Speaker's Corner, London

Easy for me, I'm a technician. Why do you identify with this man? I am a technical photographer living on the opposite side of the world as you, but I sense this tug on my heart strings--as from a number of your collection of shots. You are on the spot. Give. Rabbit-proof fence? Ozzie apartheid. I am substantially heir to Deutsche-Americaneschers who laid the basis for American power, only to be cut-out from it by Anglo-Saxon old money. It's a commom theme. A great-grandpa of mine led a volunteer regiment at Fox's Gap and Antietam in 1862.

Tony wrote: "I may have a slightly photographic eye, but I do not possess a photographic memory."

Someone might take me to task on this one, but I find it extraordinary and admirable that Tony remains this 'humble' about his photographic ability - I mean "a slightly" photographic eye? Come on! Surely you jest...

O.K. we might be discussing just *one* of the 38 images that can be found in your "Poor Imitations of Cartier-Bresson" folder. I'm sure that just about everyone else who added a comment to the POW has paid a visit by now... But it looks like nearly all images (except about 4, or so) are deemed to be Good to Very Good (according to the ratings game). So, please stand up and take a bow! Then again, hate to think that someone might label you as "figjam"... ;-)

To the photo.net Elves, *thank you* for using an image that has been uploaded since January 2001! There sure is a vast quantity of 'forgotten', or 'unseen' (by many) work out there... I encourage everyone on this page to take a look at a presentation which has existed for less than a week. It is dedicated to all of you that have posted fantastic work in the past. And yes, Tony can be found there too! Regards,

Excellent. Very moving. I really like the guy in the subjects left shoulder that looks like he's laughing at him. Kind of symbolic on how society looks at the unfortunet.

Only one who has worn the shoes of the shoes of the principal in this subject can truly relate to it.

Frank, you asked why I "feel uncomfortable with the image viewed on its own." I wholeheartedly agree with you that a photograph does not have to be about reality (re Nick's hay scene example) -- up to the point until someone gets hurt. Then I think one has to make a judgment call, case by case, about whether and how to make it available for public viewing.

My concern is not for the dishevelled man, whom I believe universally comes off as sympathetic. It's for the smilers/smirkers. I'm not completely satisfied with Tony's suggestion that the photo "tells a story - a story that varies according to the viewer". While a truism applicable to the majority of photo situations, in this case IMHO it doesn't go far enough.

I accept that the photographer's intentions were honourable, and I've even argued that the interpretation given by the majority of viewers is not entirely reasonable. Really, when was the last time you saw a rich person laugh or smirk when a homeless person passed by? Yet, so many have made the leap of faith assigning cruelty to the smilers -- enough to give pause in light of the fact that both are easily identifiable (at the time and even decades later).

Even with the title Speakers Corner there's no immediate assumption that the homeless man did any talking. He looks like he's just walking through the crowd. What I would like to see, and why I spoke of additional captioning or explanation, is the inclusion of some indication that the man was complicit in the situation. That he didn't just walk through the scene, but rather interacted with the people (even his smell is a type of interaction)-- contextual information that isn't readily discernable by just looking at the photo. Something that gives rise to the possibility that the smiles may (or may not) have been provoked by something that he did, rather than because of what he is. This, I think, would probably more accurately describe the situation as originally explained by Tony and, more importantly in my view, do more justice to the bystanders.

I'm not advocating detailed explanations for every photo one takes. However with controversial and potentially hurtful shots, a little extra information (as Tony has added to this thread) goes a long way towards ensuring subjects are treated fairly. Thus I personally would like to see a caption or a short explanation (along the lines described above)permanently attached to this photo, wherever it may go.

There's an amazing story about our society in this image, yes, granted, it's an extremely cliche one in street photography especially, nevertheless very well presented and exposed.

bravo.

Any undergraduate art appreciation instructor would lift his gaze to Heaven and praise God for you at this point. Bless for you! Keep your heart open. Explore your own soul over this. Take it home with you at Thanksgiving dinner, and let it come and go.

The great golfer Bobby Jones, when asked about the prowess of (then) young Jack Nicklaus, replied "He plays a game with which I am not familiar."

 

Well I can say without fear of contradiction: "Tony knows uses for a camera with which I am not familiar..."

 

Congratulation Tony, your photo is utterly deserving.

Congratulations on POW Tony. You deserve it. I will make a note to come back and rate as I have a problem awarding the rate I want to while it is on the front page.

Whatever the circumstances that brought about this moment. A

strange statement, a strange odor, or a sense of relief that both

have passed. This photograph is an amazing example of the

power that exists within 1/125 of a second (assumption on

shutter speed, most likely wrong).

