(Sorry to shock you, but that was just the academic me - the "real" me as a matter of fact - which you can see, by the way, in previous posts of mine in the Philosophy of Photography forum. In an academic setting, "spirited discussion" is the name of the day!)(posted 8702 days ago)However, I am outraged at those kinds of simplistic value judgements, particularly since they were made with no apparent desire to examine the actual ground of the argument (the unexamined assumptions underlying those statements). Who said it? You did; it's the subtext on which those blanket judgements are based. I'm trying to get you to wake up and take a look at those assumptions.
I've seen Borges' work before, but had not really taken the time to examine it or form an opinion, but I don't like the fact that he is being judged arbitrarily. Whether critiquing art, film, politics, - whatever - I don't like these kinds of value "judgements" at all. They serve no purpose except to exclude new ideas and to reinforce old dogmas. What I much prefer are interpretations that create some value from the process.
In this case, the choice of Palma as a rebuttal just serves to validate my argument. You're allowed to be either a serious "artist," embuing your work with some timeless "essence" (which really just means manipulating the hell out of it) or to be that supposedly impartial observer who is welcomed into an alien culture to record pure unmediated reality (though usually with a touch of condescension). Borges, rather obviously (and as Todd points out nicely), doesn't map on to either pole. While there's something to be learned from traditional photo-ethnography (a la Greenfield) or art like that of Palma's, there's a big problem if you think that either (or both) represent "truth."
Borges' work arouses animosity in those versed in traditional photographic techniques precisely because it transgresses - using commercial techniques for "serious" cultural ends (regardless of the fact that Borges doesn't ever seem to claim such seriousness). Rather than just dismiss him, it would be far better to examine what he is doing and how it both gives a different perspective on the subjects than traditional approaches do, and - equally importantly - provides a new awareness of the limitations and manipulations inherent in those traditional approaches - and of the unspoken agendas of those who use them.