Condemned Man

Tony, Chris calls it a bit of a dig and enjoys the fact that it fools

some of the people some of the time. When I've uploaded deceptive

images - I think hoax is too strong a word - I'm often surprised at

how few people get it. The difference - is that so many people are ascribing such

deep meaning to the image even though the concept was not his. Of

course it matters when people give you credit when it rightfully

belongs elsewhere. Many posts above have made this point.

Another way of putting it is if disclosure of the deception gives the

image more meaning or value (yeah, I know, according to whom) then you

want to do whatever it takes to let them experience the ruse and then

disclose it. In this case, I think it's fair to say that disclosure

does reduce rather than enhance it's impact, those who don't care not

withstanding.

I understand what you're saying Doug. But those trying to read into a photograph for its 'correct' or 'deeper' meaning are bound to be disappointed. Some might claim the right to be given information so that they may intellectually categorize a given photo, and evaluate it based on the type of photo it is, but I find that not only aesthetically limiting, but an improper claim to begin with. If such information is provided, fine, but there is no reason to expect such information, or even to expect that the information be accurate. (Consider very famous, beautiful works like those of Doisneau, which we only learned decades later were staged -- in the end, so what?)

 

Individuals may have "preferred ways" to view photos, but that does not mean that there are objectively-determined, set ways. Certainly not ways which impose requirements on a photographer beyond presenting an image for viewing.

 

I do not doubt that getting extra, extraneous information is "an important matter to some", but my point is that it shouldn't be, nor should they expect such information, nor should they legitimately be able to claim that they were somehow deceived; any deception is self-deception, for there is no implied responsibility for a photographer to provide information on a photo, or even to provide the photo to begin with! Take what you've got and evaluate it on whatever terms you want, but there is no onus upon a photographer to provide any other information that a viewer might desire.

I personally feel that Bailey is just plain right here. When you go to most masters exhibitions, you don't find the details next to the print. They might be in the catalog. You look at the wall where the work hangs, and you get a feeling of what you see. The rest is pure litterature, and no longer photography. A photo is a photo and meant to stand on its own or fail on its own. That ends the chat for me.

Besides that, why would Chris need to provide details? Which Photo.net rule says that you have to present an authenticity certificate for an image ? If not, which moral rule does? If I were Chris, I can guarantee you that I would have uploaded this image just the way he did... My goal would have been to find out who will notice it's a dummy and who won't, and to see whether this dummy can actually touch people's heart or not.

If you title this picture "Dummy", tell me, what's the point of shooting it at all, unless it's an assignment for a wax museum? Huh?

I think that I've been fooled - not by Chris, but by an illusion... If I need to blame someone, it will be myself. Yet, I don't even blame myself. I have seen in this image a portrait of human suffering. Well, isn't it what it was - still?

I'm in this for the thrill of the debate as it's all gone a little overboard, but the image is fine and I can look at it knowing it's a dummy and still push myself to imagine it as a real person with nearly the same emotional feeling.

 

However, there was indeed a degree of deception involved, in fact, Chris used that very word himself: "...out of something that was totally false in life, I had with Photography created something that was deceptively real." You acknowledged it yourself, that "...this image - if it is a "deception" .... is remarkably benign, and not too bad a photo into the bargain." (I agree with both statements, that it's benign, and not too bad a photo.)

 

Chris also posted this image with the location as "France," but later wrote that it was taken in "a Melbourne Jail."

 

To say there was no deception is a considerable understatment, but to say Chris was trying to make fools out of everyone is also grossly untrue, I believe. I think, for Chris, that it's like a practical joke that has backfired, in a sense, and what started out for him as a test of skill has nearly become a trial of his integrity.

 

It shouldn't be that way.

By the way, just to be clearer... What I mean here is that there is a truth hidden behind the illusion we have been looking at this week. I think that this dummy is more true than it is unreal.

"I can look at it knowing it's a dummy and still push myself to imagine it as a real person with nearly the same emotional feeling." - Doug

Well, I can now even do better than that, Doug - and deserve a beer for it !...:-) I can even now see an extra reason for this picture to be a POW !! :-)))

Look at it this way...

