Fraud or Art

BruceN · Oct 24, 2005

I think you and I see pretty much eye to eye on this one, Michael. It's kind of funny, because whenever I can no longer resist the Soap Box I'll often see posts from you that really tick me off. I'm starting to suspect that the reason I get so ticked off is that I take your comments at face value when, in fact, you have a much deeper and more twisted sense of humor than I have given you credit for. Be that as it may, you've called it on this one. I like this photo. Had I paid good money for it and then found out it was made in the way that it was, I would be EXTREMELY disappointed. I certainly would'nt keep it on the wall anymore. It would be very much the same as buying a landscape photo, then finding out that someone put Mt. McKinley on the Serengetti. (I actually saw one of those once) Creative license is just that, but at some point one has to draw the line and call it a lie. Where that line is drawn is up to each individual but, for me, this one is way over the line. So far over the line that I picture Amish folk chanting "You don't speak for me!" Except, of course, such chanting would be beneath their dignity. Really gotta admire those folks... For a national organization to endorse it as some kind of Pulitzer prize contender is beyond fathoming.

Anyway, good call on this one.

Bruce

PS - Thanks for picking up the phone a month or so ago and setting me straight on the best use of the Zone VI VC enlarger, the new darkroom should be done soon and I'll actually be able to put that knowledge to use...

blansky said:
A couple of points:

This thread was not so much about whether you think this particular photograph was art, or even good. More so, it was about the fact that a top photographic organization, would be endorsing this kind of staging, and raving about it.

The second thing is, in life we sort of have an expectation of truth. Obviously the older we get, the more jaded we get. A child comes in thinking that everything is truth, and soon has to discover that it is not.

In movies we accept that it is not truth, in advertising we have also come to accept that, although that has not always been so. In photography for years we accepted that it was truth, well maybe just a little enhanced, but still pretty much truth none the less.

Look at how outraged we used to be when athletes who we admired reached great heights of achievement and then we find out they used steroids etc. Now we almost expect that they cheated.

I guess I just think it is sad that we must place a mental caveat on everything these days, that don't allow us to enjoy something with the knowledge that it was achieved honestly and without betraying our trust.

....here I sit, a sadder but a wiser man.....

Michael

David H. Bebbington · Oct 24, 2005

This is neither fraud not art, it is a piece of everyday professional photography using everyday professional methods. If you don't like it, get over it! My personal opinion is that the image is unremarkable and I wouldn't want to buy it - other people (in charge of an award scheme) apparently thought differently. Yes, technically it harks back to Henry Peach Robinson and all the other multiple-printing experts of Victorian times, but this doesn't sway me one way or the other. Just please don't be naive enough to suggest that a manipulated (staged) photograph has no validity - this would consign 95% of press pictures ever made, 100% of portraits, etc. to the garbage can!

CraigK · Oct 24, 2005

Is it just me (maybe its the tumbler of scotch I just swigged after seeing this masterpiece of kitch) or is the scale in the photo somewhat off? Compared to the people, the cows look huge. Are cows really that much bigger in Amish country? and are those fence post on the right hand side along the road really that tall?... or is it that the digitally replaced country folk's scale is a bit out of whack.

Staged, unstaged, true, fake, false, crap, whatever. To my bloodshot eye, the shot is about as cheesey as a Kenny G solo on a Celine Dion single but whatever floats your boat eh?

For me, it is the very weird sense of scale that places it in the reject pile.

BruceN · Oct 24, 2005

David H. Bebbington said:
If you don't like it, get over it!

Interesting solution, where have I heard that before? In any event, I think not.

David H. Bebbington said:
Just please don't be naive enough to suggest that a manipulated (staged) photograph has no validity - this would consign 95% of press pictures ever made, 100% of portraits, etc. to the garbage can!

I'm afraid I am that naive, and you are quite correct about 95% of press pictures ever made. Not, however, about portraits. Those customers either got what they were paying for, or (hopefully) didn'tpay for them.

