Pants on the Ground
I had never heard of “General” Larry Platt. He showed up, at age 62, well past the “best before date” of contestants which is 29, on American Idol. I don’t watch the show. I only stumbled on this story when my yahoo news put a tag on my email page.
Larry Platt, as it turns out, is a well known civil rights activist. Fortunately no-one reading this post is likely to remember the turmoil the United States went through in the 1960 and ’70’s over what were called “race relations”, the demands of black Americans, Negroes (now politically-corrected to the term “African-Americans”) to be equal. They wanted to be equal in the eyes of other Americans, which at the time, largely meant white Americans. White people had it pretty good for the most part. The Second World War had given way to a new way of life in America – plenty of jobs, lots of consumer goods to buy with the paycheques, and a feeling that their country and their culture was on top of the world. Negroes were often looked down on, spat on, beat up, discriminated against widely in almost every area of their daily life. Housing. Jobs. Medical care. A simple walk through a park where it was generally accepted that only white people went could easily ignite bullying, a beating or worse. And if that walk through the park was tolerated, sharing a slurp of water at a public drinking fountain was not. There were fountains for white people and separate ones for black people. (This was in the days before corporations started packaging nearly free water and selling it to people who find it hard to find a fountain anymore.) If a black and white couple were seen in public, in some places there would be some nasty gossip; in some other places the black partner, especially if that was the guy, could be severely beaten and perhaps killed; such couples were seldom seen for obvious reasons.
A few internet searches of “American Civil Rights movement” will bring up tales of bullying, abuse, murder, lynchings. The state of Georgia, among several others were notorious for their systematic beating down of “Blacks”. (Note that in 2001, the Georgia legislature declared: “WHEREAS, September 4, 2001, was proclaimed “Larry Platt Day” in the City of Atlanta, and it is highly fitting and proper that this body recognize the significant contributions of this esteemed man.”)
Not all white people discriminated against black people of course. Many eventually rose up with the Negroes to demand equality for them. They marched beside the Negroes to demonstrate for equal rights. They wrote letters to the editor and preached against discrimination from the pulpits…at least in some parts of the country. Those white people did it because it was the right thing to do. Because equality was guaranteed in the American constitution. Because they did not want this new post-war society being built with racial injustice as one of the pillars holding it up.
But still, it seemed, it was pretty much the Negro’s struggle to be equal to the white people who were running the country, enforcing the laws, assigning jobs and giving medical care.
Very much has changed. Very, very much. While no-one could argue that today’s African-Americans are always equally treated in all areas of society, they – and all of American society – are much better off than in the bad old days. I can say that because though I was a very young teen at the time, I saw, on a 14 inch black and white TV, the beatings and riots and news stories about lynchings and murders and I watched the protests and I also saw the signing of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 by then President Lyndon Johnson. This is a long clip and near the end it also features Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the most influential black leader of his time and noted for making tremendous progress for the Negroes of America while specifically denouncing violence.
There is much that the American people have to be proud of while admitting that it can naturally be better when it comes to “Race Relations”. Now back to “General” Larry Platt. The civil rights worker. The student of Dr. Martin Luther King. A young man in 1963 ,who joined the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). This group used non-violent methods like “sit-ins” to protest racial injustice and lack of real civil rights for Negroes. The group formed after black students were refused service at the lunch counter of a Woolworths store in North Carolina. Sit-ins would have groups of protesters sit down in streets, parks, on sidewalks, often with signs on placards, and they would stay there until the police would literally pick them up and carry them away. It was a non-violent way to get attention for the cause and it copied one of the methods Mahatma Ghandi used to take the entire nation of India out of the hands of the British Empire and its armies – without firing a shot.
Larry Platt was one of the 600 Civil Rights activists who marched, on March 7 1965 towards the Edmund Pettus Bridge just outside of Selma, Alabama. Local Police and State Troopers attacked the marchers with billy clubs and tear gas and pushed them back into the city. That day became known as “Bloody Sunday” because of the violence the law enforcers used against the people marching to demand their legal rights.
The police may have thought that was the end of it. But Dr. King, two days later, led a small “symbolic” march to the bridge. Dr. King’s high profile often (but not always) guaranteed, as it did on that day, that there would be no violence against the protesters by the police- they were afraid of the news cameras which followed Dr. King to such events.
