Condemned Man

I think Leannie has a point...:-)) The worse suffering must be to be recepient of the POW...:-)

Ok Carl, let's carry this further, just to justify Leannie's last post...:-)

"The art, I hope, is to get the viewer to see these objects in a different way, using light and compostion to show the viewer what I think is interesting. That's what 'originality ' means."

"The art", earlier "the merit"... What are we talking about here ? A picture that Chris uploaded because he liked it or wanted some feedback. He hasn't claimed it was art, nor has he claimed it was real, nor has he claimed it wasn't wax...

"Get the viewer to see these objects in a different way", you said, "that's what originality means".

Mmm... Maybe that's what it means to you. To me, we aren't talking about subjects or objects, when we are taking this sort of pictures. I'd rather talk about presenting CONCEPTS to a public. The concept of being "CONDEMNED", or the concept of "SUFFERING". So, I would ask myself whether this is original as a presentation about suffering, and my answer would be "most certainly". Have I seen such presentation of suffering before ? Never. Not even close to this. What the photographer did to achieve this, I have no idea, but I don't care much. Maybe he did nothing at all to get this picture. Maybe the camera's shutter triggered on its own by accident - no idea, no concern. I see a picture that really knocks me off my chair and tells me "Hey look... that's what other people's life looks like"... I don't care what's the merit behind the shot, but I knw that the merit i front of it is that it made think for a number of days about several serious issues after I first saw it, and it still touches me tremendously today - which is why I'm certainly glad to see this as POW.

If this would be a contest about merit, I may understand your interpretation of "originality", but that's not, to me at least, the main issue.

You also wrote: "I don't see anything at all that the photographer has brought of himself to this subject beyond framing it to eliminate elements that might compromise the deception. That would be a '1' for originality."

So, any found scene under an existing light would deserve the same treatment, right ?

"The emotional response that some have written about might suggest high marks for 'aesthetics', except that they have been prepackaged, conceived and executed by others."

This is, again, assuming that we are looking at a wax figure... Are we ? Are we not ? And evenhough this would be just found as it is, what difference would that make with shooting a sunset for example ? Maybe it was there as is, in a wax museum, but the sunset was there too, no...?

Looks like a one armed coal miner to me

 

I was wondering why the photographer chose to present this in a square format. It does seem to work well with the many diagonal elements ranging from the man's head to the folds of his tunic. I'm going to presume this was shot with a 50m lens based on the shutter speed and aperture provided by the photographer.

 

At first, I thought the "B" might stand for b-block or b-ward as in a prison or institution. I doubt this is a wax figure just because I think a museum would clean this up a bit and it's hard to imagine a display set up with this body language and leaning against a wall. The only thing that makes me believe this could be a diorama is that I don't know if I would be comfortable taking this photo at close range in a confined area. Chris's folder does not give us any clues other than to make me doubt that he would be interested in shooting a photo of a wax doll.

 

I'm looking forward to being both fooled and surprised when Chris shows up. Until then it's mostly piffle.

I'm with you, Mary Ball et al. I was also unaffected by this image the first time I saw it. Wondering whether I might be becoming too cynical I left it for a day, came back and ... still nothing.

 

In fact I could never quite convince myself that the scene was authentic. My first thought was that Chris had dressed up one of his friends to portray a particular theme. I felt that the actor hadn't quite pulled it off (too wooden) and that the stylization was a bit too campy (1950s-style horror movies). Now that some clever fellow has floated the idea that this could be a wax figure, I'm inclined to go that route. I'm also hoping that Chris will keep us guessing for another day or so, to give people the opportunity to compare their initial reactions to the shot against their thoughts after re-checking the photo in light of the doubts raised.

 

If the suspicions some of us have prove correct, the discussion could take some interesting turns including: (1) whether viewers are inclined to rate a photo as favourably if it is "just" a shot of a museum exhibit, or (2) the suggestibility/impact of a title.

 

As concerns the latter, I concur with Matt, Balaji and and Lanny who have already commented on the power of the title. If Chris had indeed called the shot "The Tired Welder" (Doug's idea) or "Damn, where's the pooper-scooper?" -- would this have provoked as many goose-bumps? Has the title in fact dictated what many of us are seeing, rather than the photo itself? And does this even matter?

I was one of the first to comment on this picture and I was pretty glowing in my praise. Subsequent speculation on whether it is real (i.e. from real life) has forced me to reconsider my assumptions about its origins.

 

This isn't such a bad thing. If it is a posed shot, or one of a wax model, then where does this lead my appreciation of the picture?

