Condemned Man

It's a scary picture. It immediately opens up a lot of questions. Actually I would classify it as Illustration - just that it doesn't have anything to illustrate (yet). It would make a great book cover - who could not fail to pick it up ? On the other hand, since we know it is a dummy, then we have to consider that a very significant part of the work is actually down to the model maker, who was seeking to convey the plight of a prisoner back in the bad old colonial times. Whether or not this work (the dummy)is any good, it has, unless Chris is being extremely conceptual here, effectively just been copied. Somehow I don't feel that there is enough evidence to demonstrate that this is anything other than a fun Photoshop paste-up, rather than a complex commentary on the representation of oh bla bla whatever. Welease Woderwick.

Thanks very much to those few of you who have condescended to our low estate to bless us with the Truth. Hopefully, I'm speaking for the other mindless members who, like myself, are also deeply grateful that you are so willing to enlighten us. After all, we are mere nit-picky professionals and ever ready to wax lyrical over the most jejune and pretentious tat. Why, speaking for myself, I haven't even developed the faculty of distinguishing the phoney from the genuine.

A word of special thanks for those who chasten us for being conscious of our emotions. I am so ashamed that I felt compassion for this "man," who I naively believed was facing the last few thoughts of his life, perhaps thinking back to his days as a small innocent boy, recounting the steps that lead him to the sad and early end of his life only to find out he wasn't a man at all but a lifeless dummy with no past, no hopes and no regrets. Yes, there is no difference at all. Many thanks, therefore, that there are members here who are able to cut through the chaff and disclose to us, to me, to poor, stupid me, that it doesn't matter at all if this photograph was made from real life or from a small set up in a museum. What a dope I was to think it mattered. I am so embarrassed to have felt anything at all.

Also, after 25 years of experience I am ever so grateful that there are others out there that have finally figured out the one, true and singular goal of photography, and are willing to lay it all out on the line to share it with those, who, like me, are too stupid to see it. I'm thankful that these gifted seers are willing to share their revelations with us.

Long live the POW!

Thanks Doug. For being the first to speak out against an attempt to cover up the illegitimacy of this photo. When I saw the post-revelation comments that continued to extoll the image, I thought, I must really be out of touch with things. You have my admiration.

I'm with those who think the photogrpaher was not out to dupe people. I agree with those who hold the idea that a title doesn't have to be the literal truth behind the photo. I was fooled, but I don't feel I was tricked and so I can't blame the elves: They were duped, too, it seems. I'm not bothred by anyone who claims they were not moved by the image, whether they believed it to be real, or wax.

 

What bothers me is the expression of the idea that it's a matter of low intelligence to have not known the difference.

 

What bothers me is why anyone would think it doesn't make a difference whether this is a man, or a dummy. In terms of light and shadow, tone and highlight, etc, it doesn't make a difference, but in terms of emotional content, I believe it makes a tremendous difference when you realize that a dummy has no feelings, yet the message of the photograph is charged with emotion.

Point or no point IMO it's a powerful image. Chris, if you want to give it one more twist it could look great if you put some colour into it and printed it onto canvas as a faux oil painting.....

It is certainly not a question of low intellengence not to have known the difference. Many talented intellegent people took it at face value and reacted to the concept. All I knew when I first viewed this was that it didn't move me... That doesn't make me or anyone else "smarter". This type of shot isn't really to my taste to begin with. In truth, I might not have taken the time to pull the image into my desktop and examined the shot super blown up if not for a previous statement that it looked like a wax figure. Once I did - I saw such a lack of depth in the man's face. Sure, a broken person has a look of deadness -- but there is still life in their eyes..I know because I've seen such people in real life. It was only upon close examination, however, that a complete dummy-like deadness in the face and eyes of this image was evident to me. Unless people actually took the time to do that...I think the image is so realistic that it is understandable that some people didn't catch it.

There is nothing un-intellegent about looking at an image and going with your gut reaction! That is a personal journey for each one of us. Some more sensitive than others. Photography/art - is very much about being moved. Often it is that immediate gut-wrenching reaction that we go with. I think we ought to respect everyone's right to their opinion and their interpretation.

All in all I still stand by my thoughts that this was a great lesson in how we all see the world from a different window.

"...a faux oil painting " The irony is endless!

