Resident Evil (Click for larger view ....if you dare)

Robin, if you want to know the purpose, you need only read Alf's several statements on the matter, both here in the POTW forum and previously if you go to the original discussion before it became photo of the week. I don't agree that all purposes of a photo should be self evident, though often enough one can glean a purpose from the photo itself. At least, to me, having addressed it before Alf had responded, the purpose was actually self evident, which doesn't mean it would be to everyone, of course.

If the guy doesn't need to be titled with "evil" he certainly doesn't need to be titled with sympathy either. We know nothing really about the guy. If I were, however, guessing, from appearances only, I'd guess he might need a helping hand and some understanding. But appearances can be deceiving. He might need nothing at all I'd have to offer. And he might, himself, have an appreciation of fiction and theater and love the photo. One never knows.

__________________________________________________________

It would be a shame to ban all street photography with recognizable faces because we would lose a canon of already significant street photography and the potential for its future growth. I suppose we can all get into the business of determining what light is OK to present people in and what is not, where our various imaginations can take us to or not, but I prefer greater freedom of photographic expression (when it's not forensic or journalistic) to more restrictiveness. Yes, being a photographer comes with responsibility, but I tend to interpret responsibility in as personal and liberating a way as possible. If this were my photo and the guy found it and asked me to take it down, I would, because I would have learned it offended or upset him or I would simply accede to his wish not to have it shown. But I would not self-censor myself based on the hypothetical that he might be offended, especially when he might just as easily appreciate it, just as he might if he didn't carry a cane and seem to have some bruises on his face.

Fred, I totally agree about the title giving us some insight as to Alf's thinking. However, what you stated is not the whole story. Bill put it quite well. I suspect that a title can lead a viewer to prejudge an image before exploring the sorts of aspects you've listed.

Also, I've found the need to title an image I want to post for critique sometimes overtaxes my ability to come up with one that reflects at least some creativity. I've felt for a while that titles which are used simply for identification of the subject, location, etc. may turn off others on PN who otherwise might have wanted to spend time and energy to comment.

Michael, as a photographer, I really can't worry too much about what viewers may prejudge and how they will receive or

respond to my photos, my titles, or in some cases my accompanying text. They might also prejudge me based on my

name, my sexual orientation if they know or assume it, and other photos of mine they hAve already seen. Nothing

happens in a vacuum and I'm in no need of cleansing anyone's palette so they start with some sort of blank slate. I wasn't

trying to tell the whole story, by the way, just pointing out how the title int this case seems to have started a good

discussion. There is a lot about some of my photos that would turn off some viewers. I'm not going to stop because of

that. And if the way I title my photos stops people from commenting, there's really nothing I'd care to do about that. Like I

said I'm for maximum freedom of expression and try to be open to commenting on all kinds of photos with all kinds of

titles. To be honest. Quite often I forget to look at the title anyway. I usually do when the title has already been

commented on. But I wouldn't want to standardize the types or styles of photos we make and I wouldn't want to

standardized the types or styles of titles we use or whether we should use them or not. It's about personal expression

and individuality.

"I wouldn't want to standardize the types or styles of photos we make and I wouldn't want to standardized the types or styles of titles we use or whether we should use them or not. It's about personal expression and individuality."

Fred, I don't think I was advocating or even hinting that we standardize anything. Perhaps I was a bit too strong in referring to the "whole story." If this offended you, I apologize.

Bill, along the same lines as my previous post, why would you be interested in determining if creative titles per se are a good thing or bad thing? Why not take them on a case by case basis, just as I assume you do photos? Are portraits a good thing or bad thing? Are square formats a good thing or bad thing? Is black and white a good thing or bad thing? Is a dark frame a good thing or bad thing? Is printing on glossy stock a good thing or bad thing? How about matt stock? Doesn't it depend on the title and its relationship to the photo in question? Individually? I question the helpfulness of most searches for standardized, uniform, or universal answers to artistic questions like this. They often seem to restrict potential rather than expand it.

This is not to say you should like or think effective Alf's title. I understand some of the hesitations about it, though I think it goes well with his overall sensibility in terms of this photo. What I don't understand is trying to determine some sort of general rule (even if only for oneself) about titles.