Bruce

smieglitz · Oct 24, 2005

Well let's say the photographer fuzzed it up a bit and then maybe printed it in gum bichromate or bromoil. Then it wouldn't look so photojournalistically real and it would attempt to be obviously "artistic." Acceptable then even giving the staging and digital manipulation?

Y'all are upset because you are looking at it as a document. I dislike like it for that very reason. It purports to be a clinically-sharp document of reality and I want to see it as an impressionistic fiction.

IIRC, the PPA holds the equivalent of salons and judges these things and awards points, etc. It's a big camera club. What do you really expect from such a practice? I expect fuzzy-wuzzy fictions.

This thing is upsetting to us because of our approach to it. It's on the fence and straddles two viewpoints. It's just poorly done from any camp.

Joe

Curt · Oct 24, 2005

Have you hear of a photographer called Edward S. Curtis who staged Indians in photographs? He became quite sucessful and famous. I think this kind of thing, without giving a disclosure, is a sham at best. Maybe the PPA stands for Pre Prepared and Arranged.

MurrayMinchin · Oct 25, 2005

blansky said:
Perhaps it is the fact that when we experience something, then find out it is not real, we have allowed ourselves to becone emotionally involved, and now feel that we are cheated of that emotional feeling.

Don't you think the APUG-Gallery would be a perfect oasis from this?

Murray

Bill Mitchell · Oct 25, 2005

Right on

David H. Bebbington said:
This is neither fraud not art, it is a piece of everyday professional photography using everyday professional methods. If you don't like it, get over it! My personal opinion is that the image is unremarkable and I wouldn't want to buy it - other people (in charge of an award scheme) apparently thought differently. Yes, technically it harks back to Henry Peach Robinson and all the other multiple-printing experts of Victorian times, but this doesn't sway me one way or the other. Just please don't be naive enough to suggest that a manipulated (staged) photograph has no validity - this would consign 95% of press pictures ever made, 100% of portraits, etc. to the garbage can!

Your evaluation is right on, and well expressed.

tim atherton · Oct 25, 2005

jovo said:
This Amish picture purports to be akin to what George Tice might have taken. Tice met the Amish and established a relationship that comes across in his images. This picture suggests something similar, but it's a fabrication.

But does it puport to do that? Does it suggest something similar - that was why I said context is everything.

If it's being presented as a National Geo story - then yes. If it's part of a commercial shoot or and ad shoot or whatever then it's a case of "you don't believe everything you read"

tim atherton · Oct 25, 2005

Andre R. de Avillez said:
As a documentary photographer, looking at a photograph that imitates documentary work, I feel lied to. The fact that this kind of work seems to completely ignore (not overcome) all ethical questions I face when I produce work of my own strikes me as wrong.

André

I'm guessing you aren't to keen on Walker Evans' work then?

tim atherton · Oct 25, 2005

df cardwell said:
Years later, we generally see a photograph and assume it is real.
.

I believe it to be much more the case that people have always know that photographs never quite tell the truth and often lie

Jim Chinn · Oct 25, 2005

Matthew Brady had corpses moved to "stage" his images of Civil War dead.

Dosineau staged his famous photograph "The Kiss"

Cartier-Bresson had his uncle or brother or someone repeatedely jump over the puddle untill he got the right decisive moment.

Robert Capa faked the Spanish soldier being killed.

The flag raising on Mt. Surabachi on Iwo Jima was staged a second time to get a more dramatic composition and effect.

Eugene Smith often positioned people in his pictures and used a variety of darkroom techniques to alter images to show something slightly different then what was really there.

All of these photographers or images where once thought to be the result of the great skill, vision of the artist combined with the serendipity of the moment, yet they were all in some way frauds.

So... what else is new?

Rlibersky · Oct 25, 2005

I have to agree with Jim on this one. I'll bet Borke-White stagged a few during the depression as well. Along with other photographers from that era.

Curt · Oct 25, 2005

Wasn't "I shall return" returned twice?
I like the Curtis photos and a lot of the rest including Mathew Brady. Maybe it's something brought over from painters. Or studio/commercial photography. Was the walk to victory garden a one time walk? Really opens up the subject for examination doesn't it?

df cardwell · Oct 25, 2005

tim said:
I believe it to be much more the case that people have always know that photographs never quite tell the truth and often lie

The initial response to a photograph, the gut response, is that it is real.

