El Fang 
, May 17, 2007; 02:56 a.m.
Some of you are probably aware of the intense debate surrounding Michael H.
Reichmann and his picture of a young Amazonian girl that he recently posted on
his website, The
Luminous Landscape. The debate rages not around the picture itself but the
way Reichmann decided to caption it. What do you think?
The Lolita Affair
Mark U 
, May 17, 2007; 04:25 a.m.
I think that if anything is debateable, it is Reichmann's insistance that the photograph be elevated to the status of "art", rather than as you suggest in your thread title, "documentary". The title is apt, and as apt as the title of this photo (the first I found with a search), titled "Courtesan":
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3325253
That image has greater pretensions to being art than Reichmann's (interestingly, shot by a woman, with several positive comments from other women). Indeed, it is possible that the "Courtesan" image is incorrectly titled, if the subject is merely a model, rather than a courtesan.
Reichmann's photo captures a moment and inherits HCB's maxim to that extent. Doubtless there are many cocooned in their particular social environments who find it shocking to consider that the girl is as she is and that such an image truly merits the title it has been given, and project their shock and surprise in unwarranted criticism of his choice. Had the image been of a convent girl, not pregnant, then a title of "Lolita" would almost certainly be libellous and factually inaccurate.
Barry Fisher 
, May 17, 2007; 04:48 a.m.
I'll take his thoughts...i don't think he's a perv, or its kiddy porn if that's what people are saying. Art, documentary all that aspect is semantical, really means nothing, I do think its a strong photo, the title focuses attention, because it brings up all sorts of things that are both attractive and uncomfortable to look at. Its a challanging photo, the girl has struck a pose that the camera suggests and the photographer insists was a deliberate provacation. It reminds me of Manet's "Olympia". A painting that set off a firestorm of debate in France in its time. It also demonstrates the power or whatever you want to call it of using words with pictures and how the 2 interact.
Vivek . , May 17, 2007; 08:20 a.m.
It just shows a lack of imagination (or may be it does?) on the part of the photographer/titlist. But it may do very well to promote his tours and sales regarding that as cash laden 50+ men seem to go for that. Clever promotion.
Pathetic.
No art, no controversy.
Ellis Vener 
, May 17, 2007; 09:54 a.m.
Aesthetically it is an image with a lousy title.
Leslie Cheung 
, May 17, 2007; 11:31 a.m.
Average shot and bad taste in title.
Leslie Cheung , May 17, 2007; 11:37 a.m.
BTW I think MR elevated the shot from documentary to "art" after being confronted by a LS
member.
Andrew Lee , May 17, 2007; 12:09 p.m.
Average shot and bad taste in title.
Second.
Jeff Spirer , May 17, 2007; 12:11 p.m.
Mark U , May 17, 2007; 01:46 p.m.
I wonder what those who consider the title inappropriate would offer as an alternative that conveys the essence of what Mr. Reichmann says he was trying to convey:
" it shows a very young woman (girl) posing provocatively. It was a candid photograph taken in a moment that passed all too quickly. She knew that she was being photographed and her expression and pose was clearly deliberate.
Because of her pose and expression I titled the photograph Lolita, having in mind the definition pretty much as provided by Wikipedia ?" Lolita is a slang term for a seductive, sexually attractive, or sexually precocious young girl". Seemed appropriate to me."