"Photographing others is a privilege not a right". Surely that privilege is based of the freedom to do so. Freedom of expression and as we are witnessing in this very well participated forum, the freedom to interpret our subjects and their expressions as we see fit. I don't expect everyone to interpret the image as I see it, but I choose to lead them to do so with a title of my choosing. That to my mind is not "labelling a person as evil" rather more accurately it is labelling the character that he portrays.
Should we as photographers having a "responsibility" give up our ideals, inspirations and expressions in the vague hope that we won't offend anyone ever again?
I am not in the least sorry for taking the shot, nor am I sorry for choosing the title. I would however gladly remove the title and rename the shot if the subject made it known that he was offended. There is always the chance of course that he would enjoy the notoriety that the image might bring and even request a print. Lets not make far reaching assumptions that this guy might be offended, outraged or even the slightest bit hurt. He might, having stumbled upon the image by chance, read the photographers notes and the discussion that followed and want to contribute his own views, and although this is unlikely, it would be a most welcome contribution. In the meantime we seem to discussing the title and how the subject "might" feel about it, rather than the image itself. Not that I am against discussion of any kind, but the hypothetical reactions of a subject, who has inadvertently discovered their image on a photographic web site, can neither be proven nor dis-proven.
Another quite separate and simply practical reason for my giving any of my images titles, is that once I have made a connection with the image and a title, I can easily search for them. The titles quite often won't mean anything to anyone else. Numbers, file names and even dates don't have the same immediate mental recognition for me, and so as a matter of practical time saving I will stick to titles.

Sincere Thanks to all

Alf

In expressing my opinion about the responsibility of the photographer, it has nothing to do with the photographer's statement of "Let's not make (so-called) far-reaching assumptions that this guy might be offended."

It has more to do with the courtesy a photographer can exhibit when photographing a sole individual in a public place without the subject's permission, a situation quite different from most street photography involving a few or several persons and often a multitude of other picture elements (or "subjects").

The freedom to make the photo is there, that is not a problem, and asking beforehand is not often possible when seeking to capture a certain moment. The responsibility is more to ask afterwards and to (advantageously) get to know the subject a little. The subject may not be aware of the photograph having been made and the photographer, if he wishes to evoke a "resident evil" or some other somewhat controversial (and at the limit degrading) aspect, can at least understand the his subject and how he might react to such labeling.

It may be a comment on our society that the importance of the thing (the image) outweighs any human aspect. I may be debating from the point of view of a small community of photographers. So be it.

This recent image was taken on the fly and represents my feeling upon visiting the smart French seaside resort. My friend is holding his ever-present Michelin tourism bible, while other persons are going about their way. The principal subject was walking too quickly to permit a request to photograph, but I feel that she would not have minded, unless I had represented her somehow by unflattering text. Her posture suited the scene I think. Like others I find it is not always possible to request permission, but the result is a measure of the intrusion into her life and being.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=18013437

Back to the POW. The image is the thing of course (although only part of the communication of this photograph) and we could go on to discuss technically or symbolically (or artistically) the image. That has been done for us already to some degree by the title. The lack of a title would make the exercise more interesting in my humble opinion.

In some countries, including the U.S., it is protected "free speech" in public where there is no expectation of privacy. However I usually think of it as a responsibility, rather than a right. The exception would be photojournalism or documentary photography, but those too involve great responsibilities in addition to the right to photograph in public.

Aside from that quibble, I hope I didn't contribute too much toward derailing the conversation - or at least contributed to an interesting conversation, which it is - by nitpicking over the title. I hope my comments on that title come across as something to ponder, rather than outright condemnation or moralizing.

It's a very good photograph, for all the reasons Fred gave. Only occasionally does street photography transcend the mundane and offer a bit of theatricality. This photo is among those few, and I suspect it would even without the editing touches.

I agree with you Alf and good on you. Unfortunately there are some hyper PC and somewhat patronizing proclamations from some of us which no doubt may provide you with some irritation. However having said, this it looks as though many of us do seem to find the title problematic given the subject, so I guess you have to wonder whether next time it would be all worth it (giving it the title you did that is). That's what these discussions are all about. Alternatively you can think us all a bunch of buffoons and continue on your way!