 

Sheri P. is correct, we cannot know what was going on in the

minds of these people at this moment, and it is unfair to assume

cruel intent on anyone's part. But I do not need to assign anyone

in this image the role of villain for this photograph to evoke a

strong emotional response. There are so many other layers of

human nature that could be at play here, and in conflict here, all

within this one image.

 

My girlfriends 13 year old son came in while I was looking at this

image. He's a typical 13 year old, which means the most

important things in his life are cartoons and video games. He'll

glance at one of my images from time to time, pat me on the

head and say "that's a nice one Bobby", then he will go on his

merry way. Tonight when he saw this image he stopped and

looked. We talked about it for a few minutes. About the faces in

the crowd, and their expressions. He asked when it was taken,

and where? He wanted to know what was happening at that

moment, and who took the photo (it appears he knew this

couldn't be one of mine), and it was very evident that this

photograph struck a cord with him.

 

This makes me wonder about the child in the lower left of the

frame. There were many possible lessons to be learned at this

moment. I wonder which one stuck?

 

Tony, congratulations on a very well deserved POW.

Sheri raises an interesting question. Tony answers it with a

suitable answer: the image was never meant to be journalistic.

HCB preferred not to have captions or titles for photographs. If

I'm not mistaken, he thought any image should stand on its own;

tell it's own story as the viewer witnesses it. It's an interesting

idea that by simply freezing a moment in time within a frame,

Tony telling a misleading story. But, then all street photographs

are photographic lies: temporary relationships within a frame

imposed by the photographer.

 

So, I tend to disagree with Sheri. I think a detailed caption is

interesting in retrospect, but not necessarily before you have a

chance to apply your own interpretation. However, would the

people in this photo feel misrepresented? Scarred by an image

that may lead some (but, certainly not all) people to think them

cruel? This is an issue for Tony to consider, but I think it's

unlikely that Tony was out to do anything more than capture a

poignant and compelling moment in time.

Sheri, I think you made 1 good (and very interesting) point, which was that this picture may not be an exact representation of the story that really happened that day. Imo, that's the only (significant) valid point you made.

"I wholeheartedly agree with you that a photograph does not have to be about reality...up to the point until someone gets hurt." That's another important issue, but one may disagree with you here... See further...

"Really, when was the last time you saw a rich person laugh or smirk when a homeless person passed by?"

I've seen it a thousand times, Sheri. Not at a "homeless" per se but at beggers, yes, a thousand times, especially when they are a bit eccentric caracters. I wonder why you haven't.

"So many have made the leap of faith assigning cruelty to the smilers"

Yes. Of course we all have. That's what this picture clearly suggests. Fair or unfair interpretation ? That's the question here. I think there are things in Life which can be unfair to individuals (those who smiled that day), and at the same time fair to the world as a whole. And one of these things is called ART.

What I am trying to say is this. A journalist is supposed to reccord events the way they happened - though let me just say that it isn't always what's happening. On another hand Tony wasn't on a journalistic mission, but on an "artistic" mission. What's art ? Is it about reality ? Not exactly, if you think about it carefully. ART IS ABOUT TRUTH - i.e about the artist's interpretation of what he feels is the Truth about certain particular realities.

I don't know how to take such an amazing picture myself, but I suppose that there are 3 ways to capture it. a) Using a motor-drive or not, you see a begger walking trough a crowd and you snap away, and you get this by "mechanical luck" when you process the film. It is not likely you will ever be THAT lucky, but it COULD happen, just as you can win a million with the correct 6 lotto numbers...:-) b) You see a begger walking through the crowd and you are touched by his outlook or such, and you point the camera at him and follow him with your lens for 1, 2 or 3 seconds, then you click when you see in the frame something you find interesting, powerful, beautiful, or what ever. c) You have a pre-conceived idea of the message you could get out of such a scene, and you will release the shutter when the scene will be the closest to what YOU wanted to say about it. Example based on this picture: you notice the guy with the fur, and you notice the amazing contrast between this man and the bum, and you decide to wait till they are close enough, and basically build your shot from your observation. The 1st point I want to make is this: b) and c) are basically the same thing. You find always find something "interesting" FOR A REASON. This reason is for example this contrast between 2 attires. The 2nd point I'd like to propose is this: if you are shooting in b) or c) modes, you are acting as AN ARTIST.

Art, to me, is the process of making some sense out of reality, see a GENERAL TRUTH about reality in a part of it, and convey this truth esthetically - what ever this esthetics may be, as long as they fit the message you convey.