But even though the earlier protesters, including Larry Platt, had been beaten up and beaten back, they would not be stopped. Dr. King applied to the Federal District Court and got a ruling that allowed a march – now with the court’s blessing – from Selma to Alabama’s state capitol, Montgomery. On Sunday, March 21st, 1965, the original marchers had grown from 600 in number to 3200. They walked about twelve miles (19 km) each day, and rested in the fields along the way. By the time they reached the capitol they had grown to 25,000 people! Less than five months later the Civil Rights Act was signed. (Source )
So what is “General” (A nickname he was given because of his courageous fight for civil rights) Larry Platt going on about with his “Pants on the Ground” song, which he wrote and performed on American Idol? It is, on the surface, a nonsensical song, kind of catchy, if simple. But what the American Idol video clip does not mention is that Larry Platt had looked back over his life fighting for civil rights, for black people. Especially young black people, so that they had the opportunities and the basic human rights that he and his forefathers either never had or literally had to fight for. And then he looked forward at some of the young people today, many involved in Hip-Hop culture and many of those, black kids, the ones for whose future he had fought so long and so hard for. And in his mind he saw them squandering – throwing away – the dignity and the respect that he and others, thousands of others, had helped to bring to them and to their parents and grandparents.
(Source )
Larry Platt may have started just by thinking that kids with their boxers ‘n’ butts hanging out was just crude and sloppy. A lot of people think that. But it is usually the young people who shake up their elders with outrageous fashions. And sometimes people do need shaking up. Like they did in 1965. But I have to wonder if Larry Platt asked himself “is this how the young people use their right to express their opinions and who they are to the world? Is this the best that young people today can do, all they bother with when there is so much still to be done to change the world for the better?”
Maybe, maybe he is just a grumpy old man who doesn’t like sloppy pants and vertical smiles peeking out of jeans. But the man does get things done! How else would a 62 year old man score an audition on international TV and have it go viral on the Net?
Young people can and should shake things up when the older folks get too set in their ways. It appears to make a tremendous difference how they do it. Some can change a nation and others barely manage to change their underwear.
Photographer Annie Liebowitz’s Mortgaged Future
Photographer Annie Liebowitz’s past and mortgaged future
The New York Times said February 23,2009 that Annie Leibovitz has “pawned the rights to her life’s work to raise nearly US$16-million to pay off her debts.”
Annie Leibovitz become famous first for her portraiture of Rock Stars (with a capital-Star) for Rolling Stone magazine in the 1970’s. One of her most famous- and there were several – is of a nude John Lennon wrapped around his wife Yoko Ono, for a Rolling Stone magazine cover of January 1981. The photo shoot was December 8, 1980 and five hours after it ended, so did Lennon’s life, victim of bullets from an insane “fan”, Mark David Chapman.
For twelve years she was Rolling Stone’s chief photographer, taking portraits of both the instantly recognizable and up-and-coming rockers and social icons. The cover of the Rolling Stone even became its own social icon, subject of Dr. Hook’s song of the same name in 1973.
Biography: Born in 1949, Anna-Lou Leibovitz was one of six children. She developed her passion for photography when she enrolled in the San Francisco Art Institute in 1967. Later, came her apprenticeship at Rolling Stone in photography as a medium of exhibition and of provocation. It seemed to become a process whereby the viewer was almost as much a part of the process of getting to examine the celebrity and her or his humanity and celebrity, as was the photographer. Pictures weren’t necessarily made to be flattering or glamorous. They were portraits of the people.Often, they were controversial; like that of her friend Artist Keith Haring was painted up as if he were one of his own paintings, and photographed by Leibovitz in stark whites and black accents.
Strong colours and provocative poses and sometimes an in-your-face approach to portraiture are some of her trademarks. Leibovitz quit Rolling Stone in 1983 but her powerful, large format (and often a larger-than-life style) photographs of celebrities were intimate and revealing while still keeping back something, something private, unrevealed in the light.