Speaking of which, the Elves' POW comment is hilarious when read line by line, below (with annotations):

An unbelievable image, (the first and most truthful statement so far)

where suffering can't just be seen, (because there wasn't any)

but can be felt. (well, by some, anyway, not by all)

Sometimes all it takes for a picture (Is more than what the camera sees)

that truly communicates, (or, communicates truly, apparently there's a difference)

is a strong subject, (or an inaninimate one)

the right timing, (15 seconds should cover it)

the right light, (positioned by the museum committee)

and a very simple composition (thanks to the set designer, too)

that lets the subject speak for itself.(wanted: talented ventriloquist to speak for lifeless subject)

I was one of the fooled, and it gave me chills even when I perused this folder before it was selected at POW. After knowing "the truth", it still serves to convey a powerful message of condemnation to me magnified by the setting created by Chris's artful use of PS. Chris stated that "this picture is really more about my imagination, and, mixed with a lazy afternoon in Photoshop", which I think was a successful exercise (although you might like to ask him) and I'm both moved and inspired not only by this image of his but also by his other contributions to this site. Thanks Chris!

children, children, play nicely ! some people liked it, some didn't. Well, well. Photography is subjective ? who'd have thought ?

The Emperor's New Clothes.....Ring a Bell?

Hello, I found this a good image, I like the atmosphere surround the man, and I like his facial expression, and I also like his pose that suggests his redemption. However, maybe you have mentioned it before, but I want to know where you took the photo. Is the man a wax figure?

I agree that the man lacks a sense of "aliveness" in his eyes, and leads me think he's a wax figure. Technically, I think the dodge on the man's face is quite a disaster. The photographer should be able to make a better dodge, either manually or digitally. Artistically, the overwhelmed sadness and hopelessness make this image too melodramatic.

In response to Mary Ball's comment about "intelligence," I totally agree that artists don't have to be smart, and viewing a piece of art doesn't require intelligence, although when viewing some historical artworks require some knowledge. I think after all those modernism, conceptualism and postmodernism, we, artists seem to have to be more intelligent in order to create some smarter works. I think what we, as artists, need to deliver is our emotion, and that's something I think some modern arts are lacking.

aethetic 5, originally 5.

This is like when they gave the Emmy to Milli Vinilli (spelling).

Well, at least we've got a real debate going on. Well, up to a point. I'll happily join forces with those who oppose overuse of post-processing to create impossible images which are then passed off as real. I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with those who shout down photographers who claim their work is something it isn't and never could have been. Of course, the problem is that I don't see any of that here. Was this image easier to create than if the photographer had staged it in its entirety, including a live model, in whatever despair he could muster? Well, perhaps, but that's no reason to condemn the photographer (and stick him into a tastefully-neutral-toned, "B"-marked straight jacket). This shot just doesn't strike me as such blasphemy.

 

It does strike me as an effectively moody image, eased in its execution because of an existing scene, but nonetheless expertly presented. Chris' eye for composition and light has not let him down. Though it appears straightforward in composition, and perhaps other compositions are possible, this crop is excellently simple. The exposure and subsequent dodging-and-burning give us good definition in all the key areas, even if the background (upper right) goes essentially detail-free.

 

Enough ramble from me. Though perhaps this belongs elsewhere, two quick comments on this style of POW discussion (forum-type postings instead of photograph comment-type postings): it eliminates some previous functionality (e.g, ability to edit), and it keeps the front page from accurately reflecting the depth of interest in the discussion (there are way more than 16 comments on this image). Nobly intended change, to be sure, but necessary?

 

Congrats Chris. Nice image.

Milli Vanilli got (and then lost) an undeserved Grammy. [Emmies (emmy's?) are for tv.] Though I can understand feeling a little gypped by this image, this is a long way from what they did, methinks. At least Chris took this photograph, and to my knowledge, had never claimed that it was something it was not.

Thanks, Marshall, for the correction...Grammy instead of Emmy. In no way do I mean any criticism of Chris or his work...he has an outstanding portfolio here.

My remark was aimed more at the elves for being fooled. But I'd be guilty of that, too. The thought that this was a wax figure would have never crossed my mind.

Well, I am late to the party and you all started without me. I guess I am not all that freaked out by this since Chris never really held it up as authentic. When I first saw this image, I thought it was a very nice print, (I still do), so I checked out the rest of his portfolio. It's a collection of very nice images, but this one stands out as being different from the others. It doesn't really go with his style. Then there are the many clues which added to my suspicion that this was something other than a real guy in a straight jacket in a cave with butchered hair but clean shaven. Plus the technical details of 15 sec (or even 1/15 sec.) @ F4 which really sealed it for me that this was either staged or statue. The photo never really had any emotional impact for me but it's still well composed, technically proficient, and a nice print.