1st, we both thought it was real, and felt quite strongly about what we saw. It was a strong shot to us. Ok.

Then, 2nd, I must say I was actually somehow almost relieved, that this was "just" a dummy.

3rd, I realized that this "dummy was maybe a mascarade, but actually portraying in a madly powerful way what human suffering really is.

4th, I'm now graced by an unexpected pleasure, which is to step back and see the "tragedy" as "comique desamorce"... How to translante this ? Maybe a tragedy turned into a farce, into a masquarade, so that people may see it without taking it seriously...

5th... Even better... This picture now gives me this new thought: while we are arguing here, people make representations of pain and suffering - in paintings, in wax figures, whatever, and at the same time, somewhere in this world another man, very real, sits in jail or in a psychiatric hospital, feeling like he would be voodoo dummy for those who condemned him...

Basically, we've got a dummy that can talk here... It is our delirious imagination which can ear it talk or not. That's the interpretative side of art, I suppose... A picture is just as good as you can see it is, and it can tell you thousands of stories if you can hear them, or no story at all, if you can't.

Doug, that only underscores what I said -- there's no guaranty that information provided will be accurate to begin with. The beauty of Doisneau's street photos are unchanged by the fact that he lied to use for decades about them being staged; the only ones deceived are those who take the information a) seriously and b) as somehow important, and c) as accurate.

 

We don't need to know that Frederick Evans titled his famous photo 'The Sea Of Steps'' -- we could have guessed what he was aiming for. Or not -- we could have seen something else in the photo that was not intended, and our impressions would be just as valid. Had he purposefully misnamed it "Where Grandpa Fell And Broke His Skull" it would doubtless change the import of the image to SOME viewers ... those people for whom learning titles and extraneous information is important. But it doesn't really change the photo.

 

Deception is not wrong. It may well be part of a work of art. Many painters and photographers and sculptors give their works titles which are meant to inform their works, but many others give titles or other information specifically contrary (or irrelevant) to the subject in order to elicit a specific response, so that the viewer must confront contradictory information. Is that wrong? No. It's part of the artwork. Must we pay attention to it? No, but some do, slavishly.

 

Is getting this information necessary, or to be expected? Also no. An artist may intend to deceive (or not), but if someone doesn't read, or accept, supplementary information, preferring instead to take an artwok on its own merits, then so be it.

 

By focusing on the work, instead of the tangential trivia attached to it, we decide for ourselves what we think of the art. If we choose to uncritically accept information about a piece as we evaluate it, it's part of the deal that we accept that we are being lured into a specific way of considering that piece, and that such information may be incomplete, biased, or just plain wrong.

 

Again,so what? This might be the artist's intent, but it only affect those who care about explanations to begin with.

I'll buy that Bailey, you make a good point. But still, I want your arguement to include that it's ok to want that information, that it may not be necessary, and maybe even shouldn't be, but that it's ok for someone to desire or need it to joyfully experience the same piece of art. Does your point of view have a place for that?

People desire all sorts of irrelevant data from time to time, and desire for additional information from an artist are interesting phenomena from a sociological point of view, but still unnecessary to the aesthetic consideration of an artwork.

Let me try to be clearer: the desire for secondary or tangential information from an artist is nevertheless unnecessary to the aesthetic consideration of an artwork. To answer doug's question about a person who feels he or she *needs* supplementary information, I very much disagree. Photos not only can but do stand on their own. Why does photo.net require supplementary information? I believe it was Brian M. who recently said it was built into the photo.net system years ago with an eye on the IPO market and the possible intention of conglomerating data for marketing. Not because of a belief by the Elves that such information was aesthetically necessary.

One might gain additional insight into the artist or the photo or the artistic or sociological context of the photo, but it is secondary in nature to the photo itself, despite cries that incomplete or inaccurate information makes the photographer "guilty" of "fooling" a(n otherwise) credulous viewer.

Chris could have given this photo any title he wanted, he could have made up the equipment used, or he could have chosen not to provide information at all (filling the required fields at upload time with spaces). It doesn't matter because it does not change the aesthetic value of the photo.