Arthur, while this may be a reasonable choice some people make, I feel absolutely no responsibility to do such a thing. There may well be good reasons for NOT getting to know the subject of a street photo. Living in a city, I know how dangerous interactions on the street can sometimes be, depending on the situation. So that's a practical reason why I might not want to engage a subject. Artistically speaking, one might simply want to maintain that degree of anonymity and even distance, for any number of reasons. One might actually want to express that feeling of "lurking in the shadows" or just simple disengagement and any photographer or artist is entitled to explore either of those. One might even (and I've been in this position) want to explore the voyeuristic aspects of taking pictures in public and direct engagement would completely spoil that experience.

A lot of the best photography and the best art is, indeed, controversial. It needn't, IMO, be subverted by a need to ask anyone's permission. Again, if someone wants to seek permission, that is their choice. But artists shouldn't be compelled by anyone to seek permission, unless it is required by law.

I'm tempted to say that it might be a small community of photographers, indeed, who view a photo as merely "a thing." But I know you well enough to know or at least hope you think that a photo is more than that. But I'd like to take a stab at this. I'm certainly not placing more importance on a thing than on the human aspect. That's because photos themselves, to me, have a very human and living aspect to them. They can express very human emotions, feelings, thoughts, and aspects. Art is much more than a thing. And the artifacts of art, photos included, have great import Furthermore, in this situation, there is, of course, the human aspect of the subject and there is also the human aspect of Alf, the photographer, to whom and about whom we're speaking. I'm conscious of being aware of his humanity as well as the subject's. When I consider both, I realize I know Alf's position of wanting to express himself genuinely through a theatrical approach to street work which, as Lex points out, is at least a little different from the usual. (As you, yourself, point out this is "a situation quite different from most street photography." In my opinion, that's a breath of fresh air.) On the other hand, we have the subject's humanity about which we can only project and hypothesize. And many (not you) are doing so based on his appearance and the crutch he carries which, if we're going to judge others, could be found way more objectionable than anything Alf has pictured, written, or said.

I don't think this is true Fred. The title leads us to make certain judgments. As I noted earlier, a different title might lead to different judgments.

Art expression does not give us license to be cruel to one another. What if this had been titled 'The Troll on the Balcony,' or 'The Phantom Appears?' The photo itself is creative enough. The viewer does not need to be lead, nor does the subject need to be insulted (note that I'm not implying that Alf's title is nearly as insulting as the ones I use here as exaggerated examples). Freedom comes with responsibilities, and I think artistic freedom comes with responsibilities as well.

As for titling pictures being good or bad, I agree that it does indeed depend on the picture. Sometimes it is helpful to be lead while other times it might be best to leave the viewer free to take whatever path he chooses. In the case of this particular shot, I think a more generic title would have been better because there are so many different directions one can go in interpreting it. I think I would have seen the subject as a sympathetic figure without the title, but I find it difficult to do the same with it. The title in no way ruined the shot, but it does affect it.

I don't think so. The title may lead you to make a particular interpretation. It is you and others who have then chosen to judge it as Alf's being cruel or in some way uncaring toward this person. And if the title is leading you to make judgments about the person, that is on you, not on Alf. All the title did for me was to reinforce my understanding of this photo (which I had already gotten from the photo itself) as theatrical.

Reread some of the things people have said about this man. He deserves "pity", "sympathy." That has nothing to do with the title. It has to do with people's misunderstanding what may be needed by a person with a disability. That was my point in saying that people here were projecting and hypothesizing about the man's humanity.

And, a title doesn't have to twist your arm. Undue influence by a title is as much the responsibility of a viewer as it is the responsibility of the photographer who titles it. In many cases, I can easily separate the title from the photo and allow my own interpretation much more sway than whatever the title is telling me. I don't think it takes a whole lot of discipline to be able to do that. Then the title merely serves as insight into the photographer's own interpretation, which doesn't have to dictate mine.

It's not unlike when people have told me, regarding some of my own photos, that a penis I may prominently show is dominating the photo and they lay that at my feet. Now, it is true that in some cases the penis is intentionally dominating the photo but in other cases it is just there and yet viewers are actually either allowing it or causing it to dominate the photo because of their own predilections or reactions to it.

Alf is kind of being saddled with a lot of interpretations and reactions for which he bears very little responsibility. I think it's incumbent on viewers to take responsibility for both how they are viewing this photographed person/character and for how THEY are interpreting the "evil" in the title.

Simple question Fred. How would YOU interpret the title in relation to the subject?

I don't know that Alf is being saddled with anything. Everyone judges photography/art based on their own predilections and reactions. How else would you judge it? If people are telling you the penis dominates a photo, then to them it dominates the photo. You and some others may think it's 'just there,' but to others, it is more than that.

Now, let's say you took an abstract shot of something and titled it 'Penis.' Do you not think that would impact people's interpretations of it? I can tell you that I'd be looking for some semblance of a penis in it. That's your fault as the photographer who titled it, not mine as the viewer.

I haven't judged this as cruel based on the title, I've judge it as being a bit cruel based on knowing this was a random subject, not a staged one, and admittedly, the fact that he appears disabled has affected that judgment. Without the crutch, my judgment might be different. And Alf may have simply been indicating that the entire scene looked a bit sinister, not that the man in particular is evil.
Regardless, at least this POW has generated some significant conversation.

I can't answer every point that has been raised here, but there are a few I'd like to touch on.
Robin Smith "Unfortunately there are some hyper PC and somewhat patronizing proclamations from some of us which no doubt may provide you with some irritation"
On the contrary Robin I feel no irritation and indeed I am honoured that such a well versed group of photographers find merit in the photograph and deem it interesting enough to make any kind of comment with regard to the image or the title, patronizing or otherwise. Neither would I consider such well considered comments to come from a "bunch of baffoons" : - ) However I must add that no comment that has been made here would convince me to act any differently should I be faced with similar circumstances. The following answers to some of Aurther's points may disclose why
Aurther Plumpton "The responsibility is more to ask afterwards a nd to (advantageously) get to know the subject a little. The subject may not be aware of the photograph having been made and the photographer, if he wishes to evoke a "resident evil" or some other somewhat controversial (and at the limit degrading) aspect, can at least understand the his subject and how he might react to such labeling"
I grew up on the streets of the city where this photograph was taken, some people liken it to New York, albeit on a a lot smaller scale. The people are mostly friendly, but like most big cities there are elements of people that are considered dangerous. Now I'm not prejudging this character, but "street wisdom" is something that one gains from living amongst some of roughest area's of a big city and surviving. I openly engage with some of the city's homeless people, stop and chat, take a few photo's (with permission) but on this occasion I took the photo using a 300 mm lens from a discreet position and all my senses told me that this guy shouldn't be approached. Now I admit my senses could be totally wrong and he could be a very understanding guy, however I trust my senses and would not have approached this person and don't think "getting to know him" was an option. similarly I don't think "asking afterwards" would have been a wise move, I value my equipment and my life.
"The lack of a title would make the exercise more interesting in my humble opinion"
I can't honestly say that I have ever posted an image without a title, so on that score Aurther may well have the advantage over me. And I must concede at least the possibility that it could make exercise more interesting.
I will try posting an image with no title, although of course I can't repeat what I have done here exactly.
In the meantime the title continues to be of great interest : - )
Fred G. "And, a title doesn't have to twist your arm. Undue influence by a title is as much the responsibility of a viewer as it is the responsibility of the photographer who titles it"
I concur with Fred's analysis.
Strangely enough a friend that had read most of the above contributions said to me: -
"I never once considered the guy in the image as evil, I always though of the man as one of the Living Dead, in the PlayStation game of the same name".
So indeed there is personal interpretation to consider, there is the intent of the photographer to consider as well. Here in this case the opening lines of the introduction is sympathetic to his plight. But the "theatre" of the moment is accentuated.

Bill, my point is not to tell people that the penis doesn't dominate the photo or that they are interpreting evil in Alf's title wrongly. I'm fine if that's what they think about the penis even if I don't think so. I love people to react honestly to photos and love them to react differently to my photos than I would. At the same time, these viewers might want to consider that it doesn't follow that I made the penis dominant just because they see it as dominant just as it doesn't follow that Alf was misguided in using the word evil just because they are interpreting the title "evil" in a particular way. You and others are moving very swiftly from interpretation to moral judgment and I think a bit more consideration than that is owed a photographer and any fellow human being. Interpretation is yours to own and you have great latitude in that interpretation. The moral judgment being made is a matter of transferring that interpretation over to the photographer and then condemning him for what you have perceived with that freedom of interpretation. That's pretty tricky business!