 

Firstly, it is still an image of a haunting subject, although this may be partially because of the efforts of others (e.g. the set decorator - or whatever they're called - at the museum/studio) and not entirely of the photographer.

 

Secondly, if it is not from life, and is from a museum, then it could easily be looked at as a brochure shot for the museum. It would certainly entice me (when next in Paris) to go see for myself.

 

Thirdly, I am not aware of any rule relating to Photo Of The Week that says the shot must be from life. I believe (although debate rages, and has raged in the past) that the POW should be at least a photograph, but in the absence of any indication to the contrary, this images qualifies as a photograph.

 

Fourthly, I am not aware of any notification process from the elves that asks a photographer whether his or her shot is acceptable to the photographer as POW. So, if this is not from life, then some of the outrage recommending stripping the photographer of his award is misplaced. I assume he was not asked (I was not when awarded POW) and I know for a fact that other photographers are, as a rule, not asked for their input into the decision. Chris is in the clear on that accusation.

 

Fifthly, I am trying to think of other shots, besides museum catalog shots, that are simply photographs of other peoples' work, but which tell a story that is significant, over and above the original subject. The photographs of Saddam Hussein's portrait that we see regularly on news outlets come to mind. These are accepted as valid photographs because of the subject they illustrate: the overwhelming presence of Saddam - in picture form - on every Iraqi street and in every Iraqi home (apparently). These photographs are a metaphor for his more sinister presence, not in people's living rooms and on street corners, but in the very fabric of their lives. We in the West regard this photographic ubiquity as a joke, but surely it no more of a joke than the constant flag waving in the corner that one particular news organization displays on its own screen (I am talking here of Fox News - owned by an ex-Australian, to my eternal shame). The point is, we see ikons and images of other peoples' art everywhere presented as creative works in their own right. Why not this one?

 

Oh, I hear you say, POW is reserved for art. Well, is it? Not in the "rules" it isn't. Not anywhere in the guidelines it isn't. Other sites (e.g. PhotoSig, DO have such rules, but not photo.net).

 

As far as the title is concerned, Chris has made no claim that it is descriptive, as many have assumed it is. Plenty of titles are non-descriptive. If there was a field for "Photo Description" in the upload form then presumably it would have been filled in, but there isn't, and it wasn't.

 

The Big Question here is whether, if the picture is not from life, it qualifies as a "worthy" upload to this site. Technically it seems very good. It has quite an unsettling air about it. Whether it is art or not is, to me, completely beside the point. Chris has made no claim to the photograph being "art", so why should we impute this characteristic to it? And why should we criticise him (or any other photographer who wins POW) of being close to a fraud for uploading it in the first place? He has broken no laws or guidelines in doing so, and has told no lies that I can detect in any of the information pertaining to the upload. He is not representing it as anything more than what it is, and it is up to us, his audience, to work out what that is. His job as the photographer is done.

 

To me, a photograph of another's "art" is quite a valid subject for upload to photo.net, especially in the absence of any restrictions - official or otherwise - to the contrary. These can, and are, judged on their merits. Plenty of people have taken awful photographs of, say, Michelangelo's "David". A (relative) few have taken a good one. Should we lump them all together into the "fake" basket? Or is it only pictures of less-than-masterpieces, like waxworks dummies, that warrant that criticism? I wouldn't like to think so.

 

One of the reasons photography was invented was to take us to places that we may never visit personally. I hope to never visit a condemned man's cell (although others seem to get a kick out of it), but I do hope to re-visit Paris, and just maybe I might go see for myself whether this is in the museum there.

Sorry, but it does. It is excellent, though, it it was. Excellent also if it was wax or a model. Good job.

Before reading any of the responses, my first thought was "This doesn't look real - there's something not quite right about it."

 

And I still hold to that.

 

Maybe it's wax. Maybe it's computer generated. Maybe it's staged.

 

But please, Chris Battey - feel free to prove all of us nay-sayers wrong...or right, for that matter. I'd be very interested to know how this shot was accomplished, as it is a very interesting one, whether or not it's real.

UNBELIEVABLE!! Just looking at this image gives pangs in my chest.

It's hard to even look at the image because it's so strong, it's

stretching my emotional capacity. This is the sort of thing that

I'm persuing in my photography but I'm no where near that...

 

Congratulations on this other worldly picture!!

This photo looks staged, sad pose, the dirt on his straight jacket matches the dirt on his face.In some ways i hope that it is! I very well maybe wrong on this one. A photo like this can touch the heart of others very deeply, but what about him? Does he mind having his photo shown to thousands of folks on photonet? Did you ask him if it was ok in his moment of sadness? Something to think about...

