sheri_p

I'm with you, Mary Ball et al. I was also unaffected by this image the first time I saw it. Wondering whether I might be becoming too cynical I left it for a day, came back and ... still nothing.

 

In fact I could never quite convince myself that the scene was authentic. My first thought was that Chris had dressed up one of his friends to portray a particular theme. I felt that the actor hadn't quite pulled it off (too wooden) and that the stylization was a bit too campy (1950s-style horror movies). Now that some clever fellow has floated the idea that this could be a wax figure, I'm inclined to go that route. I'm also hoping that Chris will keep us guessing for another day or so, to give people the opportunity to compare their initial reactions to the shot against their thoughts after re-checking the photo in light of the doubts raised.

 

If the suspicions some of us have prove correct, the discussion could take some interesting turns including: (1) whether viewers are inclined to rate a photo as favourably if it is "just" a shot of a museum exhibit, or (2) the suggestibility/impact of a title.

 

As concerns the latter, I concur with Matt, Balaji and and Lanny who have already commented on the power of the title. If Chris had indeed called the shot "The Tired Welder" (Doug's idea) or "Damn, where's the pooper-scooper?" -- would this have provoked as many goose-bumps? Has the title in fact dictated what many of us are seeing, rather than the photo itself? And does this even matter?

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.

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.

Gotta have one dissenting viewpoint.

At the outset, let me state that I am in complete agreement with the comments on the technical/creative details: exposure, printing, composition, expressions, etc. are fantastic.

Rather, my concern stems from the interpretation that the majority of viewers seem to be assigning to the photo. Describing the "banker" and other spectators as "arrogant, imperious", "repugnant", "inhuman", or "worse than animals" seems to me to be unfair given the actual circumstances described by Tony. Somehow people seem to have come to the conclusion that the bystanders are laughing or smirking at the dishevelled man because of his poor appearance. I don't know why; having heard hundreds of pitches for money over the years on the Paris subway I've never once seen anyone laugh or smirk at a beggar. It's just "not done".

Yet somehow, so many viewers seem to want to label the photo as a conflictual "class story". And while a photographer cannot control/predict every viewer's interpretation, if enough people arrive at the same (possibly faulty) conclusion he/she may need to question whether justice has been done to the subject. After all, photojournalism (as I understand it) is supposed to be a reasonably accurate rendition of the situation.

In his "Grafting an Image" section Tony elaborates on the photo's full circumstances as follows:"[The man]was claiming to be sick (that was his pitch), but whenever anyone in the crowd suggested that he get himself off to a doctor there was always an excuse (usually lack of money to pay the fees). When reminded that the health system in the UK is free, he used the excuse that he was too sick to get himself to a hospital.

However, if anyone could spare him the cost of a cab...

This is what I think the people were laughing at, the punch line: "just give me money and I'll be alright".

In my opinion this changes the whole context of the photo. The beggar's pitch wasn't very convincing, its logic was riddled with holes, and naturally invited some skepticism from the crowd. The beggar wasn't a poor,lonely figure meandering through an anonymous group of people, but rather a man who had invited a response (money particularly) for a rather convoluted story. We've all had the experience of getting caught up in an excuse/faux pas, and seriously backtracking to make up for the lapse. Thus rather than labelling the spectators as cruel, it would seem that some could be forgiven for finding the pitch somewhat amusing -- holes and all. Some may even have smiled out of admiration for the guy's balls in making such a speech. And given him money to boot (banker included)just because it's human nature to reward "he who dares".

Therein lies my beef. Can a journalistic photo be considered "good", no matter how beautiful it is, if it causes the majority of viewers to misread the situation depicted? Especially if a sizeable number is driven to disparage some of the individuals in the shot -- when there is a good possibility that such derision is unwarranted? Last week's POW caused a veritable ruckus when an unfortunate description opened the possibility for interpretation that the subject was on drugs. Is this situation all that different? Yes, there's no "negative" caption involved, nor any malice intended by the photographer. Yes, the picture is real (not contrived) and interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. Yet, when so many seem to be heaping the worst possible adjectives upon the banker, I have to wonder whether he is being done an injustice.

For me the "decisive moment" would have been when the dishevelled man was giving his speech and engaging his listeners. Such a shot would have given him the strength and dignity that Tony describes; smiling spectators need not be judged as cruel but rather as enjoying the discourse. Of course, such an image may not be as "powerful" or "emotion-provoking", but it would be more accurate and just.

Anyone agree/disagree? I personally would have no concerns about publishing such a photo if an explanation as to how the scene unfolded were presented alongside it (i.e. a factual account, not a Christ/Pharisees metaphor/judgment). But frankly I'm not really comfortable with the image viewed on its own. How did you feel, Tony, when you realized that so many viewers were pitying your main character (who you saw as strong and gutsy) and castigating the others in the frame (who may not have merited such a rounding denouncement)?