Appreciation

Aren't most portraits staged? Aren't most nude photos staged? Aren't essentially all commercials (videos or stills) staged? Forgetting for a moment that this POW was done for a commercial, what's wrong with assembling and directing people in a photograph in order to convey a story or an idea a photographer has in mind? Why do some folks apparently consider that inherently wrong?

To the extent that some viewers couldn't tell if this was staged or a spontaneous capture of an actual happening, that tells me Christopher did a pretty good job. If some viewers feel defrauded, that tells me Christopher did a pretty good job with his "photographic fiction." Nowhere did Christopher try to pass this off as photograph he skillfully and luckily obtained while strolling through a museum at the same time a class of boys was on a school outing. Had he done that, I might have felt deceived as well. But he didn't, there were some clues that some viewers picked up on, but then we must wait to hear from the photographer to know for sure whether the photograph was staged or spontaneous. Assuming we can read the mind of another and know his/her intentions is fraught with the danger of being wrong, and I can attest to that from a long personal history of making that mistake.

First, let me say to Christopher, "Awesome photo". There are many reasons why this photograph works for me. The message is loud and clear. The technical aspects are top quality, and the finish product would make almost any art director happy...

Thank you Stephen, for putting into words what I felt after reading several of the other post...
To manipulate or not to manipulate, to photoshop or not to photoshop, to create an image or to capture an image. Almost every POW has to go through this debate, and in the end the tools to manipulate an image exist, and almost every photographer uses these tools. So for me, the critique is how well they use them, not if they use them. Very few artist every believe their work is complete. There are always changes that can be made, and will be made as we get closer to that illusive finish line called ART.

I couldn't agree more with the last three posts. Thanks for the read, your points mirror my own previous and humble take on this fine image.

This photo is extremly easy. Pls admire and swallow. How does it taste?

Chipping in again. This was a very low budget effort. Photographer, wife, assistant and amateur models. A silver and a white umbrella, two flash units. and, yes, 15 minutes grace after closing hours. However it was planned with care, even the wedge shaped group (hats and faces narrowing towards the target).
I shot three sheets of film with a dark dress then had the girl change into white for one more sheet and that was it. It is not a great photograph but it is a little miracle of role-playing on the part of the boys. We can recognise each character and each state of mind: there are three instigators and the rest not quite sure what they are missing. Luck over planning - like some of the great animal shots posted here. Next week I'll upload to my folder another take and a the magazine tear-sheet. JohnA is right, with colour trannies, the client keeps the best takes - but for black and white, the photographer keeps the negatives and hands over a print.
Thanks all!

So you write both fiction and non-fiction, do you, Alex? Which is this?

This might well be the best Photo of the Week that we have ever had.

--Lannie

Great shot.
How on earth do people think this is candid, especially since the photographer states up front he used large format for this?

The only thing i can say....MASTERPIECE!

Well, my answer to the above is that this is not a portrait or a posed nude photograph. Reference to those forms is off the point. This is supposed to be something like a candid photograph. In fact the apparent candid nature of this photograph is faked. This is in the end a poor imitation of a candid photograph.

How can we possibly think this is a candid photograph when the photographer was using a large format camera? Yeah. We don't see the large format camera. We don't see the photographer prompting the models in this piece. All we have is the result. We also do not know from looking at the photograph that it is for an advertisement. Which makes little difference.

Looking at the photograph as a staged photograph how does it rate? I say it is weak. What we see is trite. As a novelty photograph it has a drawing power. I was taken in. But what happens when the novelty wears off? What seems to be an epiphany reveals itself to be a cliche.

I have nothing against "photographic fiction" as long as I can identify it as such. I do not like so-called fiction pretending to be the real thing. I could write a fake autobiography about myself as a drug addicted hit man for the mob and publish it with faked photographs but would you be happy when you found out it was faked, no matter how go the writing and photography were?

Would you be happy if Weegee faked his murder scenes?

Here is a question. Suppose Robert Capa's "Falling Soldier" was proven to be faked beyond a shadow of a doubt? How would you consider that image? As clever fiction? Real great clever fiction because it fooled people for generations? There has been an ongoing debate over the authenticity of this image since 1975. I for one hope it hasn't been faked. I believe it does make a difference.

As I said before, the image under discussion is bad fiction. I repeat that it is trite. I will also say that I have stabbed this contrived image fatally in the heart. All that I have read in its defense have been arguments off the point and excuses.

I repeat: Thumbs down for this Photo of the Week.

This photo is a proof that a visit to a art museum can be a good surprise even for kids!

Well done, taken in the right time!

Awesome!! Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.

"This is in the end a poor imitation of a candid photograph." No, it is an advertising photograph that was never supposed to be a candid, it was a gag that was executed.