It sure is a nice print.

Scott's comment is important. There are AA prints that suggest to me

that sometimes he didn't care so much about the subject or

composition, but in making a physical piece of art . . . . a print

with tonal range that itself has appeal for that reason primarily. I

will leave it to the many other experienced darkroom printers to tell

us what they think this would look like "in the flesh".

 

Marc, To stumble across a scene that seems ready made may not seem

very original, except that you have to be able to isolate that

composition from its surroundings. The scene was not purposefully set

up for your viewing pleasure, as this was. Big difference.

 

Tony, images of Saddam's likeness are usually photographed in context,

are they not? There is no context here, and I'm assuming that

deception was the primary consideration in how this was composed.

Peter Daalder has a deceptive shot of a sculpture up right now, but

he's sharing the joke with us, rather than trying to keep it a secret.

I've uploaded a similar image with the same point (which you won't get

if you don't look carefully). I know it's dangerous to assume motives

for taking this shot, but I don't think it was as lighthearted as the

other examples. I feel like we've been done to, rather than offered a

shared experience. The impact is based on your not being able to

figure it out.

 

I went on record a few weeks ago suggesting that POW nominees should

be consulted, not just notified. If an elf misunderstood this image,

as I think many here have, then give the guy a chance to correct the

misimpression either by explaining the purpose (museum brochure?) or

suggesting an alternative image.

 

You're right to point out the lack of guidelines on this site.

Anything goes in this subway short of personal attacks, but the

resulting confusion compels us to once again discuss the political

ramifications of the image when we'd all rather be talking about the

image itself. But we're hamstrung since we're not sure what we're

looking at. That should be resolved at the outset. .

Actually Carl, I think it is a fascinating study in art interpretation. I don't see it as a problem...that the picker makes a statement on how he/she sees the image. It's just a starting point and one person's opinion. In art - all opinion's are valid. This discussion just points to the fact that we all see things differently. Learning how people react to art through their own eyes is a lesson in itself and can teach us much as we strive to project a message through our art.

. . . . if that was his intention. Too many viewers like it because

they think it's real, or worse, don't care . . . . .

Because I am a nosy bastard, I have noticed that Chris Battey has been on the site at least a couple times since this shot was posted. (Thanks, elves, for the "Who's online now" function.)

 

I assume that Chris is waiting, as many POW recipients do, for a critical mass of commentary to accumulate before speaking. But, good God man. Many phosphors are being wasted over an uncertainty that could be clarified with a few keystrokes. Please?

Great photojournalistic picture. Full of emotion and asking many questions. The straight jacket suggests a powerful story! Something we would want to read about. This is the sort of strong image photo editors love, but rarely get. Congradulations, Chris. Waiting for "The rest of the story . . ."

I would like to add something of importance to this thread, but alas! I used up all my intellect last week.

I fear we will all be blue in the face before Mr. Battey graces this page and we therefore will have sort this mess out on our own.

Tony's right. It's not Chris's fault that we are up in the air about this image. It's those mischievous elves and our own expectations. Still, don't you wish your vacation photos would turn out so good?

The dodging looks a little grayed to me, too. Must be a thin negative, no doubt Chris didn't have time to bracket with all the tourists behind him clamoring for their view of the condemned man. There was probably another condemned man in the next cell, but this poor fellow was more photogenic.

How in the world could this be computer generated?

Camilo, what is with that photo you posted?

Gordon, what were you talking about?

What pow has there been that the whole week has been consumed in discussing the photo. Get real, my friends. You can only dissect composition, light and technique so far. If the photo has no content, then the POW holds as much value as sitting in on a PHOTO 101 critique where we discuss trees growing from people's heads and fingers in front of the lens. Every classic photograph is more than it's photographic elements, or should be, in my opinion.

Regarding the title, Shakespeare said it first, but photography had not been invented, so we have to excuse him: "What's in a name? A rose by any other would smell as sweet," or whatever it was, my olde english is as bad as my french. The title makes a BIG difference.

Chris claims this photo is of a condemned man. What does the photo itself claim to be?

I've never seen so many cry out for such a basic piece of information: CHRIS BATTEY, IS THIS A WAXWORK ?

Still, I don't blame you for not answering and just standing well back and watching !

For what it's worth: I like it, but think it's a waxwork, and if it is it loses much of it's appeal. I love most of your portfolio, though !

