charleswood

<p>For this series I find these the most helpful and clear explanations of how the photograph works as a composition, etc.</p>

<p>The best thing about a dog is that they do things that are soooo funny, I've laughed so hard about something a dog did that my stomach hurt.</p>

<p>As to staged: I believe Rockefeller was fairly widely hated in 1932, the photo, I take it, is from the middle of the Presidential campaign, and is just one example from a lot of other slick propaganda for the 'economic royalists' who had destroyed the economy of that day. The men are pictured as caricatures, are the men as the 'boss' saw them, contented and grateful just for having the 'gift' of work from a 'great man' in a 'great country', having their picture taken supposedly being the biggest thrill of their lives. They knew Rockefeller was nothing but a cheap crook. Everybody knew. The men were acting in a carefully staged event, as is made clear from the other shots that were in some of Alan's links. The real greatest thrill of these workmen's lives was to come just 6 months later when Roosevelt took office and started to do something that worked. Good choice Alan.</p>

<p>That's a nice one Gary, the light shining through their eyes as much as it is shining through the window. The little one with her draw strings untied, that's what I like to see, where the kid can't yet get it right and the photographer is happy for that.</p>

<p>It's rarely <em>not</em> mere degree that difference between staged and posed. That's the challenge family photography presents. I see it succeed in David Smith's second set, the first one of child running on beach (and first set, 2nd again on beach): both in contrast to all of Jeff's where for me his work presented here intends to just celebrates posing, doesn't communicate that the challenge was accepted IMHO. As to the other kid photos, whether the camera is present or not, we are present to a kid, we are always a spotlight under whose gaze they both 1. pose for us and 2. just are. In that sense, it is they who show us what is what in their ability to be. I'm not sure subjects at play aren't posing because play is about posing, pretending. In Gary's, a sleeping subject is one way to get there, but that's too easy and common I'm afraid. With Lex's couple shots, if they are playing we don't know it from the picture, where with a kid, we do know in a picture if they are playing since their ability to play isn't fully formed and we know instinctively the difference between posing and being since we know 'child' v adult quiet sharply in our own minds.</p> <p>And Brad I forgot to mention, I have a relative who finds early 20th century second tier art for $5 from the unwary turned to $1,5000 or just pleasure. I'm not sure if your photo is of that satisfaction from avarice, but that's what I read into it anyway whether justified by your individual circumstances or not.</p>

<p>Julie in OP "what's going on? What are they for?"</p> <p>I don't know.</p><div></div>