Yes. I sense that. And the best moral lesson that can be learned from this probably has nothing to do with Alf and evil and random shots of strangers that are fictionalized. It has to do with why that crutch makes a difference and why a man with a crutch would invoke a different sense of allowable fiction or randomness when shooting on the street and whether that's fair to the man with the crutch and whether he would want to have someone's photographic judgment be different because he with his crutch were the subject rather than someone without a crutch. These are not easy questions to answer but the moral implications, especially regarding Alf, shouldn't be assumed to be easily assessed.

Feels like we're starting all over again. I've probably stated my take on the title at least three times by now. I'll say it a little differently this time because I've had a little more time to think about it. What I've said already is that it helps fictionalize the scene. It's kind of an artificial kind of evil that Alf is intentionally creating as a Halloween-like homage to evil that isn't all that evil in reality. Put another way, maybe you could take the title IRONICALLY. There's really no evil here. The photographer might say, "I'm just playing with evil, creating it where it doesn't actually exist. Making it almost obvious that I'm creating it rather than trying to convince anyone that there was really something sinister going on. So I'll title it 'Evil . . . View Larger If You Dare' as a kind of emphasis that this is all artificial and horror-movie-esque." Furthermore, he might say, "I didn't seek out this man. He appeared in a stagelike setting before me with the right posture, from a good perspective above me and with the right backdrop behind him. I chose not to avoid or ignore him as a subject because of his crutch. I chose to treat him as I would anyone who I had come across in this potentially rich photographic situation."

IF the Title of a Photograph sways a Viewer to a place where that Viewer is limited and capable of fewer interpretations of the Image than otherwise would be possible, then it is nether the Title nor the Photographer who gave the Title which is the limiting factor.

The limiting factor is with The Viewer. A Critique and Analysis Viewer’s responsibility is to come to the PHOTOGRAPH absent of: bias; records and rackets.

*

Mr Blackstock & Mr Ritson, my two most excellent English Masters at my High School, taught us that we MUST NEVER bring any bias to the Critique and Analysis of Poetry.

Both were very particular and the first element they taught us was to ignore and remove the Title from our mind.

Blackstock, being a most direct fellow, said words to the effect of: ‘Boys - Titles just "F" with your mind. They are there as space fillers. Useless. Pointless. Poets by convention use them. Some use them to attempt to convey a message or a framework - ignore that too. It will limit your thinking and "F" with your own analysis of the Poem. Read the Poem. Eat the Words. Savour them. Digest them. When that is done do it again. And again. Thrice at least. And from every angle.
When you are finished then read the title - it might be of some assistance to you, but by that time you will have seen many things that the Poet wanted you to see and perhaps your mind will have created more for you to see than the Poet even realized.'

The same applies to Critique and Analysis of all The Arts.

***

Cracker Street Photograph.

Fantastic range of Grey Tones that have been implemented. The ‘theatrical style’ lighting just lingers and wants me to savour it more.

I interpreted that all the theatre of the lighting and post production was merely to enhance the metaphor of Life. It occurs to me the fellow had had more than ‘just a bad day’. The image conveyed to me a strong sense of how “S” can happen to any one of us. The fellow is still in control of it, but well over it. The theatrical lighting and stage like perspective, both acting as metaphor enhances that simple fact of life.

The second last thing I looked at was the Title and FWIW – the “evil” part of the Title I had already interpreted as ‘that being done unto him’.

The last thing I did was read all the comments here and that’s why I weighed in on the ‘title discussion’ - (Blackstock would never ever allow us to read the Poetry Crib Notes before we analysed the poem for ourselves).

WW

I think a more humorous or poignant title would be..."Walk This Way"...referencing a line in the movie Young Frankenstein or the rock song from Aerosmith. Could be taken either way but as a sort of strange double entendre to increase tension.