Andy

When I first saw this image I was impressed by its technical assurance, but wondered why it didn't engage my emotions at all.It seems to me a dull and lifeless image with its emotions imposed on it, less a vital example of contemporary photography than a typically sentimental effort by the kind of acamedicians who exhibited at the Salons in Paris in the 19th Century. Their works were old-fashioned in their own time, especially if you compare them with the vital life-enhancing efforts of their contempories, the Impressionists. Was this photographed at Charenton, the asylym where the Marquis de Sade was detained?

I am one of those people to which it matters a great deal whether or not this is a "real" image. For if the image is indeed a shot taken inside the cell of a man about to die or even of a man inside an institution condemned to some other life of personal hell then the understanding that evolves from that knowledge becomes a very important component in how I view this picture. Of course the same is true if all Im really looking at is a well done snap of a wax figure Chris shot as he strolled down the hallway of a museum.

What changes for me is the level of emotion I feel and the level of interest I am willing to expend trying to understand anything about it. And in this case it would be practically night and day. Where in one instance I see an intensely intimate moment in another persons life and in the other I see the work of a master (wax) craftsman. One I care about, the other Im impressed by. You see for me, context is of paramount importance (and truthfully, Im stumped as to how it could not be).

 

And as a final comment: Carl would you, or any of the wax figure supporters, care to elaborate as to why you are so certain that this is not an image of an actual person? It seems to me to be a fairly large assumption to suggest that this is all a big joke being played on us, just to see who gets it.

 

Sprouty

Picture taken in France in 1987. France abolished death penalty in 1981. So if he's condemned, it's not to death.

I would hasten to add to my comment above, that this image is so different in tone from the others in Chris's portfolio, that my obsevation about it being like a piece of French 19th Century art

would apply if it is indeed merely a photographic record of a museum exhibit. That obsevation would definitely not apply to Chris's work in general, which I admire greatly.

I feel great compassion for Mr. Battey if this is not a real person:

 

With the title: "Condemned Man" we are led to believe this is a photograph of a living individual. If it were wax, or otherwise, it should be more rightly titled "Wax Figure of a Condemned Man," or, "An Actor Portraying a Condemned Man," or, appropriate information should be included in the technical notes indicating it was made in a museum, or as a separate post. The title is the photographer's claim that this is in reality a condemned man, living and breathing at the moment the photograph was made. If it is anything other than that, then the title could easily be thought to be misleading.

Aside from various third world nations I believe this type of

treatment of either a man condemned to die, or a person in a

mental institution, is pretty much frowned upon these days. But it

is possible that Chris received a hall pass from the French

government to enter their institutions and photograph whatever

atrocities caught his eye. Found this poor fellow hanging out by

the wall, and thought what a great picture to post on photonet!

Although it's pretty hard to believe.

 

But if this truly was an image of a condemned man, it would

seem to me that Chris would have stressed this point as it

would have been a much more powerful statement. The fact that

he only saw it fitting to tell us that this was shot in France on Tri-x

film should tell us something. To me the title "Condemned Man"

seems purposely vague, and points us in the direction of either a

staged image, for which I would give this shot very high marks.

Or a shot from a museum display which would be much less

impressive to me. But until Chris tells me otherwise, I'm not

overly concerned with this mans fate.

I can't believe this is a natural photo. The man looks like he's made of wax. It portrays the depth of depression or dimentia. How did he get on the street with a straightjacket?

Chris, you're having too much fun. Here's a recap of comments so far, for an idea of the level of discussion/confusion.

 

01) This is NOT real. All wax!!!

    1a)It's OK/not OK to photograph someone else's art.

02) This IS for real, but staged.

03) This IS for real, and NOT staged, but what on earth is going on? Jail? Asylum? ???

04) Not real? So what? It's grrreat.

05) Is that a straightjacket? What's the pocket doing there?

06) What's with the hair?

07) What's 'B' for?

08) Coal miner, maybe?

09) Dodging is OK, doding's NOT OK.

10) Without the title, the picture will be clueless.

11) With the title, the picture is full of wrong clues

12) I'm having goosebumps all over. But is this real?

13) Baah!

14) Way to go, Chris.

Moderator edit: #15 was a direct attack and was deleted. Please read the guidelines in the "About" section of the POW with regard to policy and personal or administration attacks. This is not the appropriate forum for nasty comments

smacks of a medieval torture chamber to me. wax figure,

over-dodged, computer-generated, whatever, i find this an

interesting image. it certainly captured something, we just don't

know exactly what, and that is part of what i appreciate about it.