So, this picture may indeed be (willingly or not) a "lie" about the people here who are smiling (the INDIVIDUALS), but it is nevertheless pointing at what is imho a GENERAL TRUTH about societies all over the world. The artist has simply seen A GENERAL truth in a glance in that place on that day, and that was more important to him than the truth about the individuals which are part of this picture. ART seeks GENERAL TRUTHS, whereas journalism would only do so (if at all) PROVIDED these generals truths were somehow rooted in an individual reality.

You wrote this: "Even with the title Speakers Corner there's no immediate assumption that the homeless man did any talking." I agree ! And honestly, I personally don't care whether he spoke to the crowds or not. I would say that this concern would be a journalistic concern only - NOT an artistic concern.

Basically your concern is 100% respectable to me. It just happens to be a journalistic (and moral) concern. You are basically just asking that an artistic picture becomes a journalistic picture, or to be precise, an ARTISTICO-JOURNALISTIC picture - which is just not what it was meant to be. You did state clearly that you wanted this picture to "accurately describe" reality, but you may have forgotten to distinguish 2 types of realities: localized reality, and on the other hand, general reality. Art is an expression of a truth an artist see about GENERAL reality. I understand your concern - "do more justice to the bystanders" -, but what if Tony would have here been doing justice to the whole world instead ? If I go see a play, whether by Shakespeare or by Ionesco, I do not expect to see on stage things that actually happened in real life per se. Why would artistic photography be any different...? Artistic photography puts the world on stage, just like other arts - imo.

Once again, Marc, you've hit the nail on the head. If there were an

award for the most dedicated and clear-headed photo.net

contributor, you'd have to be a top candidate. It's always a

pleasure reading your insightful -- and seemingly ubiquitous --

comments.

Marc, I think that we are actually in agreement as to whether people actually smirk at the "homeless" per se. Beggars -- more specifically, eccentric characters who have shared some of their personalities with the observer -- do elicit reactions. However, we've both already concluded that there is nothing particular about this photo that would suggest that the man did anything but pass through the crowd, thereby lumping him back into the "homeless" category.

 

As for the rest of your argument, with all due respect I do not buy into the "Life is unfair, art can be unfair, so too bad" treatise. Nor do I think that acting as an ARTIST precludes one from exercising a conscience.

 

As a society we are always balancing the interests of various participants (the whole against the individual, one individual against another). We have chosen to limit freedom of expression in cases where not to do so would cause others harm (defamation, incitement to hatred, shouting fire in a public place, etc.) Even simple uncodified morality (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) would seem to suggest that we impose some limits on our conduct. So I have a hard time buying into the proposition that the making of ART overrides all other human considerations.

 

By the way, what do you perceive the GENERAL TRUTH captured by Tony to be? A TRUTH so important that it overrides common courtesy to another's feelings or reputation? Is it that the homeless incite derision in our societies? No, that can't be it, since we've both agreed that people don't smirk at the homeless per se. Is it that there are rich and poor among us? Or that life or people can be cruel? These truths do not appear to be so startling as to override all other considerations in order to "do justice to the whole world". In fact, they could be captured on film without injuring innocent bystanders.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think that Tony's photograph is exceptional. But I would love it even more accompanied by a caption or short explanation enabling a fairer representation of events.

Congratulations on a 2nd well deserved POW. This photo oozes gritty realism. It strikes me with impact, in a visually stimulating and graphic way. The expressions, the busy hustle and bustle, and the fact that as a viewer I feel as though I am actually present and participating somehow amongst the crowd, all contribute to a memorable and well executed photograph.

There is now, years after the the photo was taken, an appealing warm nostalgic effect which makes me wonder if this photo will gather increasing admiration in the coming years. I am sure it will. It is already fast becoming a 'classic' with a cult following. It most probably will receive more attention now, than originally. What happens when it continues to mature? Will it go blue and mouldy like a stilton cheese?

Thanks to the elf who picked this top notch POW, and to Tony for contributing his professional, expansive, and diverse portfolio with us (yes newer members, there are not only 70's social documentaries, but also stunning landscapes, animals, nature and even one photoshop piece...!!??!!) Tony is one hell of a talented guy, and I would also like to say thanks for Tony's efforts and time spent sharing his knowledge and experience whenever asked questions.... and so often in a highly amusing fashion. Cheers Tony!

Sheri, the "complete" explanation is (and has been for some time) available here. There are two choices I have provided (both completely voluntarily) regarding this picture. The "pure" presentation (at the top of this thread), involving minimal detail as to where and when, and an in-depth explanation as to motivation, technique (if you can call it that) and exploration of theme. I can only repeat that I have never felt bad or guilty about making this picture. They were all there taking their chances, making their choices. I stumbled upon them, tried out a few ideas and then realized a montage would be the best way to go et voila! - the final result.

The content doesn't matter too much, neither does any message. My main aim was to present a situation in the truest form I could present it, commensurate with my age, emotional maturity and opportunity (plus rat-cunning). I don't think it was too exploitative, as the scene was taken from one of the most public places in the biggest city of the longest living modern democracy on Earth.

From memory, I used to set my shutter speed to 1/125th at f11 for sunlight and 1/60th at f4 for shade... so the exposure was somewhere between these points, probably closer to the "shade" setting. The sky in the background was a problem as it was several stops out of range. The man in the top left was part of this flared-out sky and I had a lot of trouble burning-in his spectacles. I also had trouble with the woman-in-the-fur's dress... very dark.

All these are mere technical points. To Geraldine, who said it made her feel like she was there, I lift my hat. You couldn't have said anything more gratifying.

Sheri P. put a very important issue into consideration: the ethical aspect of photography as a potentially "unjust" interpretive art. Marc Hegelheim tried to argue with a wonderfully Hegelian argument that GENERAL TRUTH outweighs INDIVIDUAL TRUTH.

 

I will have to disagree with both of them. While exactitude of interpretation is something "good" journalists strive for, falling into a conflict with the "inexact" reality itself, art could care less (and it does) about truths of any kind.

I don't think I can agree with the suggestion that the photographer is to be responsible for all possible interpretations of all people who see the photograph. Or that a photographer should care about possible interpretations when taking the picture. Expecially for the photographs that stand on their own, not in support of any story, idea, etc. When pushed to extremes, such logic is very dangerous for both the photographer and observer. In a role of photographer it restricts me into taking benign photographs that are not open to various interpretations. But, in a role of observer, it also takes away my responsibility for my intepretations of what I observe.

 

A good example of latter was the previous POW - suggestions have been made that the girl was on drugs. I do not belive that the photographer is to blame (which, if I recall correctly, was implied) for taking the picture in a way that could permit, or even suggest, such intepretation. As an observer, it is me who is responsible for making such interpretation and selling it as a truth. It was not a deception, it did not support an article "Youth on Drugs" or something like that, it was just a capture of a moment and as such, open to intepretations.

 

But back to the picture; while not my favorite, it is an excellent picture from an outstanding folder. I admire it when it was first posted and I still return to it from time to time.

Tony,

 

Amazing!!! Incredible!! This picture is a lesson to everyone on photo.net

Congratulations!! This is pure art! Thank's teacher!

but context is at least somewhat important in this one. That it's from Hyde Park, London, UK provides and allows a different set of possible interpretations than would be reasonable if it had been shot in Hyde Park, Alabama, USA in 1975.

 

In any event, my thanks to Tony, Sheri, et al., for a fascinating picture and subsequent discussion.

Yes, William, I agree. But, providing the time and place of a photo

(as Tony does with this image) is generally sufficient if the image

is to fall into the category of "fine art", which I feel it does. How

many artists in this or other mediums provide a detailed

description (anything more than a short caption, such as

"Speaker's Corner, London, 1975", for instance) of what is being

portrayed, and therefore, how the viewer should interpret it? It

seems to me that the artist almost always leaves that to the

critics. Misinterpretation is inevitable. But, that's partially what art

is about: the potential for a wide range of interpretations and

emotional responses. In addition, having read Tony's

recollection of the events surrounding this image, I still come

back to the image and appreciate it on it's own terms (with

perhaps the added awareness of a powerful stink). Again, I

maintain that it's interesting to read what Tony recalls of the

situation, but, initially, at least, I'd rather be able to look at the

image and respond to it directly, using my own personal

experiences and emotions as a guide.

"How many artists in this or other mediums provide a detailed description (anything more than a short caption, such as "Speaker's Corner, London, 1975", for instance) of what is being portrayed, and therefore, how the viewer should interpret it?"

Dali did.

This a simplistic thing but valid nevertheless.I don't like the strong contrast at all.It makes the picture look unreal-I will never get a sense of "being there",which is a real pitty as i REALLY like any good old photo.Good to see something different get POW though(a 30YO pic)

Oh,FWIW the sky is too burnt out and amateurishly done(the peoples heads are crudely faded as well)

Excellent image. Impressive.

 

(Oh, there's a man on the background who looks just like Charlie Watts).

At a glance, it's hard for me to focus on who is the main character/theme because this is a very complex picture, with lots of actions and emotions going on at the same time.

 

I really like the contrast between the homeless person and the fur coat lady. Overall, it's definitely a great picture! & great folder as well.