Chris, the Milli Vanilli comparison is appropriate. Your

representation is designed to allow people to come to the wrong

conclusion. They didn't expect a Grammy, you didn't expect a POW.

 

It's guilt by ommission. You did everything you could to keep this

from being a documentary photo by carefully eliminating any clue that

we were looking at a wax figure inside a museum. If you intended this

as a harmless prank, which I am sympathetic to, having uploaded a few

myself, then I would suggest that you should have given us a clue in

the title that would allow us to share in the joke. Was your ultimate

goal to have people discover the ruse or to conceal it? That's

important to a lot of us. So is willingness to accept credit for

someone else's artistic efforts both in concept and realization,

although there seems to be varied opinions on this. .

So, Chris matter-of-factly tells us it was a dummy, no big deal; it was more of an exercise in creating the image itself. Sounds reasonable. I think he did a good job.

Moderator edit and comment: Please e-mail your comment that has been deleted - to the member you are confronting if you wish to confront an issue. Sorry but it doesn't belong on this page. Please see guidelines in the "about" POW section.

It's a nicely composed, interesting shot. It is equally amusing and perplexing to see hackles raised by some who care (too much) if the subject was alive or not. So it wasn't human -- big deal.

 

Chris, ignore people who call you 'guilty' because you 'fooled' them. Pshaw.

And for the rest, well yeh it's a bit crap isn't it, just a dummy in a wig.

-- Chris Battey , December 03, 2002

Chris gets my Refreshingly Humble Photographer Award.

I am not certain why some people are getting upset with Chris here. All he did was upload a good picture with an interesting title.

It's up to the viewer to interpret it. As a matter of fact, I think that it would have been best to keep the identity of the "model" a secret. It's more fun that way for the viewer.

As an aside, Chris has two photos, "Portrait of a dead man" and this one, that remind me a lot of Cindy Sherman's staged death photos.

"I am not certain why some people are getting upset with Chris here. All he did was upload a good picture with an interesting title."

 

Absolutely. We don't need to know his intentions or working methods or techniques. We need to look at an image and decide what we think of it. Doesn't matter if it's a straight print, or a manipulated one, or what kind of equipment was used to make it, or the accuracy of its title.

When I first saw this picture I thought it was real. It fooled me because it was skilfully done (and I'm naive). Rather than getting hot under the collar about it, I had a laugh and forgot about the incident, until the image became POW.

There are plenty of uploaded pictures here of statues and other peoples' art (buildings, posters, paintings). There are plenty of pictures that receive what is assumed to be the "ultimate" accolade: "...this looks like a painting". This is the converse: a wax model that has been presented well by way of thoughtful printing, composition etc. to look like real life (at least many thought it did).

There is no plot. There is no scam. There is no deception ("deception" is a word that implies intent). The Art World needs a bit of egg on its face every now and again to loosen its pretensions.

You might say that if this is not from life then it has no worth as a picture. Valid point, worth discussing, but not from a moral point of view, only from a creative one.

"this shows how important (I think) for people to disclose how photos are created"

 

Robert, I suspect the opposite is highlighted -- the unimportance of the reality of a photograph for it to be considered. Disclosing information about a photo is only pertinent to those who, for whatever reason, seem to want that information -- but I question its pertinence to begin with.

 

I realize that some ascribe great importance in the specific camera body, lens, filters, tripod, head, location, image title and time of day (I'm thinking of one person, not involved in this thread, who provides this information for all uploaded photos), but to me that only underscores the irrelevance of such information.

 

Does the lens or title change whether the image is good or not? No. Does it matter if there was dodging or burning or other manipulation if we cannot immediately discern it? Again, no. If an image has a title that seems unconnected to the photo, we may choose to ponder the (dis)connection, or not. If we see something in the photo that the photographer did not intend, so what. Even if a photographer deliberately deceives us is ultimately irrelevant to whether we like the photograph.

I don't think anyone is ignoring the qualities of the image, I think they are seeking to fulfill the image, which is to say they are looking into its content for another level of understanding and appreciation. I think everyone can appreciate the photography, just that now some are trying to appreciate the photograph.

Also, true, we don't need to know his intentions or working methods,etc, but some of us would like to know those things which could potentially make our enjoyment more intense.

Looking at an image and deciding what we think of it is what I would consider a first step. Deciding what it means to us is a secondary step and accomplished in part by discovering more about its origins.

Any one way to enjoy a photograph is not better than another, but there are preferred ways. Some came to want more information while others didn't care. So, it's probably not accurate to say it doesn't matter because, quite obviously, it matters a great deal to some, who might legitimately feel insulted by such a dismissal.