Reading mode: Light Dark

Alaskan oil drilling interests sink photography exhibit

Go to last post
B

billtoo

Senior Member
Messages
2,401
Reaction score
0
Location
(Santa Barbara), CA, US
Photographer Subhankar Banerjee spent four seasons in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and his work was good enough to get him an exhibit on the main floor of the Smithsonian - that is until his photos were used on the senate floor to support the case against drilling in Alaska. Subsequent to the senate "show" the exhibit was moved from the main floor of the Smithsonian downstairs to a room behind the cafeteria. Smithsonian officials say they decided the photos would be displayed better downstairs.

From the L.A. Times 4/29
--
billtoo
camera - One-D, favorite lens 70-twohundred/2.8 IS
http://www.pbase.com/billtoo
 
Well technically speaking they were also moved 'subsequently' to the Kennedy assasination....

Is there any evidence EITHER event was the reason for the move is the question the L.A. Times should answer since they decided to infer a connection!

Maybe word got out he was taking shots of rulers and cats in his spare time ;)
 
Are photo exhibits normally left on the main floor of the Smithsonian for ever?

I'm one of two reporters who actually lives in the region we're talking about here. I've never heard of Subhankar Banerjee...

Maybe the LA Times should try and get its readers to use a little less gasoline. That might help.

Zidar
Alaska
billtoo said:
Photographer Subhankar Banerjee spent four seasons in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge and his work was good enough to get him an
exhibit on the main floor of the Smithsonian - that is until his
photos were used on the senate floor to support the case against
drilling in Alaska. Subsequent to the senate "show" the exhibit
was moved from the main floor of the Smithsonian downstairs to a
room behind the cafeteria. Smithsonian officials say they decided
the photos would be displayed better downstairs.

From the L.A. Times 4/29
--
billtoo
camera - One-D, favorite lens 70-twohundred/2.8 IS
http://www.pbase.com/billtoo
Click to expand...
--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar
 
http://www.msnbc.com/news/905803.asp
zidar said:
Are photo exhibits normally left on the main floor of the
Smithsonian for ever?

I'm one of two reporters who actually lives in the region we're
talking about here. I've never heard of Subhankar Banerjee...

Maybe the LA Times should try and get its readers to use a little
less gasoline. That might help.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
This article is a non-story. The writer has an agenda and writes the story to imply all sorts of things are going on...despite evidence to the contrary.

Barbara Boxer, the senator mentioned in the article, is one of the more aggressive advocates of unlimited immigration, except for would-be immigrants from places like England, Norway, or Italy. If she is so interested in preserving America she might consider taking a look at what overpopulation is doing to her own state.

Zidar
Alaska
DavidP said:
zidar said:
Are photo exhibits normally left on the main floor of the
Smithsonian for ever?

I'm one of two reporters who actually lives in the region we're
talking about here. I've never heard of Subhankar Banerjee...

Maybe the LA Times should try and get its readers to use a little
less gasoline. That might help.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar
 
Don't get me started on her. ;)

Most people don't realize just how few actually visit ANWR, anyway. It's about 1000 - 1500 per year. That's it.

And of course, few ever bother to notice the BENEFITS of man showing up. For example, lots of wildlife shows up around where the pipeline has been laid. Which would actually enable MORE people to see the wildlife, and photograph it.

Of course, that's not the real goal of the "tree huggers".
zidar said:
This article is a non-story. The writer has an agenda and writes
the story to imply all sorts of things are going on...despite
evidence to the contrary.

Barbara Boxer, the senator mentioned in the article, is one of the
more aggressive advocates of unlimited immigration, except for
would-be immigrants from places like England, Norway, or Italy. If
she is so interested in preserving America she might consider
taking a look at what overpopulation is doing to her own state.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
I was worried about that article coming from you... :-)

You are dead on about both the negatives and the positives about drilling in ANWR.
DavidP said:
Most people don't realize just how few actually visit ANWR, anyway.
It's about 1000 - 1500 per year. That's it.

And of course, few ever bother to notice the BENEFITS of man
showing up. For example, lots of wildlife shows up around where
the pipeline has been laid. Which would actually enable MORE
people to see the wildlife, and photograph it.

Of course, that's not the real goal of the "tree huggers".
zidar said:
This article is a non-story. The writer has an agenda and writes
the story to imply all sorts of things are going on...despite
evidence to the contrary.

Barbara Boxer, the senator mentioned in the article, is one of the
more aggressive advocates of unlimited immigration, except for
would-be immigrants from places like England, Norway, or Italy. If
she is so interested in preserving America she might consider
taking a look at what overpopulation is doing to her own state.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
 
Whats typical is your reaction, since it serves your desire to bash the enemy you need no EVIDENCE, only someones editorializing to fuel your rantings.

Use a little common sense and ask yourself "What would they gain compared to what would they lose by doing something like that?"

The exhibit in the museum, on any floor, offers no political resistance or liability to the Bush team. On the other hand, being exposed for censoring the exhibit, in any way, would be a big negative politically....