Alex, I don't really get any of your arguments as you seem to want to compare apples and oranges. I think you need to look at this image, which was never suggested to be "real", in light of what it is not what you think it should be.

Advertising photos aren't supposed to have long legs, they are supposed to get your attention upon first look. If they also have some long legs and meaning, that is a nice side benefit not the goal. A well done image serves this purpose first and foremost and if it also is the creation of art that is just a side benefit. Much of advertising imagery is trite in the sense that it does have to be something understood quickly or people move on and never get it--or don't look because they don't expect to have to work at it.

"I do not like so-called fiction pretending to be the real thing." I don't think that is what we have here, there was no intent to pretend to be real. We have been told this very clearly, it was made for an advertisement and it was staged, no deception or pretending to be real.

There is no way to compare this image's authenticity or not to what Weegee or Capa did, they are totally different types of photos and shouldn't be judged with the same criteria. Apples and eggplant...

Like it or not is fine, but classifying an image for what it is and then evaluating it as such is not defense or off point, it is off point to try to hold an advertising image to the standards of photojournalism or even street photography.

Which, to me, suggests that this is more about ego than about photographic critique. Thanks for showing us your chops.

It wasn't pretending to be the real thing. It was you who assumed that, you based your critique on that, you were wrong, and you based your critique in reaction to your being wrong. Neither Christopher nor the photo itself had anything to do with that. Your displeasure with the POW is based entirely on your false assumptions. We've got to be mature enough to be able to differentiate a fact from an assumption. I'll admit that's not always easy, especially for those of us with an abundance of self-confidence and egos to match, and IMO we all have varying degrees of those characteristics.

It's my understanding that John A and others have argued in this forum that we must respond to the visual. This argument has been made so strongly that even things like a title have been questioned because they can influence the visual appreciation and interpretation of an image. Doesn't this mean that whether this in an advertising image or not, staged or not, large format or not, etc. should not be particularly important considerations. Isn't it reasonable then for Alex to object on the grounds that the visual invites one interpretation (a real moment) but does not fully deliver? So I guess I'm now wondering what matters about the background conditions in judging an image. Does it matter, for instance, that an image was made for commercial purposes in the way we critique it? Perhaps I have misunderstood the views on this in the past. JJ

Jeremy, I do sometimes take into account the context of an image. (If I know it's for an ad or part of a series, I may respond or consider it differently from a stand-alone photo that is not an ad.) For me, there are no hard and fast rules, like whether or not I should ignore background information. It's a sliding scale. Sometimes, I have that info, sometimes I don't. Sometimes it will make a difference to me, sometimes it won't. Sometimes it will make more of a difference than others. While there may be someone who argues that we should either completely ignore this kind of information and there may be someone who argues that we must have this kind of info to make an assessment, I've never known John A to be so dogmatic about it. He has said various things on the subject relative to different photos and in different contexts. Though John is quite capable of speaking for himself, I can't remember him ever saying that we must respond only to the visual. Myself, I have on occasion argued for that, for certain photos, particularly when I feel someone may be putting too much stock in what the photographer says or may be letting background info cloud the actual seeing. It's all relative and the context in which I said it matters, which is probably true of what you're remembering John said.

Regarding this photo, while I do consider it differently as an ad than I would as a fine art photo (and, of course, there are overlaps and blurry lines of distinction), that's not my major motivation in responding to it. I had very little different response to it before I knew it was an ad and after I gained that knowledge. For me, from the beginning, it looked and felt staged. I never considered that it was trying to deceive me into thinking this was a candid moment. So it had the backdrop of artificiality for me, against which the humor played out. If I were to consider a way it could have been more effective, it would have been to make some more of the gestures a bit more extreme, even over-the-top. That, to me, would have solidified the humor and intentionality. But I would see no reason to make it seem more candid. That's just me. Another photographer with a different sensibility might very well want to make it seem candid. More power to that photographer if he could come up with something that works.

Jeremy, I think Fred made most of the points but I do think I can clarify a bit more where I am coming from.

I would guess that when I have suggested that we must respond to the visual that it has been in response to a situation where an image has been summarily dismissed just because it was set up or digitally manipulated. Most of these cases involve such dismissal without any effort to embrace the image for what it is or see how it might work. So in that case, I am not suggesting that we would ignore the context of the image but that regardless of how an image was made, there is something worth analyzing or commenting on as to its form and content--even if we end up not responding to it. It is just ignoring or the denigration of a visual because of external factors that I find a bit too closed off.

In a similar way, I have suggested that we must meet an image where it is which means to take into account its purpose or function. In other words, the context of what the function of the image is versus what we may want an image to be. I can appreciate a well lit, composed and exposed image but I don't have to think it is art nor do I claim it is so by saying it is a very well done image. A well done image can be completely boring to someone not connected with the image in some emotional or intellectual way. There are several genres of photography that each of us would probably never seek out or participate in but hopefully we could appreciate the skill or techniques of photography employed to create those images.