The intellectual response, on reflection, or merely hesitation, is that it might or might not be real.

When a photograph is viewed as arch, ironic, and cynical, and of only intellectual value, the form has either become impotent or has died.

.

df cardwell · Oct 25, 2005

Curt said:
Have you hear of a photographer called Edward S. Curtis who staged Indians in photographs? He became quite sucessful and famous. I think this kind of thing, without giving a disclosure, is a sham at best. Maybe the PPA stands for Pre Prepared and Arranged.

Curtis arranged native americans, not actors (or amish) to play Indians for his photographs.

Massive difference don't you think ?

.

df cardwell · Oct 25, 2005

"If you don't like it, get over it!" quote from David H. Bebbington

Why ? Where do you draw the line between right and wrong ? What would you fight for , or at least, stand up for ?

.

John Bartley · Oct 25, 2005

blansky said:
.... snipped ....

My problem is, this thing is a fraud from top to bottom, and is acclaimed by the top photographic association for pro portraits types, to be a great work.

Your opinion?.....

Michael

I don't know what art is so I won't comment on that. Fraud however involves deceit. Apparently (and according to the article text) the photographer disclosed fully the methods used in creating this scene. That disclosure negates the fraud charge. All that's left is to decide whether you like the image for the way it looks or don't like it for the way it was made.

Andy K · Oct 25, 2005

"In telling a story this image succeeds greatly: The image gives us a glimpse into a lifestyle very different from our own. I love the way the dirt road leads out of the lower left corner and takes us to the mother and children, whose clothing tells much about ther life choices they have made. framing created by the cattle and the fencing makes a strong compositional statement and printing the imagemonochrome helps to further the timelessness."

This gives a great insight into the commentator too. They have ignored the fact that this is not a photograph but is a collage, that the photographer failed in his composition and had to correct it by moving the people, that the photographer chose to fake the scene rather than do the hard yards and gain the permission to photograph real Amish people, that the photograph was not actually shot in monochrome but converted later. All of these things suggest to me the photographer had no real vision as to what they wanted to achieve or portray beforehand, and ended up correcting almost everything afterwards in photoshop.

As an exercise in photoshopped sham, this is a great work, as a work of art? I wouldn't give it tuppence.

df cardwell · Oct 25, 2005

Jim: Regarding Capa, the Spanish soldier 'fake allegation' has been repeatedly disproven. Regarding Rosenthal's Iwo Jima shot, his was a one time shot: the re-staging was for PR films, by other people, another time. These were your two examples of photojournalism.

You're right: Sgt Lowery made the first, Rosenthal made the second. But there was no intent to deceive, it was still a real war, real people, and no hired actors / dfc

Your broad swat at Gene Smith was too general to say anything. Sometimes he staged things, sometimes not, but always at the time, with participants, and in real time. He did what he did to convey the larger truth, of the time and the people, as he saw it. He used flash, he burned and dodged and bleached, and he was completely committed to the lives of the people he photographed. He was not hit by artillery and beaten by corporate goons because his models were in a mood.

Brady ? Arranging corpses ? Why not. His was groundbreaking work, and within the limitations of his medium, and the times, why not ? He didn't hire actors to play dead. Or to pretend there had been a battle when there had not.

Doisneau made it clear he hired actors to portray lovers in Paris for the Life article.

All of these photographers or images where once thought to be the result of the great skill, vision of the artist combined with the serendipity of the moment, yet they were all in some way frauds.

How were these images NOT the result of great skill, vision, and serendipity ? How are they frauds ?

????????

What you are saying, in a very post-modern way, is that photography is a fake, that there is no reality, that a greater truth may not be served by consideration, presentation, and craft. Cynical and ultimately disproven.

.

df cardwell · Oct 25, 2005

Curt said:
Was the walk to victory garden a one time walk? Really opens up the subject for examination doesn't it?

