2982517
look up some general statistics on the issue rather than using your 2 token black friends as evidence next time

>>2981392
>petapixel

'nuff said

Perhaps if they got their heads out their arses and looked around the world a bit they'd realise what blithering idiots they are ... but perhaps not, clickbait is clickbait after all and angry people click more

>>2982584
It is apparently an generational thing then. Because you have accepted not even trying to improve ones status, and keep using the same leftist whine of poor me, or poor them. What a bunch of cucks we have raised. My two friends are far from token, they are the ones who did not piss, and moan, and built their own way. But then again anytime a person of color brings themselves up, people such as yourself call them tokens, or Uncle Toms, who is holding who back?

The reply to any sort of "white privilege" bawling is generally the same:

Yes, i'm sorry that the world decided to divide itself into separate tribes which then evolved to best suit their individual environments. I'm sorry that those tribes then developed separate cultures and beliefs. I'm sorry that white people are the ones who moved to arable parts of the world and developed crop rotation, books, and complex machinery and benefitted from those creations in such a way that they became wealthy. I'm sorry that white people lived through a renaissance and developed arts, sciences and literature. I'm sorry that white people are now seen as having too much, as having progressed so far ahead of the rest of the world that everyone else looks poor by comparison...

But that is, very pragmatically, the way the WORLD. IS.

Its not fair. The world has never been fair. White people didnt do any of this consciously. They are not to blame for their position. What you have in this life has nothing to do with your colour. Its to do with struggle.
And the struggle will not be fair.
This world is about survival - Your race has nothing to do with you being better or worse than anyone else. But it WILL make it harder for the white tribes to accept you. Racism is a human reaction to the unusual. Its not a sin or an evil of any sort. Its a defensive reaction found in most animals to fear and fight against foreigners.They bring different attributes - and different attributes bring argument. No tribe, especially a weak one wants argument because it weakens the tribe even more.

>>2982787
>books are a white invention

loving every laugh

>>2982790
Well yeah, Johannes Gutenberg invented mechanised type in the 1400's which made the book as we now know it a reality and increased the education rates ten fold. If you wanna discuss who invented binded bits of cloth with ink on them you might have to go back a few thousand years.

>>2982783

Lmaoooooo

>>2982783
>a person of color

God damn i hate that phrase.

If I weigh too much, am i a holder of fat?
If I have brown hair, am I a bearer of chestnut?
Having a belly button doesnt make you a donut, does it?

You're not a "person of colour". If youre a person of colour so am I.
Peach sunrise.

All white males are literally Hitler.

>>2982809
>They have so much, they must be evil.
>Quick, teach that to the kids.
>Its nothing to do with our heritage.

Sorry kid, the tribes that took over the nice parts of the world just progressed quicker and got richer. Their skin became white because of the low amount of melanin in their skin - the cloudy colder northern countries had no need for such protection from the heat. Doesnt make inherently "better".

File: 1479262724333.png (455KB, 750x563px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 750x563px

>>2981619
I find the post modern obsession with gender and race both tedious and disappointing. While articles like the one in the OP are quick and can be quite good at pointing out the underlying disparity they perpetuate the problem by obsessing over it without providing a meaningful way of overcoming it. EG it whines about it without providing solution thus souring people who are on the fence, pushing those who are against it further away, and further radicalizing those already in their own camp.

To avoid calling the kettle black the solution I'm a fan of is to move past the discussion and let the trend towards normalization run its course. I suspect that by continuously obsessing over this kind of stuff the problem is perpetuated by placing people at odds with one another. There's plenty of problems and caveats with this solution but still it's the one I like the most of those I've seen.