Speaker's Corner, London

It's the whole story. It's all there. Amazing amount of information both humanistic and formal. Just one heck of a street photo. It's also so obvious in what it is depicting that I would consider it too much so, and almost corny, were it not a real picture of an actual moment, and one that thereby confronts us with some chilling truth. An example of some powerful photographic journalism.

Tony, this is a wonderful capture with many pictures within a picture. It tells a story like words can never hope to accomplish. If I may be excused for making a general point about photo.net based on this photo, it would be that out of 43,000 + viewers, only .25% bothered to rate it.

 

I have felt for some time that the interface here, much more than the rating system, needs to be overhauled. It is simply unacceptable that even with a stunning photo like this viewed by tens of thousands, there are so few ratings and comments.

Christ, what a photograph. Thanks for the experience, Tony. Now if you'll excuse me I think I'll go erase all the pictures in my folder...

AESTHETICS: 6, ORIGINALITY: 5

This photo to me is why the rating system isn't perfect. I have at one time or another been most of the people in the crowd. I aspire now to be as Tony has done here, "show the story" and teach through the heart. SUM TOTAL OF RATINGS: 7 KAZILLION.

And I thought I was the only person from Oz here ...

 

Congrats Tony; this is an excellent piece of work, and it shows just how much I still have to learn.

A wonderful documentary image. I am in awe. I hope you still capturing slices of life with that camera of yours...

Tony, thanks so much for the response to my questions

regarding your approach and so on. You've single-handedly

gotten me motivated to take to the streets again -- to try to get

tuned into humanity, camera in hand. And, if I ever get a single

image half as good as this one, I'll be very happy.

Tonys photograph is A1, however for those of you who beleive you are not capable of such a shot, you are mistaken. As good as Tonys image is, its down in part to lady luck, and some simple ingredients.

 

The image would be nothing without the tramp, the expressions on the faces of the onlookers would not be there apart from the presence of the tramp. No tramp, no photo. A not disimilar image may have been snapped if you replace the tramp by a naked woman, or a celebrity.

 

The beauty in the image and it is beautiful, is the fact that Tony was on the spot at the time and made the decision to snap.

 

In my view the most celebrated and successful photographs basically fulfill the following criteria.

 

1. The recording of an extraordinary, rare ,or unusual object,scene or person.( i.e. snap that which cannot be snapped, or is not snapped ordinarily, or has not been snapped previously)

 

2. The recording of quite ordinary objects, scenes or persons made to look extraordinary , rare or unusual. ( snap the normal and everyday thing , and make it look extraordinary, rare or unusual )

 

Most every GREAT photograph I have ever encountered fulfills the 2 rules above. Much of it is luck, so you happen to come across those ingredients well good luck, if you never do come across them, then make it your business to go out and find those ingredients. THAT IS THE KEY.

 

So in the case of Tonys remarkable shot, the magic ingredient is the TRAMP, coupled with sound technical skill, coupled with the fact that Tony was there at the time when you and I were in some other place.

I brought up photo.net to critique the latest photos and see what's new, but after looking at this incredible image, I'm afraid

I couldn't look at another photo and judge it fairly... everything else just pales in comparison.

 

As a photojournalist, I have great respect for good street photography, well-captured real-life moments, and expressions that

tell a story. This photo is all that and more - excellent composition, exposure and depth of field. Amazing. Of all the POW's

I've seen on photo.net, this one takes the cake (imho).

No question that this image is the best on photo.net of this genre. It is nice to see it chosen as a tribute to Tony's work. His slice of life images are packed with joy or sorrow and bring up memories of youth, compassion, introspective thought or timeless moments. All of it is obviously well thought out, carefully composed and usually flawlessly executed. I also very much enjoy his landscape images in color! Great range of talent.

I think the elves often dig into the guts of PN to find unseen or new images to both stimulate discussion and feature a relatively unknown or unsung photographer... Every once in a while - there is a tribute like this to an obviously excellent and well known contributor and artist. I learn something from all the choices whether I would have chosen them or not. That is the beauty of the POW.

And, Dennis -- You're so cruel to offer me up as a sacrificial lamb... :-) I think I'm safe though (whew). I have very little of my "art" photos up...Mostly it is weddings which is not very popular on this site. Halfway into that comment I just knew I'd come to the end and see your name.. I was not dissapointed. About that lamb - just remember it made the children laugh and play..

I was pleasantly surprised to see nominated as POW, what I always regarded as one of the best examples of Street Photography on Photo.net. This picture has made the rounds and has been quoted and referred to in many PN threads. I have nothing new to add. Congratulations Tony, once again.

