From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. |
|
|
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
- If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
- If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
|
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a project to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
| Stub |
This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Controversy"
The article says nothing about critical reactions, good or bad, to Polidori's work, other than (a) what may be inferred from his being awarded gallery space, awards, and book contracts, and (b) "controversy". However, the "controversy" consists of "criticism" in the blogosphere, where of course anybody can say anything and most of them do. Let's look at the one criticism whose author is actually named in the article: Greiner's (you'll find it here. Here's what he says. First, Polidori made an image of a dead man, lying in his own bed and in the privacy of his own home , partially covered by a blanket! And then: I think making this image went beyond what is acceptable. That's all. He doesn't say how or why it's unacceptable. He neither (i) distinguishes between (a) this depiction and (b) the depiction of corpses in private property after other natural (and other) disasters, nor (ii) says that the general pattern is wrong. He doesn't name and praise even one work with a similar purpose that refrains from showing such corpses. He doesn't start to address the obvious rejoinder, that not showing corpses "sanitizes" what happened, dumbs it down, or makes it politically and socially palatable. Greiner may be a fine photographer (I didn't bother to check), but his criticism is inane. (That the whole piece consists of five sentences of which three end with an exclamation point is another hint that something is amiss.) I see no reason to mention such "criticism", unless perhaps it's mentioned as a footnote to more thoughtful discussion in the US and other press (e.g. this or this). -- Hoary 05:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