Annie’s closeness to, her embrace and exploration of the lives and personalities of celebrities created celebrity in her own career.In 1991 a nude and very pregnant Demi Moore posed for Leibovitz, for Vanity Fair magazine. Scroll down on this page to see the photo that scandalized a nation that had not yet seen a glimpse of Janet Jackson’s nipple. There was nary a naughty bit to be seen in Moore’s sidelong portrait for Vanity Fair but a nude- a pregnant nude- on a major mainstream magazine created an uproar. According to the article at the link above, the infamous photo was taken near the end of the shoot and was originally intended “just for Demi”. However, looking at the results, Leibovitz spoke to Vanity Fair editor Tina Brown and to their surprise, Demi Moore agreed that it would make a great cover picture.
Years later in April 2009, Leibovitz photographed Miley Cyrus, 15 year old Teen idol. The image that caused controversy for both Cyrus and for Lebovitz showed the girl with a satin sheet wrapped around her but with her back and right shoulder to the camera, and bare. Here is a Vanity Fair montage of images from the shoot. A search of the Web will find Leibovitz “defending” and “apologizing” for the photos. I suppose such a picture is bound to cause controversy in a country that seemed to nearly fall apart when Janet Jackson’s nipple was exposed on national TV for a few seconds.
Leibovitz is a disciplined woman who has photographed the faces and bodies, and arguably in some cases, depicted the souls of some of the most famous people of the 20th century. She has the gift, the knack, of not simply snapping a picture after composing it, but of bringing forward personality, artifice, honesty and subterfuge in her subjects. Mirth and sorrow and glamour and mystery are found in her art.
So is commerce. Leibovitz is a commercial photographer and she’s made a very good living at it for decades. Having Annie Leibovitz photograph you or your daughter or your lover- or your product – held its own cachet beyond the effect her compositions might have on you. It held the same kind of status and draw as might a dinner speech by Bill Clinton. Or maybe Bono or even…for some of us…Bob Dylan, singing at your birthday party.
But her three houses and her studios are under threat now and she has decided to mortgage her art and her rights to her art until she has paid off her substantial debts. She could, of course, declare bankruptcy but that would scarcely make a ripple in lives of anyone but her creditors. By selling the rights to her talent and foreseeable future earnings to a company called Art Capital Group she is being responsible as far as paying people to whom she is indebted but she is also, perversely maybe, maintaining the value of her works. If Art Capital thinks it is worth millions of dollars in collateral (not to mention high interest income), then her work retains its cumulative financial value.
Annie Leibovitz has suffered greatly financially lately and of course that is not unique. She has also suffered personally, especially with the death of her long time friend and lover, novelist, critic and essayist Susan Sontag. Salon.com talks about the series of family photographs – with some famous people thrown in- as well as Susan Sontag’s last pictures in Leibovitz’s book, “A Photographer’s Life: 1990-2005″. (A quick check on Amazon shows mixed reviews of the book; the negative ones tend to criticize not the photographs but the layout of the book.)
In 1999, the two women published “Women”, photographs of women well known and those well hidden, from Supreme Court Justices to coal miners. The images of Sontag in her last days were stark contrast to the often glamorous work Leibovitz is best known for but they echo the work done by her mentor Richard Avedon, when he photographed his dying father. Of course such photographs by both these famous artists were often condemned as exploitive and perhaps they were. But they would also seem to be cathartic. Perhaps some readers can identify with this.
How did Annie Leibovitz come to have large, pricey properties and enormous debts? I found speculation and a reasonable conclusion at AfterEllen. Julia Miranda writes: “same-sex couples do not have the same privileges as straight married couples when it comes to inheritance. If your partner passes away and leaves her estate to you, you have to pay up to 50 percent of the value of your inheritance in taxes. However, if you and your partner were recognized as a married couple, you wouldn’t have to pay a dime. And it is precisely this unjust double standard that got Annie Leibovitz into financial trouble.”
So why didn’t she just sell some of the property? Can one assume that keeping all that Sontag gave here as part of Sontag’s estate means more to her than rights to her own artistic works? Finally, I need to also note that Leibovitz was not just about glamour and fame. She took photographs all over the world of many kinds of people. Check out a few of the women portrayed at the first link in his post. Leibovitz is an extraordinary and talented woman and artist. I hope this post may inspire someone to look up her work, perhaps to push their own photographic talents just a little further.
Let’s hope this artist continues to produce her provocative and profound- and yes, her commercial work that will, hopefully, pay down her debts.