Hyde Park Corner is a liberty one side of a barrier. My question is: what are the dimensions of a Rabbit-proof Fence? How long, and how far underground? The contrast is stark, one side and the other--I have seen aerial footage in an old travel film. However far one travels, he never loses his shadow. Your journal photos have a remarkable thematic consistency; evidence of a driving vision that apprenticed the medium before it travelled. That, I believe, accounts for the charisma frequently noted in your work: the unity of vision and image. Your images are deliberately and uncommonly articulate. . .like those of HCB.

 

I'll close with a quotation from the contemporary Anglo-Irish poet Roger Waters: "When I was child, I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look, but it was gone. I cannot put my finger on it now; the child has grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb."

 

Cheers, Tony. You old dog, you got a bone.

This shot is a good example of why street photography doesn't really document anything except the photographer's preconceptions. A (presumably) homeless man among the successful and happy. Yippee skippee. I've seen it many times before, although rarely with such technical prowess. In fact, I see it every day, along with the trash and the dog droppings.

First, if you think you see this every day, you're not looking at the picture very hard. You see this scene every day in the same way that I see women like the Mona Lisa every day.

 

Anyway, your test for artistic merit -- "I've seen this scene before" -- is, respectfully, just silly. You're not even saying you've seen it in art -- you're saying (I think) that you've seen it in the real world.

 

I'd say that if Tony has captured some part of the real world that resonates with you, he has succeeded, not failed. There aren't too many things in the world that we all haven't seen many, many times. Art (or at least this kind of art) is about depicting a transitory, temporary slice of the real world for repeated later consumption. I would agree with an above commenter's description (I'm too lazy to see who said it) of this photo (or Tony's work) as "articulate" -- not necessary unusual. I guess you're looking for unusual.

 

The real world is far more beautiful and descriptive than any photograph ever will be, and your statement makes me think you demand that good art surpass the real world. You'll forever be disappointed. The test of good art is how much of the richness of some part of the real world is captured in a static, reproducible, analyzable form -- not whether looking at the art is as good as the real thing.

What adds to this amazing shot is the irony of the synchronicity between the image of the man and the face of pathos in the lower corner of the newspaper. Cartier Bresson often hand these types of double entendres in his images, as if the individual is carrying his script in his hand. Bravo.

Provocative, and cinematic. I find it curious that he's wearing disheveled dress clothes. This to me creates a thin boundary between the vagrant and the similarly clothed well-to-do men. Quite intriguing in that respect. Seems there are hence a few interpretations one could have- not much separates them, and the larger set is quick to exclude the element (the vagrant) who is now a bum?

Gotta have one dissenting viewpoint.

At the outset, let me state that I am in complete agreement with the comments on the technical/creative details: exposure, printing, composition, expressions, etc. are fantastic.

Rather, my concern stems from the interpretation that the majority of viewers seem to be assigning to the photo. Describing the "banker" and other spectators as "arrogant, imperious", "repugnant", "inhuman", or "worse than animals" seems to me to be unfair given the actual circumstances described by Tony. Somehow people seem to have come to the conclusion that the bystanders are laughing or smirking at the dishevelled man because of his poor appearance. I don't know why; having heard hundreds of pitches for money over the years on the Paris subway I've never once seen anyone laugh or smirk at a beggar. It's just "not done".

Yet somehow, so many viewers seem to want to label the photo as a conflictual "class story". And while a photographer cannot control/predict every viewer's interpretation, if enough people arrive at the same (possibly faulty) conclusion he/she may need to question whether justice has been done to the subject. After all, photojournalism (as I understand it) is supposed to be a reasonably accurate rendition of the situation.

In his "Grafting an Image" section Tony elaborates on the photo's full circumstances as follows:"[The man]was claiming to be sick (that was his pitch), but whenever anyone in the crowd suggested that he get himself off to a doctor there was always an excuse (usually lack of money to pay the fees). When reminded that the health system in the UK is free, he used the excuse that he was too sick to get himself to a hospital.

However, if anyone could spare him the cost of a cab...

This is what I think the people were laughing at, the punch line: "just give me money and I'll be alright".

In my opinion this changes the whole context of the photo. The beggar's pitch wasn't very convincing, its logic was riddled with holes, and naturally invited some skepticism from the crowd. The beggar wasn't a poor,lonely figure meandering through an anonymous group of people, but rather a man who had invited a response (money particularly) for a rather convoluted story. We've all had the experience of getting caught up in an excuse/faux pas, and seriously backtracking to make up for the lapse. Thus rather than labelling the spectators as cruel, it would seem that some could be forgiven for finding the pitch somewhat amusing -- holes and all. Some may even have smiled out of admiration for the guy's balls in making such a speech. And given him money to boot (banker included)just because it's human nature to reward "he who dares".