In this case, for instance, I can easily accept the artifice because I see the image as transacting a gag and for advertising purposes (which is a different animal often than other commercial photography). If this were one of Jeff Wall's recreations, I would not be so kind as his work i

--he doesn't hide his way of working.

Bottom line, and I believe I have proclaimed such here on more than one occasion, I do think that context is a very important part of evaluating an image and a photographer/artist. In fact, it is often only with this information that we can fully respond to an image.

The recent comments show how interesting it is to see how different artists and photographers see each other's work. I am sure that most viewers outside those circles have few if any postmodern attitudes or issues of context that they bring to bear when evaluating how a work strikes them.

The work should be valued for what it communicates, simply that. I agree with that approach and that is akin to my experience and observations as a contemporary art gallerist during 8 years, and then and now as a photographer/artist. Yes, once you have been engaged with an example of an artist's work and then their various other works it can be of some limited interest to know a bit more about the context of his creativity and of what appeals to or drives him. But ultimately it is not the context of, say, Picasso's blue period, or any other of his periods, that really matters when you view that work, but simply the considerable impression that the work leaves on you, namely the interaction between the work and the viewer. I don't need to know that Weston purposely made Tina Mendotti cry in order to elicit that emotion on her face for a photograph. More recently, postmodern attempts to explain process, subject or philosophy of approach are often rather sterile.

Back to the image at hand. For heaven's sake, take it for what it portrays, for what it communicates.

Whether it was candid (we know that parts of the shoot were ostensibly candid or unforeseen, as the photographer has stated that he directed some but not all of the reactions of the boys), or whether it was completely contrived and set-up, or whether it was part of a dress ad or a perfume ad or a regatta hat ad or a vodka ad, or whatever, is to my mind unimportant. It's slight tendency to a Rockwell type overstatement (the teacher's gesture) or the enhancement of that, or a possibly more candid alternative version of it, are beside the point and simpy armchair quarterback decisions of the art or photography critic. Fortunately the image will survive those speculations and will hopefully interact more naturally and directly with Mr. Broadbent's other future viewers.

I often experience the PN Photo of the Week discussion differently than I do a gallery. And so, since we may be offering advice and help, at times, to the photographer who's created the week's photo, and since we may want to be constructive and not simply reactive, some background info such as the goals (if there are any that the photographer wants to or can articulate) and purpose or intentions (whether these be very specific or much more general) can be very helpful in giving critics an insight into what he or she is attempting to accomplish.

If one of my photos, which was part of a series, were chosen as photo of the week, I would not want it to be critiqued without context. Whether that's "post-modern" of me, I don't know and don't care. When I create a series, often the individual photos need each other to become a whole and each could easily be naked without the others. (Some of those photos work alone as well as in series. Some don't. When creating a series, each photo NEED NOT stand on its own, though they certainly can.) So anyone dismissing the bigger picture would simply miss out. I wouldn't. They would.

When I go to a gallery or museum, and I know I will be seeing a documentary, I will consider the photos differently than if I am viewing fine art work. If I am simply given one photo without that context, it may indeed communicate something to me on its own. It will (sometimes) communicate much more when I know its grounding. That, again, may move someone to label me as a "post-modernist." That's fine. If such labels help, go for it.

Very storytelling image, inspiring... Love your portfolio.

Thanks guys, that helps. JJ

Just a shame that those in the picture were not 'appreciating' her too ...
I take it as a photographic cartoon for humourous purposes, enjoy it and move on.

To manipulate or not to manipulated that is the question ...
The other is are we producing art or documentary? If the former then manipulation is 100% legitimate just as the painter applies their tool. I took this as a skilled piece of editing to express an idea the photographer had ... the teacher is the only small piece that looks a little odd on close examination, perhaps to emphasise him.
I see what I can do in editing as a means of achieving what I cannot obtain for whatever reason in real life. Even in the second category it is legitimate if it truthfully portrays the event that was happening.* The camera has lied in skillful hands since the while process was invented so the anti-manipulation lobby is based on ignorance of photography and experienced photographers should know better. Sadly it seems a case of not trusting each other.
*The infamous Iraq case was a perfect example of careless editing in a good cause and it showed the situation far better than any of the accompanying shots if you read the story as well as looked at the photos. The original camera shots misled while the edit was truthful.

A technical point. If you look closely this is really a panoramic photo. It ought to be cut in half lengthwise. Otherwise the focus on the people is thrown off.

Alex [sigh], there is a double meaning for "appreciation" here: the girl and the painting (or perhaps I should say "the girl OR the painting."

Which half would you have the photographer lop off and still maintain that tension between the two? The kids have been brought on an art appreciation outing.

Well, there's art and there's art.

Get it?

--Lannie