A significant number of the photographs that I have taken have been

enjoyed without comment or explanation. There are also a lot of times

where people say "I don't know what it is, but I like it." Then they

ask for an explanation. I can refuse to tell them what it is - I

shoot a lot of abstracts - or I can tell them. Most people enjoy

knowing what it is they're looking at. They can't all be misguided. .

.

What a gag! This may not be the most lively discussion about a POW but it sure is one of the funniest I have yet seen. I must say that the outcome is far better with the condemned man being a condemned dummy. This has turned out to be one heck of a smorgasbord of opinions and comments; of humble and sometimes noble acceptances of being fooled; and of disappointments with photo.net. I see nothing wrong with not asking the photographer for all the details of any photo posted, but perhaps the staff can find out whether the photograph chosen is real or notbut then again why should they even suspect it isnt? I hope we dont get some new rule stating whether any or all photos submitted are real or not. Someone mentioned that Chris was asked to give a title to his photograph and he chose a condemned man as the most fitting one. Ironically it seems that Chris ended up being this condemned man.

I thought it was a set upas ina staged scene (cant say set up without attributing the understandable double meaning). The funny thing is that this picture is both historical and prophetic in a way, for we were treated to a piece of past history that may become a possible self portrait of Chris Battey (as far as receiving credit for an outstanding image goes). Regardless of whether it is a statue, the photograph is framed and cropped really nice, not to mention the position that the photographer chose to photograph the scene (in photography sometimes shooting angle is everything). I have to admit the IDEA was very original.

What a great photo. The men's posture, closed into himself, leaning against the textured wall, in contrast to the black background behind his back, creates something I can best describe as a "whirlpool of feelings" - attracting the eye, fettering it with emotional ties. The wrinkle on the mens face and the fold of his sleeve, are emphasizing together the frontier. The flat, dark background deepens the riddle and the emptiness left behind.

On the second and third time I viewed this photo I discovered new thing in it, and new emotions showed up. I believe this is what makes it so good.

This dreary pastiche of Victoian sentimental painting has been exposed for the fraud it is. And a lot of people have egg on their faces. Let's hope they learn from the experience, and develop a bit of healthy scepticism in the face of something which doesn't look 'quite right'.

I have no problem with the wax figure issue, neither does the Guggenheim for that matter. The following is from a press release from 2001 a new show of Hiroshi Sugimotos wax portraits.

 

Sugimoto: Portraits, an exhibition of a new series of photographs by the renowned Japanese artist, Hiroshi Sugimoto, will open at the Guggenheim Museum SoHo on July 26, 2001. Commissioned by the Deutsche Guggenheim Berlin and exhibited there last year, Sugimotos Portraits series marks a new direction in the artists work.

In Sugimotos Portraits, the artist has returned to the wax figures he first explored in his Dioramas series. Unlike his earlier depictions of dioramic displays found in natural history museums and tableaux of famous persons in wax museums, these images are life-size, black-and-white portraits of historical figures and contemporary personalities, such as Henry VIII, Napoleon Bonaparte, Voltaire, and Princess Diana. Working in a scale entirely new to his oeuvre, Sugimoto isolated the wax effigies from the staged vignettes in Madame Tussauds London Waxworks, posed them in three-quarter length view, and lit them against black backdrops so as to create haunting portraits. His painterly renditions are lush with details and recall the works of Hans Holbein, Anthony van Dyck, and Jacques Louis David, from which many of the wax figures were originally drawn.

 

this is the link....

 

http://www.guggenheim.org/cgi/index.pl?http://shop.store.yahoo.com/guggenheim/sugpor.html

Both photographers present us with an image of a wax figure, so

they have that in common. Do you see any dissimilarities?

On a related note, David Hockney's book Secret Knowledge proposes the theory that Renaissance painters used camera obscura to make perfectly proportional sketches from a modeled scene. (Up until about 1420, there were only flat, idealized faces and no depth of field. Then, suddenly paintings had incredible detail, depth and realism. What the heck ...?)

Of course, art lovers had a friggin cow over this little revelation. Many simply do not accept the theory (despite lots of evidence for it) that their beloved artists were "cheaters".

So, basically we have the same debate. Assuming the masters did use the camera obscura, is the mastery/artisitic quality/beauty of their work degraded? For all we know, they used wax dummies in their scene, too, because, hey, who the hell can/wants to sit there perfectly still for so long while a tempermental and tragic artist precisely traces your every pore?

