The Guardian:
In a moving monochrome image, Souza showed three-year-old Clark Reynolds looking up in awe as Obama touches him on the cheek. The photograph is taken from child height and brilliantly captures a child’s-eye view of the president. We only see Obama’s hand caressing Clark’s face. Unlike the ones in all paintings and photographs of all previous presidents, it is not a white hand. How can anyone say that means nothing? Young Clark Reynolds evidently thinks it means something, and so does Souza, whose photography has perhaps become more lyrical, more poignant over Obama’s final year in office.
I love Souza’s deeply personal style of photography. I have no doubt he’d take similar photos of every other president – regardless of your feelings towards any of them, they are human beings after all – but there’s something just a touch more poignant about the shots he’s shown us of President Obama.
Great images.
He’s brilliant and as you say, he’s caught a side of Obama the rest of the photojournalistic world can’t or won’t see.
So disappointed in Obama. This just smacks of propaganda. 🙁
Under his watch government spying is at an all time high. He’s killed more foreigners than any POTUS before him. And has allowed nukes to only proliferate despite his Nobel Peace prize.
But I’m sure he’s a nice guy.
Nice. Your little political rant has got nothing to do with the linked story but glad you managed to shoehorn it in regardless. Bravo.
Stating an opinion that differs from the one that’s being presented?:
“Yet Souza’s photographs tell a different story – and the one that matters.”
Really? That’s the one that matters?
After the past few years, I have lost any ‘feel good’ feelings the media tries to tell me I should have.
So, maybe, let’s agree to disagree?
“Yet Souza’s photographs tell a different story – and the one that matters.” No one “presented” that. You used a story about photography to post a political rant. No, we won’t “agree to disagree”. This isn’t a political story, regardless of your attempts to make it one.
Are we reading the same article? That quote is from the piece. Presented by The Guardian, the author and, by linking, you.
Souza is a great photog, no doubt. And if I remember correctly, you’re a photo buff. And I’ve read The Loop for many years. But that is so clearly a political piece, I don’t know what to say. It’s framed (sorry) as a photo piece but it touches on so many toothless aspects of Obama’s presidency to show “he’s still a good guy” and down to earth. He may be but this is what I read before checking out your link:
http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencing-america-as-it-prepares-for-war
On the off chance you don’t know who John Pilger is please search out his work. He’s legit. He’s a credible investigative journalist and filmmaker.
I read your link, now your read mine. Then tell me the Guardian piece isn’t political.
“That quote is from the piece.” then post your rant there.
“Presented by The Guardian, the author and, by linking, you.”
I hope you don’t think that, by the simple act of linking, I endorse every word in the linked piece.
“But that is so clearly a political piece, I don’t know what to say. “
Obviously not true.
You didn’t check out my link, did you?
First off, come on, I didn’t rant. I stated an opinion contrary to the one linked to. I posted it here because THIS is my community.
I bought in to the whole Hope campaign in 2008 like the rest of the world. But I’m finding it increasingly hard to sit idly by and not call BS on stuff like this (the Guardian’s article).
You may not endorse every word but calling pictures of Obama somehow more poignant than other presidents, as does the article, is an endorsement of the article’s message: “Obama is super cool awesome poignant guy”. Pete Sousa is virtually irrelevant to the piece. He’s the Official White House Photographer so any image released is vetted by White House officials. They are showing you the side they want you to see. Of course it’s political. It’s just disguised to look like a non-political photo article.
Dude, I didn’t post to pick a fight/troll. Just trying to send some relevent info to my community. (If you don’t want discussion, turn off Disqus.)
From my link:
“James Bradley, the best-selling author of Flags of Our Fathers and son of one of the US marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima, said, “[One] great myth we’re seeing play out is that of Obama as some kind of peaceful guy who’s trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. He’s the biggest nuclear warrior there is. He’s committed us to a ruinous course of spending a trillion dollars on more nuclear weapons. Somehow, people live in this fantasy that because he gives vague news conferences and speeches and feel-good photo-ops that somehow that’s attached to actual policy. It isn’t.””
Obviously true.
“I don’t know what to say.”