This gets better and better.

First of all, thanks, Alf, for being willing to expose your feelings and process both at the time of shooting and in later stages of your creating this photo.

Even fiction, stagecraft, and theatricality are inspired or instigated by some deeply felt and authentic emotions. Our creative imaginations don't just happen. I see a connection here. The "evil" or sinister vibe may be theatrical, in having been created by lighting and other post processing means, but perhaps unintentionally or unconsciously, it stems from the foreboding feelings Alf has expressed. Hearing Alf and looking at the picture says to me that Alf was somewhat unfiltered, even if unintentionally motivated at the time, in his photographic expression and in how his experience at the time informs his making of the photo and even his using "evil" in the title.

Alf says he might be wrong about the guy. He's not expressing a so-called truth about the guy, but it seems to me he's expressing his own authentic feelings, through a theatrical vision. This photo is a revelation about Alf, which a photo often is in relation to an instinctively open and liberated photographer, whether or not it reveals much about its subject.

Generally speaking I'd agree. And generally speaking I apply the same practice to my own critical analysis of most creative arts. That would include recruiting a model to pose for this type of photograph. The photographer may choose any concept and title he or she likes, and the viewer may choose to consider it in context or disregard it as superfluous or a distraction.

But this never applies to journalism or photojournalism, which occasionally has included candid photos of unidentified people in public at newsworthy events, community and recreational events. When I was studying journalism there was an entire course just in writing headlines and captions, with critiques from the instructor to explain why a single carelessly chosen word to fit the desired width may have unintended consequences, and to be very careful with trying to get too clever or colorful. Nowadays this practice is usually disregarded in favor of puns and clickbait headlines and titles to provoke potential readers.

And every journalist and media-watcher has amusing stories about the unfortunate juxtaposition of a sensitive photo and/or article next to a tacky advertisement or completely unrelated news item. I'll attach an example, a photo I took in San Diego around 1980:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/7339158-lg.jpg

Photo of the pope, next to headline "California Lifestyle: Divorce, Abortion" (1980)

This juxtaposition may have been an intentional editorial choice rather than unintended irony.

Candid, unposed street photography of strangers falls closer to social documentary and photojournalism than it does to art - obviously my personal opinion, not a declaration of fact. It entails a certain responsibility or, at the very least, cognizance of the potential consequences for using words in connection with a visual representation of another person. There is always the risk that the words may be misinterpreted from the author's intent, and assigned meanings that have nothing to do with that intent or the subject of the photograph.

If that were not true, we wouldn't be having this extensive, spirited, enlightening and constructive conversation.

It's additionally complicated by the nature of the internet, where a photo may go viral, be appropriated into the memescape and used or abused to convey narratives never dreamed of by the original photographer.

Consider the case of this fellow, the photos of whom were originally used as part of a photo documentary project by Matt Kenlon, around 1993-'94, and published in "America's Refuse: Homeless in the Heartland". Several years later the photos were appropriated by denizens of Something Awful, deemed meme-worthy, and went viral with consequences for the real human being who was originally depicted with empathetic intent. I won't try to summarize the entire story because the first link does that well enough, and the followup stories and commentaries cover it great detail.

So, again, I think Alf's is an excellent photo. And I believe we need to recognize the potential for unanticipated consequences when we assign or imply a certain narrative through words, editing choices, or context through juxtaposition with other photographs, articles, etc.

But does that mean we should tiptoe around as if every street photograph is like juggling flaming bowling balls while walking barefoot on broken glass? Nope. Some things just can't be anticipated. In the mid-1990s I doubt anyone could have anticipated the anarchic nature of the interwebs latching so enthusiastically onto the art of intertextuality, meta-narratives and their goofier younger sibling, the meme image.

I particularly appreciate your conclusion here, and understand your reasoning in the rest of the post.