Therein lies my beef. Can a journalistic photo be considered "good", no matter how beautiful it is, if it causes the majority of viewers to misread the situation depicted? Especially if a sizeable number is driven to disparage some of the individuals in the shot -- when there is a good possibility that such derision is unwarranted? Last week's POW caused a veritable ruckus when an unfortunate description opened the possibility for interpretation that the subject was on drugs. Is this situation all that different? Yes, there's no "negative" caption involved, nor any malice intended by the photographer. Yes, the picture is real (not contrived) and interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. Yet, when so many seem to be heaping the worst possible adjectives upon the banker, I have to wonder whether he is being done an injustice.

For me the "decisive moment" would have been when the dishevelled man was giving his speech and engaging his listeners. Such a shot would have given him the strength and dignity that Tony describes; smiling spectators need not be judged as cruel but rather as enjoying the discourse. Of course, such an image may not be as "powerful" or "emotion-provoking", but it would be more accurate and just.

Anyone agree/disagree? I personally would have no concerns about publishing such a photo if an explanation as to how the scene unfolded were presented alongside it (i.e. a factual account, not a Christ/Pharisees metaphor/judgment). But frankly I'm not really comfortable with the image viewed on its own. How did you feel, Tony, when you realized that so many viewers were pitying your main character (who you saw as strong and gutsy) and castigating the others in the frame (who may not have merited such a rounding denouncement)?

Great shot, Tony, one that I've admired many times...but my heart belongs to that little, (nasty) dog in Greece who was getting a nose full. That's a classic.

I was intrigued by your suggestion that the articulate in candid, still photography is not "unusual." I have been taking pictures for about thiry-five years. I am a competent technician--in fact, I can make Kodak film sing an octave higher than was designed--but I am not, alas, an artist. Tony Dummett is an artist. Why he slums here, I can only guess. Cover all the markets? I can dig that.

Sheri, Someone else may get to your post before I finish this,

but I have been pondering the idea you posted since I read

Tony's description yesterday. I think you're right. In this case, I

don't take Tony to task, though. He caught a moment and it's up

to us to make whatever associations we like. This is not a news

story that has a text along the lines of all the social issues listed

above. It should stand on it's own along with the title, which

does supports Tony's report rather than many of our

assumptions.

This is the post I was working on off line before Sheri made what

I think is an important point, which I hope will be discussed

further:

 

What do you see in this image? Not the theme your mind

recognizes and understands, but what your eyes are drawn to for

physiological reasons. Reference was made to the somewhat

blown out area upper left, but that was not seen as a significant

distraction because there were other things that drew the eye

back into the picture space. One might assume from reading

much of the discussion so far that the elements which

command attention are the various facial expressions which

create the mood of the image. I would suggest to you that what

the eye, not the mind, is drawn to first is the largest element in

the image - the coat. It's large and contrasty. What's next? The

newspaper. Again, almost as large and even more contrast,

detail and texture. When we do get to the facial expressions and

determine what the social dynamic is (or what we think it is . . . .

see above), I think we go back to the two main elements and

appreciate how they play a symbolic role in our assessment of

the "interplay of haves vs have nots" theme.

 

You may say that this is obvious, but clearly not for everyone. In

one of the earlier comments - AND FOUR OF THE FIRST SEVEN

RATES ON THIS IMAGE - which suggest that this is a no more

than a familiar theme, there is a failure to recognize how the

precise arrangement of a variety of reinforcing elements take this

image way beyond the mere presentation of a typical candid

shot.

 

And all this apart from discussing how you anticipate and

capture it . . . .

 

Not create it . . . . capture it.

Sheri P.:

 

Since I have been directly quoted for a second time in this thread ("arrogant, imperious"), I feel I should respond.

 

I fully respect your well articulated "dissenting" view. You make many valid points which we all would do well to keep in mind. In fact, your interpretation of the photograph may be closer to "reality" than the mass of critical opinion that seems to interpret the photograph as I did...

 

However, we all know that the photographic process can distort reality in keeping with the photographer's vision. Myself, I have a photograph of my two boys seeking shade under a hay roll one particularly hot summer day. However, they were not initially using the hay as a "back support" (since hay tends to be quite prickly), yet I encouraged them to do so as it was more photographically appealing - though uncomfortable. The resulting photo is one of my favourites, and appears to have the boys "comfortably" relaxing against the hay roll. But, of course, this was a distortion of reality, yet perfectly in keeping with the "vision" I had for the photo.

 

In this particluar instance though, can such photographic "vision" be bourne at the expense of simple bystanders who may be portrayed in a way that they did not willingly "pose" for (i.e. as my boys had posed for me)? That is an interesting ethical question, and may be the basis for an interesting discussion since the technical proficiency of this photograph seems to be universally appreciated and respected.

