Appreciation

What is to discuss about this Photograph to begin with, Its one of those Moments in time Captured correctly:Ah to be a boy again with thoughts of Fancy:

I love this photograph and keep going back to it over and over. A poster should be made of this to share with everyone.
As for Martin H's comment about the American Girl picture, what was interesting is that there was an article about that in a recent Smithsonian magazine. Apparently the picture was set up as a joke and the woman seen walking was trying to look sophisticated. What came out, though, was that she looked distressed. Apparently that picture wasn't very popular in the beginning. It wasn't until years later that it became so. It's a pretty interesting story and it's possible this photo will become one of the same.

Here's the Smithsonian article I was referring to. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/An-Image-of-Innocence-Abroad.html

It's a picture with a charming humorous story. I like a lot the concept here. Maybe it is a set up picture as one of you have already suggested, I don't mind for that. For me this picture is original by being so cheerful, joyful, charming and humorous.

I agree with John A: Set up commercial feel ala Reid Miles. Successful execution. Delightful results. The B&W rendition was a good call. Like Rockwell (and Miles), it taps into an emotion, and individuals, we can all relate to. We look at this photo and we see ourselves.

This is a great honour. I'm very grateful for such attentive analysis. But nothing I've done here comes close to the strength and dynamism the of Orkin's 'American Girl'.
Yes staged, the giveaway is in the tech details, 4x5 on a tripod. Nevertheless the boys were improvising - doing their own thing un-posed. I'm always amazed at what kids manage do when given a role.
Two errors; The teacher has his eyes closed and the girl is not reading her guidebook. But the boys win the take (no photoshop mix and match back then).
Done in Milano's Brera Museum in front of Gentile & Giovanni Bellini's "Sermon of St Mark in Alexandria". The kids are from the American School of Milan. We had ten minutes rehearsal outside then 15 minutes in the museum. A half-page ad for a perfume.
I've just posted, on my folder, a crop of the boys that does justice to their role-playing.

Christopher, I don't think the camera gives away the fact that this was set up. In fact, Thomas Struth has done a great number of images with his 8x10 inside museums of the crowds interacting with the art and among themselves where nothing was staged. There are also some very compelling street scenes done with LF cameras that weren't set up in any way. People can either just miss the camera's presence or become used its presence to where it is a non-factor in what they do. (One set of Struth's were set up, but that represented only a small number to his overall work-the Pergamon images--which it was reported were also somewhat panned by the critics as well)

I think it is the staging that gives the set up away, as I remarked above. The "gag" is what it is because of the overplay and, as I thought, it was for advertising you don't make subtle imagery. Images need to be read quickly even when it is sophisticated or you lose the audience. That is why I like this image. The woman's white dress, the mass of boys and the over acting of the teacher make the read immediate, nothing subtle except the painting in the back. I didn't know what that was and spent more time trying to see if it somehow related to the image than getting the photo's gag.

This excellent photo brings a smile to my face every time I view it. To me it is flawless. Thanks for sharing it with us.

I'm just an amateur but for what my opinion is worth, I love love love this photo. The staging and composition are brilliant. So what if the teacher's eyes are closed -- he's just blinking as he turns to realize that he's lost his students' attention. And, don't be silly, what else would the students be looking at? LOL! Christopher, I took a look at your other work and love them all -- I guess they appeal to my old fashioned sense of symmetry and beauty.

Is this photograph a decisive moment or is it staged? If it is staged does it matter? I believe it does matter. How much it matters depends on what excellence one can distinguish in spite of the fiction.

Unless I missed something in the discussion, it is not clear whether this is staged or not. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the question has forced me to take a second look at the photograph.

I so doing, I must temper my earlier enthusiasm for this image.

I believe that in terms of technique this photograph is excellent. In terms of message (used in the widest sense of the word) I now must ask if it is either trite or borders on triteness.

To begin with, the teacher or escort appears to be mugging for the camera. Whether this is by agreement or spontaneous it is irksome. Whether intended or not, it is a flashing sign that tells the viewer how to react to the boys seemingly or actually looking at the pretty lady. That does not kill the image for me, but it does annoy me.

One poster at least has raised the question of whether the boys are in fact admiring the lady instead of the painting. He wrote that the lady is looking in the same direction as the boys, so there might be something else. Actually, the lady's face is turned not quite in the same direction as the boys', suggesting she might be engrossed in a detail in the painting. Yet the boys still might be looking at something else. Does this ambiguity matter? Well yes. If they are interested in something else this isn't a variation on a theme inspired by "American Girl." And if that is not the case, the photograph would have no meaning were it not for one thing.
Whether the boys are gawking at her in reality or not, the woman might be the boys' delight has a powerful stage presence in this image. This is quite remarkable. She is modestly dressed and her back is turned to us. She is doing nothing unusual. She does not seem to be aware of the photographer--or she is ignoring him. Yet WE notice her. She draws our eyes away from the work of art. Her presence makes us want to believe that the boys are gawking at her.