Good art and photography are often matters of risk-taking, sometimes physical, possibly more often emotional, and sometimes opening oneself up to public ridicule because of those creative efforts. As I said above in terms of Alf's self expression, some of the best artists and photographers do bare their souls, knowingly or not, willingly or not. That comes with risks. Not only that your words or images can be misconstrued but that you might wind up taking a strong stand that you later consider wrong or foolish. One risk Alf takes is telling us about his hesitation in approaching the guy. The guy might turn out to be the nicest guy in the world. OK. At that point we deal with that and maybe even have some kind of catharsis, something art knows a little about. Consider Stieglitz, who heralded Pictorialism, used it expressively, relied on it effectively to help establish photography as an accepted and museum-worthy art, and later came to say about it, "It is high time that the stupidity and sham in pictorial photography be struck a solarplexus blow." You stand up for something vigorously and you always risk being wrong or changing your tune at a later date. Obviously, he also took a risk in making that very determined statement in that he was undermining years of how photographers saw themselves, in great part due to his own initial insistence. Arne Svenson took a risk in photographing people through their uncurtained windows in a high-rent apartment complex opposite his own apartment. My guess is he would consider his own intentions quite misconstrued by those labeling him a pervert and suing him (to no avail in both the lower and upper court). Same for Serrano with his Piss Christ. Risk and all the hate in many responses to his photo let loose upon him by some who may be considered to have misconstrued his message and intent or even to have construed it accurately but reacted poorly. I could go on but it's not necessary.

Good topic for an evening of conversation or more than five thousand words to write here.

In Summary: I do like “never applies to journalism” but I think that there are several shades in firstly defining when it is ‘journalism’.

The context of presentation is one shade.

The Elves picked this for discussion here. That is an initial context of both it (the Photograph) and of the discussion / critique of it. It (the Photograph) is not supporting an Headline or Journalistic Commentary or News Story.

WW

Yup, but better that than detached, cynical, narcissistic irony. I see examples often on Facebook and blogs by photographers who make blanket statements such as "I don't care for Sally Mann" or "Eggleston is overrated" without any explication. It's just to provoke attention, a chance to spout a few pseudo-intellectual quips, not a sincere conversation starter.

It's dishonest in the same way Frank Zappa's music was dishonest and cowardly. He was a technically proficient musician who seemed afraid to fully commit to anything, so he resorted to smirky parodies of jazz and pop music tropes. So he enjoyed the adulation of stoners with above average intelligence and below average social adaptation who congratulated themselves on being such edgy iconoclasts.

It's safe and cowardly because it protects the smirky shallow ironist from committing to anything, lest they have to defend any position or risk being ill informed or have to adapt as a culture evolves in unexpected ways. It accomplishes nothing other than giving a clique of like minded snarkists a safe place to ridicule a world they're too timid to join for fear of rejection or pain.

Guess I should've read the whole thread before I suggested the retitling.. "Walk This Way". I also should've noted by going to Alf's PN gallery that this image is listed as street photography. Now I get Lex's uneasy feel about this image. I was under the impression this image was more what the communication arts/graphics industry deems as photo illustration.

Photo illustration employs real elements such as scenery and subjects composed as a composite to act as a blue print for creating an idea or attitude that is not inherent within each element individually at the onset.

Since this is street photography and that's a not a model/actor but a real resident of that community who is close I would say to being considered indigent and handicapped (that's not a cane, it's crutches that I've seen polio victims use back in the '60's) I'ld have to say the title throws me off as to what this photo is attempting to communicate.

There's too much ambiguity caused by the title on where the passion lies within the photographer that inspired him to take the shot and clearly post process it to convey an attitude. Was it to be used as a blueprint to create a theatrical dramatic effect or as a depiction of a real person who is part of a real community? So I'm left not knowing what this photo is about other than it's just a striking image that grabs attention along the lines as an advertisement for a movie or graphic novel.

I would not call this street photography but photo illustration. And yes, it needs to be categorized due to its ambiguity and misleading representation of a real person on the street.

Thanks, Alf, for giving the context of your image capture and I understand that communicating with the subject was not a practical option. The theatrical nature of the image is the result of the art or craft you applied in image editing and is successful. I once photographed a local on the top of some steps to the side entrance of a Portugese village church. The interest for me was the graphic composition and the fact that that he looked definitely menacing and at odds with the setting, but like you I thought it best not to stay around for the sequel to the photo, so it was also one occasion where permission or discussion was not the best route.

"Guess I should've read the whole thread before . . ."


Well said, Tim. I suggest you double back and read Alf's own words.