The only one who gains from this "story" is the opposition because it is able to stir up it's base of Bush haters, and they have no liability when the story turns out to be false (as if that would even be reported) since 'they' didn't write the story, the press did.
 
Before anyone gets on his high horse about how bad exploration there would be it would be useful to actually have been there during all of the seasons of the year. The place is just an arctic desert, and 99% of the pictures shown depicting the place were actually taken somewhere else.

Oh well, before I get started on the tree-huggers I'll shut up. No place for it on this forum anyway.

--
Wiley D

Pictures can't do the real thing justice, but you gotta' try.
 
That's the first I've heard of that. Got a link?

Sounds like when GreenPeace was caught paying people to club baby seals so they could film them as "documentation".
Wiley Denson said:
and 99% of the pictures shown depicting the place were
actually taken somewhere else.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
and maybe a fur coat. How bout an NRA bumper sticker too.

I love you man........
DavidP said:
Most people don't realize just how few actually visit ANWR, anyway.
It's about 1000 - 1500 per year. That's it.

And of course, few ever bother to notice the BENEFITS of man
showing up. For example, lots of wildlife shows up around where
the pipeline has been laid. Which would actually enable MORE
people to see the wildlife, and photograph it.

Of course, that's not the real goal of the "tree huggers".
zidar said:
This article is a non-story. The writer has an agenda and writes
the story to imply all sorts of things are going on...despite
evidence to the contrary.

Barbara Boxer, the senator mentioned in the article, is one of the
more aggressive advocates of unlimited immigration, except for
would-be immigrants from places like England, Norway, or Italy. If
she is so interested in preserving America she might consider
taking a look at what overpopulation is doing to her own state.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
 
Give me a link to THAT one. I know GreenPeace is weird, but that slipped below my radar.
Bob
DavidP said:
That's the first I've heard of that. Got a link?

Sounds like when GreenPeace was caught paying people to club baby
seals so they could film them as "documentation".
Click to expand...
 
Let's stay on topic! Wouldn't it have been interesting to have photographed people visiting the exhibit before the move and AFTER the move. Were there fewer viewers after it was moved? Were there more? Did the photographs show the desert that was described? Or did they show something else? Did Mr Banerjee really take his photos in the National Wildlife Refuge or on some Alaskan desert? Interesting!
Beth
billtoo said:
Photographer Subhankar Banerjee spent four seasons in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge and his work was good enough to get him an
exhibit on the main floor of the Smithsonian - that is until his
photos were used on the senate floor to support the case against
drilling in Alaska. Subsequent to the senate "show" the exhibit
was moved from the main floor of the Smithsonian downstairs to a
room behind the cafeteria. Smithsonian officials say they decided
the photos would be displayed better downstairs.

From the L.A. Times 4/29
--
billtoo
camera - One-D, favorite lens 70-twohundred/2.8 IS
http://www.pbase.com/billtoo
Click to expand...
--
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids
 
Some of the folks I like and respect here seem to be full of the vitriolic cr@p that gets passed around as political discourse. The fact is that there are good arguments on either side of the ANWR issue, but all that tends to get lost in the building of straw men to hate and stereotype just because you disagree with them.

Maybe y'all might want to watch your stereotyping with words like "tree huggers" etc. You could very well be alienating a large portion of the DP review audience. Maybe you don't care....but I feel a bit alienated, and I'm no tree hugger. However, I do feel that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the environmentalist movement. Let's not paint all those that put nature before people and profits as "tree huggers". Some of us are very rational people that take things on an issue by issue basis. It would be nice if others could try that approach as opposed to assuming the worst and reflexively lashing out.

I do find it ironic that a forum of photographers seems to be full of conservative, anti-regulatory types. Maybe none of you are nature photographers or spend much time in National Parks and wilderness regions.

Personally I don't have much tolerance for radicals be they from the left or the right. But I do feel very strongly about nature and am saddened by the callousness that some of you appear to be showing for the environment and those that choose to protect it.

Anyway, as a side note, I might actually start an OT thread where you could vote yea or nay for ANWR drilling. A minimum of debate, just a tally of our forum community.
billtoo said:
Photographer Subhankar Banerjee spent four seasons in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge and his work was good enough to get him an
exhibit on the main floor of the Smithsonian - that is until his
photos were used on the senate floor to support the case against
drilling in Alaska. Subsequent to the senate "show" the exhibit
was moved from the main floor of the Smithsonian downstairs to a
room behind the cafeteria. Smithsonian officials say they decided
the photos would be displayed better downstairs.

From the L.A. Times 4/29
--
billtoo
camera - One-D, favorite lens 70-twohundred/2.8 IS
http://www.pbase.com/billtoo
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/stefanm
 
Stefan1967 said:
Let's not paint all those that put nature before people
and profits as "tree huggers". Some of us are very rational people
that take things on an issue by issue basis. It would be nice if
others could try that approach as opposed to assuming the worst and
reflexively lashing out.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Stefan ...well said.

Larry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top