 

BTW, let me be clear that I do not necessarly believe that Sheri's read on this photo is in fact the correct interpretation, but acknowledge that it is a legitimate "possible" interpretation.

By "unusual" I certainly did not mean common, and perhaps I chose my words poorly. I guess what I meant is that an articulate description of what I've cavalierly called the "real world" is not always going to satisfy those who look to art to depict something wacky or far-out. That's unusual, in the sense that I used it. (Remember, I was responding to someone who complained that this photo depicts a scene that (he says) he sees every day, implying that things seen every day -- even if articulately described -- are not the subjects of good art.)

 

As for whether this photo misleads viewers, perhaps I've missed it, but I don't think Tony has sold this as documentary or photojournalistic work. I guess if it were to be published as such, and I were Tony's editor, I'd ask Sheri's questions. (I'm not sure, by the way, that even if the reactions were in response to the guy's "punchline," my take on the picture is that much different. While we might view his "just give me the money" line as a "punchline," I doubt he had comedic intentions.)

"But frankly I'm not really comfortable with the image viewed on its own."

 

Why not? Why distrust your own emotional responses? That is what art appreciation comes to--and what it is gives joy to the artist, so I have been told; to elicit some response! Why are you uncomfortable? The nervous, perhaps envious derision shared by insecure onlookers seeking a consensus with strangers? Why are they there; at Hyde Park Corner? The guy on the right is looking as though he were hoping to get laid. Life is simple.

I wasn't present all the time at the man's pitch to the small crowds he was addressing. It was a busy day and there were lots of things to see and try to make sense of. I do know that these people weren't the only ones he spoke to. I assume he worked the weekend crowd just like many of the other "speakers" that day.

The most compelling thing about this man was his smell. There's no other way to put it: he was really on the nose, really bad. It was obvious that he was either sick, or was presenting a very good imitation of it. Many of the other speakers that day made strenuous attempts to appear well-dressed and presentable (sometimes with hilarious counterpoint), but not in this case.

What I think must have happened was that as he walked through the crowd he would waft his special odours in a zone of sickly-sweetness for about a twenty-foot radius. This would gain him almost automatic head-turns, and conceivably a few embarassed smiles. Whether he just happened to be there, walking en passant through the crowd on his way to somewhere else, or whether this was his "plan" I don't know. What I do know is that someone would finally make a comment loudly enough not to be ignored and he would turn and engage them in a conversation. I saw this happen at least twice. At Speakers' Corner many private inhibitions against talking to, even arguing with complete strangers are, by definition, left at home.

But I hadn't come to this place to write a story. I'd come to take photographs. So I did what I had come to do.

I think I listened to him from close up for about a minute, then left to get away from the smell. I turned around one last time to see the small gathering breaking up, took a step backwards and took the photo. I think the laughter was a combination of embarassment, some derision and relief that he was going away to engage other (at least initially) sympathetic respondents.

I'm sufficiently distant from the day to admit that my recollection is muddled. I'm not sure whether some of the things I've reported above actually happened, or whether they're memories of later thoughts I had about him and that day. I may have a slightly photographic eye, but I do not possess a photographic memory.

So I am left with the photograph only, to jog my memory. I can't see this picture in any other way than the way it is presented here. It has become my aid to memory of the occasion. I might go further and suggest that, to me, it is the occasion.

The question is whether - despite the exact origins of the grins, the smirks and the dagger looks from the two men behind - exact journalistic note-taking and corroboration is a requirement for this or any other image in its genre. The argument about "taking advantage of the disadvantaged" has been well-covered in the past on the POW pages. When you're young (I was only 22 at the time) and invulnerable you tend to believe you could never be like this. People like this man have a curio value. It's very possible to be arrogant about their plight compared to your own. You find yourself making the photograph almost as a challenge to entropy: "It's not going to happen to me, and here's the photo to prove it". But, like the picture of Dorian Gray in reverse, the photograph remains frozen in time while the photographer ages, until, at nearly fifty, he realises that he wasn't so bullet-proof after all.

I think this man would appreciate that people are still discussing his plight nearly thirty years after the event. He was in a public place, making a public point; a fair subject for photography. We, on these pages, are now his public.

This photo has never purported to be journalistic. It tells a story - a story that varies according to the viewer. The story obviously means different things to different people. It's exact origins are now so lost in time that I don't think they matter (although - STOP PRESS - one photo.netter has written to me saying he thinks he knows one of the participants, so I might yet come unstuck...).

The story that you, the viewer, see mightn't be the correct one, but if it serves you well - whether you like the photo or hate it - then I've done my job. The photographer can only make the photograph and put an initial spin on it. His critics are an essential part of the process. Without anyone to look at a picture, what would be the point of making it in the first place? As Frank Hurley said (is that your real name, Frank?): "Why distrust your own emotional responses?"