Is this enough to rescue this photograph from triteness? I would like to think so because this is an engaging photograph. It is a fun photograph if you convince yourself that the boys are enjoying what you are enjoying. Is it a brilliant photograph? No. It is a good photograph. It is a very good photograph. And that is quite enough.

Alex, 3 entries up Christopher confirmed this is staged, no need to wonder...

I also think it's staged in the same manner that Norman Rockwell "staged" his paintings, a little over-the-top to illustrate a point beyond a reasonable doubt, and many (most?) Americans loved him for it. I still like the analogy to Norman Rockwell in Christopher's photograph, and Christopher's explanation was much appreciated.

You see, God's art is better than man's. Love it. 

The photographer's candidness in discussing his work is as much appreciated as the considerable effect of it. Whatever its minor shortcomings (overall, I have not so much trouble in ignoring the teacher's downturned or closed eyes, or the fact that the girl's attention is not to a guide book or even, apparently, to the large painting), it strikes a very human and spontaneous chord. I don't think the "American Girl" is superior to what he has achieved here, as it too seems to me to be embellished by some over-reaction of the male participants. It may be natural ("American girl" is in Italy, of course, where men have a "cultural predisposition" to exhibit a spontaneous appreciation of the female form and person), or it may be posed.

Does that really matter? More often than not I couldn't care less, as what counts is the message and not whether it was created naturally, as in street shooting, or whether it was created by the photographer and his subjects. The result is what counts. We live in a world of fiction and illusions contained in books, cinema, theatre, advertising and can choose to appreciate, overlook or reject the contrived or conceived messages. As the photographer mentions, it is a photo made within a project for a perfume ad. Perfect. But even if that is not known, most males can respond, as the boys apparently do, to the beauty and to the sensual attraction of a pretty woman. A very human response, exploited here with nuance and humour, and extremely well-crafted as an image.

I just noticed Stephen's comment after writing this one. Agreed, although I think the photographer treated his subject with a bit more subtlety (teacher's expression aside) than normally did Rockwell.

Another perspective is to ask, "what excellence one can distinguish because of the fiction."

There is "excellence" in much fiction. Ask William Faulkner, John Ford, Ansel Adams, Andres Serrano, Pablo Picasso, Patti Smith.

Candid decisive moments can have their own excellence. Good fiction and the creation of scenes and situations may utilize decisive moments. And decisive moments don't cover the completeness of photography. HCB isolated an important factor in some cases. In many cases, both on the street and on the stage, the moment is secondary to the gestalt.

Some photography, some fiction, most art creates truth rather than reflecting or representing it.

"Some photography, some fiction, most art creates truth rather than reflecting or representing it."

Interesting observation, Fred. if you are referring to gestalt psychology/perception. Why do you think it, or "most art" in your phrase above, creates truth? What do you mean to infer by the word truth in this context?

Good question. Thanks. In a nutshell: a shared sense of import or significance or palpable emotional connection . . . perhaps* something beyond ourselves, our tastes, and our opinions.

*Defining or even explaining something like this is an ongoing project/process, not something I can pin down easily and something for which words often fall short, thus photos pick up the slack for me. This thing called truth grows, for me, only with uncertainty and doubt, proceeding with a little anxiety or uncertainty about what it is I'm after and how to go about traveling there, but wanting to keep myself afloat by trying. For me, truth is a struggle more than a defiant or accurate fact or state of events.

I think "truth" does not come naturally to many artists. It is in the making that the truth begins to emerge. Truth is not just there. It takes work. It's not something passive, something simply waiting to be found. It requires action. Making (creating) and action, as I see it, are modes of sharing, of going beyond oneself. I think that's where truth happens. I think that's art.

Did you know that Norman Rockwell sometimes (all the time?) started by setting up photographs of the scenes he was going to paint and then painting from these photographs? I saw some of these in an exhibit a few years ago. It was very interesting to see the photograph and then the painting that it was based on. You could see how he would up the drama in the painting, where it was a little bit lacking in the photograph.

Christopher's picture is a more finished work than were Rockwell's photographs, based on my memory. Which brings me back to another question I was thinking about: Did Christopher take more than shot of this scene?

My experience in observing and being directly involved in art and photography has been that very few works exhibit truth about something, other than the much more limited communication that they perhaps are a true representation of what the artist thought or intended or what he or she is. Those are far from being the rare work that itself communicates a truth. Truth is I believe that which man may seek but can only attain in a small degree, or asymptotically. Better instead I think would be a somewhat less pretentious objective, that of seeking to ask questions or to pose enigmas by our photography.

What is nice about Christopher's image is that it reflects so well human behaviour and sensibilities, which we can easily relate to. Rockwell did the same, of course, quite successfully for most, although sometimes in a manner too cute, in-your-face, or predictable, like the endings of many films, rather than seeking some dialogue of greater subtlety, where different layers of thought might be brought into play. I realize that this may not be a popular opinion of Rockwell, who is a hero to many, just as some parents who, once their child has passed through his or her early years of quest for magic and fantasy, have little further empathy for many of the productions of Disney.

Arthur, regarding the photo specifically, truth has less to do with what happened at the scene and more to do with what the photo expresses, conjures, and shows. The photo, as fiction, acts as a metaphor, the difference between what happens in a theater and what happens in the street outside. The direction is part of the message, not an attempt at deception. (A stage whisper is often exaggerated and purposely transparent as an artificial and over-the-top gesture precisely to reach the audience in a certain way. It is, in a sense, super-conscious.) I don't think of fiction as pretending to be reality (I know you don't either), though it may remind me of "real" things and it may provoke real emotions. When we watch a magician, we expect artificiality. I would walk away disappointed if a magician didn't alter reality in some way. Artificiality is part of the experience and the excitement of the experience. The magic doesn't work in spite of the fiction (to take on what Alex seems to be suggesting). It works because of the play between fiction and nonfiction.

I don't want or need to compare this photo to the hypothetical unstaged version of it, which some here seem to want to do. Christopher's handiwork, his direction, and even the transparency of the staging, is part of the beauty of this photograph. As he has said, it's not perfectly executed. But a better execution wouldn't have convinced me this was candid. That would simply be a deception. A better execution might simply balance the gestures differently within the fiction.

Hamlet, aside from asking questions about his own existence ("To be or not to be?"), turns fictional playwright at one point in the story. Why?

"More relative than this—the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King."

This is a place where Shakespeare self-reflects while advancing the fictional story. Hamlet knows he can provoke the King by "outing" him (in secret) in the play he presents to the court. And Shakespeare, as a playwright, is letting us know the revelatory power of creating fiction. I choose to call that revelatory power "truth." Others may not.

Fred, we posted almost simultaneously. I will read your post later. Truth in Christopher's photo is not truth with a capital T, that something we can strive for in that short period between our first and last breaths. The photo in question reflects on the very simple truth or nature and emotions of man, which it does very convincingly, but this is far from truth with a capital T, which we can strive for, likely never attain, and approach only asymptotically. That is a very different question and why I believe that photography and writing can only pose questions about our existence or present enigmatic observations of our mental and physical worlds. No mean feat when it happens.

Christopher may or may not chime in here, but to address Martin's question, it would be rare in the "creation" of a commercial shot that there would only be one exposure.

I don't know when this was made, but normally one would find retouching being done to correct the flaws in the image (closed eyes is the only one of import here IMO). Even before digital as we know it, there were retouchers, high priced digital and analog, that could fix these things. It may even be that the used version was fixed whereas the version the photographer has available to him--the original--wasn't. That isn't uncommon. I have several shots done for clients that were altered by them and I don't have those versions available as a standalone photograph, just in the context of the final use.

A key to this particular issue is Christopher's admission that they only had a limited time to do the shoot--we don't know why this was but could have been for several different reasons. Mostly, it might be due to someone not understanding the time or money needed to do the shot right. Of course, it might have been a restriction imposed by the museum, although money will generally grant better access in most venues. In any case, 15 minutes is not much time to set up such a shot and wrangle the talent and even less when one is working with a LF camera. You can't shoot off a bunch of shots as quickly as with even an MF camera--which possibly might have worked better given the size of the ad being done and the limitation on time, but that is Monday morning quarterbacking. Doing a shot such as this in 15 minutes would be a pretty amazing feat in and of itself quite honestly. To then do it this well, more amazing.

I am not going to get into the "truth" argument here, but as I said above, advertising shots have to be read quickly and like Rockwell's work, sometimes over playing a scene is important. The white dress really helps this woman stand out and get our attention right away. The shear number of boys makes them immediately noticeable. I do think the distraction could have been done differently--a bit more subtle--but there is no denying how quickly this execution can be read and the gag communicated with all of them fully engaged in the same way. It makes the image a bit less sophisticated in nature and more obviously staged but it gets the point across without losing the audience.

I think it would be interesting to know the headline that went with this.

The comical is indomitable in this picture. There are so many subtexts and I have been busy inventing my own the more I look at it. The concept itself is original and so very imaginative. I haven't even started talking about technical mastery of light! This is a really good piece of work that engages the viewer at so many levels.

Thank you John A. I wonder no more.
If it is staged it is tripe. Sorry. But if one stages something it had better be on a grander scale. Or at least a scale that does not look contrived. Robert Doisneau got away with it in his famous "Le baiser de l'hôtel de ville."

Yes, this is fiction. But there is good fiction, bad fiction and so-so fiction. This is bad fiction. It is bad fiction because I feel like I've been defrauded.

Look I write fiction and nonfiction. Good fiction is hard to write and good photographic fiction is hard to create. One also have to know as a creator of fiction that there is a point where you can mix fiction and nonfiction (Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London for instance) and when the mix is poison (like a journalist making up a story about a child drug addict).

This is relatively harmless fiction. But it is still bad fiction. I revise myself again. Thumbs down on this Photo of the Week.

Amazingly simple, but perfectly wonderful.