So, oh, jeez, oh gawd, oh me oh my, the masters -- the Masters!!! -- painted images of wax dummies! Gasp, sigh, moan! Deception!

[Hand to forehead]

What is arrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!?!?

In the words of a photo teacher I had, on being an artist: "I lie, I cheat, I steal." Are the old masters' works any less great now that we know that they lied and cheated?

I say no. Because that is art. That is the nature of art. Once we get over the fact that we all lie, cheat, and steal, we can begin to appreciate the artistic qualities of an image.

That is all.

I think, that Jason must have had a very good photography teacher. :-)

There is no 100% realism in arts. The 4 borders of any picture are already a lie... within which there may be some truths.

Great Photo !!

We are all missing the point ! It is not relevant whether the man in the photo is a wax replica or not, the fact remains that Chris managed to capture this image, something that we were not able to do !

I think he has done a great job in capturing the right image because he has managed to evoke tremndous emotions within us regarding the CONTENT of the image.

If anything should be said about anything, then it should be said about the "PS GENERATED" images that get posted out here. After all this is a PHOTOGRAPHY web site is it not ?Great POW, Chris !

"The 4 borders of any picture are already a lie... within which there may be some truths".-- Marc Gouguenheim

 

What an utterly beautiful statement Marc.

 

The suffering shown by the figure in the photograph is so wrenching that it is easier to say that it is a dummy. Even if it is so, this photograph is extremely powerful and moving. There is a famous Japanese photographer who photographs wax models with great sensitivity. They cease to be lifeless and become character studies.I was moved to tears by his photographs of wax figures of Anne Boleyn and Richard the LionHeart.

Well, this has certainly been an amusing POW. What I find

interesting is the way many people see a suffering man in what,

upon close inspection, is not a particularly convincing model.

The neck is all wrong, he has no ear canal, the eyes are totally

lifeless, he's missing an arm, the hair is like straw, he's bent

over in some strange position with water showering from above

him, his jacket is from another century, etc., etc. (However, I'm

not saying that people should feel silly for taking it for real, --

though the elves did put their collective foot in their mouth!)

 

I'm guessing that Chris is right in his estimation of this figure as

a not particularly well made one. I'm also guessing that many of

us passing by this figure, would probably not feel compelled to

stop and stare. Chris' photograph has made us stop and look.

And this is, afterall, one of the reasons we appreciate art. Seeing

things out of context challenges our senses and provokes a

unique emotional response. That said, I don't think this is great

art (especially since I think many of us could easily replicate it or

improve upon it if we knew where it was), but I do like it, and

Chris had the eye to see it's potential.

I hasten to add that I'm sure Chris could go back to this subject

and technically improve upon the image, as well, if he chose to.

I'm guessing that Sugimoto stages the lighting of his wax

models though, no?

My original rating of this photo was not made on the assumption that it was a street shot. I assumed it was a studio shot, a result of the creative imagination and skill of the photographer. I thought it very effective and very suitable for book illustration, for example. It has to make a difference to me that the pose, lighting and concept were created in someone else's imagination. I would definitely have liked to see an acknowledgment of the contribution of the original designer of this scene. However, it would make a difference for me if this photo was not submitted for critique. I know that I have placed a lot of photos on this site that were really only intended for the viewing of my family abroad (photo.net actually invites people to upload photos for this purpose) and I certainly didn't think about things like copyright -- of photographed statues, for example -- when I posted them.

 

I think it is now accepted that in photography there is still a use for it for recording reality (forensic evidence, for example) but that is now so much the minority use that we more or less assume some degree of manipulation unless told otherwise. And even in the recording of reality manipulation is used (have a look at some of the sites on the subject of astrophotography and the manipulations needed to produce sufficient detail in those photos). The fact is that without manipulation many photographs cannot hope to approach a reproduction of reality. I don't care if the photo is photoshopped if the result is aesthetically pleasing. However, when a photo is placed here for critical rating, including a rating for originality, surely the raters require some information about how much of the photo is created from the imagination of the photographer, and how much is borrowed.