Do you mean Gene Smith's Walk to Paradise Garden ?

Well, yeah. It was a single roll of film, the first he shot since being shot up on Okinawa, after a long and painful rehab. His first attempt to make a picture since his awful war years. Yeah, he staged it, but so what ? The story is well known, well documented, and damn good photograph. Not to mention, the contact sheet has been published many times, as well.

And, if I recall, they are even HIS kids.

Pray, examine it. What IS your point ?

David H. Bebbington · Oct 25, 2005

df cardwell said:
"If you don't like it, get over it!" quote from David H. Bebbington

Why ? Where do you draw the line between right and wrong ? What would you fight for , or at least, stand up for ?
.

Call me blinkered if you will, but I don't see any moral issue in the Amish picture. Doing it the way the photographer did avoids bothering genuine Amish people, who may well refuse outright to be photographed, and leaves the photographer with a fully model-released picture which he/she can market commercially. At the same time, the picture shows a scene which has credibility (Amish do wear clothes like this and do walk a lot) and provides an accurate impression of an incident which genuinely does happen frequently in this form.

For me, the issue of "fakery" is encapsulated in a picture by George Rodger of a small child walking along a path in a concentration camp (believe Bergen-Belsen) which is lined with emaciated corpses which animals have gnawed. If APUGers are not familiar with this picture, I will find it later and post it (no time now). To me, this suggests an insane situation which has been so widespread and has been going on for so long that the small child accepts his hellish surroundings as normal. The fact that this picture of a genuine CC inmate in a genuine situation in a genuine CC was posed does not for me in any way detract from its impact. The question is really whether the photographer concerned had the integrity to create a true impression (by any means at his disposal) of what he witnessed.

The (to me) totally separate question of what I would fight for is hard to answer - truth I suppose, perhaps, for example, in a concrete situation where what I felt was an honest and valuable picture was in danger of being ignored. I would certainly not fight for any flag or country on the face of this earth!

Andy K · Oct 25, 2005

David, there was a documentary recently about that photograph of the child in the Concentration Camp. According to the documentary makers, the photographer and the child (now a grown man and reunited with the photographer for the documentary), the photograph was not staged.

df cardwell · Oct 25, 2005

David H. Bebbington said:
The (to me) totally separate question of what I would fight for is hard to answer - truth I suppose, perhaps, for example, in a concrete situation where what I felt was an honest and valuable picture was in danger of being ignored. I would certainly not fight for any flag or country on the face of this earth!

No monumental disagreement there: and the George Rodger example is brilliant. A difference of scale between Bergen Belsen and a semi-amish picture for a coterie.

Somewhere, though, between them is a line. I don't know where it should be drawn, nor whether it should be a kind of fuzzy sort of line. But if we are to accept any responsibility for our pictures we need to know whether (at some point) we can fake, and at some point we must not.

I wonder of Blansky will recognize his thread when he gets up ?

.

laz · Oct 25, 2005

As is my wont, I've been reflecting on exactly what it is about this photograph and it's technique that bothers me. As Blansky points out there is a significant emotional aspect; is something robbed from me when I learn it's fake? My answer would be yes, but, in the greater world view of "art" does it matter that the photographer in me is offended?

As I think a number have pointed out, what would be our opinion did we not know it was staged and photoshopped? I think that last is very important aspect of the APUG reaction. I think the vast majority here have a real disgust for digital manipulation. But I think if anything the fake Amish, not just placing real Amish in a desired position, is what is ethically wrong.

But there is more we react to that has nothing to do with any of the above. Personally I think the subject is trite and cliche. Yes, we get it; the Amish are colorful symbols of so many things (or B&W symbols ). This might just as well be a shot of a covered bridge in fall or a couple hand in hand on a beach walking into the sunset. Actors and photoshop or not I think the photo sucks.

-Bob

My apologies to any who have ever authored a covered bridge or beach shot. My judgement here is of an award winning photo. Both those subjects can be pleasing to the eye but as award worthy images they've been done to death (along with the poor Amish )

Fraud or Art

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency