Fraud or Art

Jim Chinn · Oct 25, 2005

df cardwell said:
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 ?

There was an article on Smith sometime ago in Camera and Darkroom about how he would use bleach and dye to change the direction that people were looking in an image (Spanish Funeral), or add elemets from other negatives such as the case with some shots of Albert Schwietzer. Smith was a great phtographer and and I admire his work. But not everything we see in the print was actually there when the shot was made. Is it fraud? to some degree. Is it poetic license? Maybe a better term.

If I recall, Dosineau never said anything about using actors untill one of the people in the shot talked about it.

To clarify, there are two Iwo Jma shots. The most popular and the one that is depicted in a statue in DC is based on the "staged" version which was a recreation of the original.

Nick Zentena · Oct 25, 2005

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

Massive difference don't you think ?

.

No. When one acts they are an actor. Doesn't matter on race. Are the Godfather movies real because Al Pacino is an Italian American? Or are they a fake because James Caan isn't?

Plenty of photos use models are they all frauds? Hire a pretty woman to put on a white dress. Photograph her. Call it a bridal photo. Use it for a newspaper story and it's likely wrong. Use it for an ad and is anything wrong?

SuzanneR · Oct 25, 2005

Seems to me this photographer just couldn't be bothered. Couldn't be bothered to get to know his subjects, and couldn't be bothered to get it right in the camera. His time is spent in front of a computer, and in the end, he comes up with a deeply boring photograph.

I make portraits, and it becomes so much easier to make meaningful photographs when I really get to know the people I'm photographing. Isn't that what it's all about?

As for the PPA's award... they seem to be a little too enamored of photoshop.

tim atherton · Oct 25, 2005

Jim Chinn said:
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.

First one - wrong

second one - but not by the photographer

but then Kertesz "faked" his "couple kissing ona park bench" and had his brother (?) play characters in some of his other shots.

tim atherton · Oct 25, 2005

Rlibersky said:
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.

the Migrant Mother was "posed"

blansky · Oct 25, 2005

df cardwell said:
I wonder of Blansky will recognize his thread when he gets up ?

.

It is very recognizable, because the thread was not necessarily about this (Amish) photograph. It is more about truth and the expectation of truth, and also the endorsement of fakery by an institution that should stand for higher standards.

Someone mentioned that it wasn't fakery because he admitted that he staged the picture and photoshopped it. That is not quite correct. When one has a picture accepted by loan collection they usually are expected to give a sort of teaching description of how you achieved it. The maker obviously impressed with his photoshop skills, let people know how he achieved it. This information is only really available to the PPA members.

The problem is, this picture to the casual observer has no such description and therefore they observer has no knowledge that the picture used actors and was doctored.

Michael

tim atherton · Oct 25, 2005

Jim Chinn said:
To clarify, there are two Iwo Jma shots. The most popular and the one that is depicted in a statue in DC is based on the "staged" version which was a recreation of the original.

Fifty Years Later, Iwo Jima Photographer Fights His Own Battle:

Fifty years ago this month, a young Associated Press photographer named Joe Rosenthal shot the most memorable photograph of World War II, a simple, stirring image of five Marines and one Navy corpsman raising the flag at Iwo Jima.

It took but a sliver of time: 1-400th of a second.

It has consumed the past half-century of Joe Rosenthal's life.

He has been called a genius, a fraud, a hero, a phony. He has been labeled and relabeled, adored and abused, forced to live and relive, explain and defend that day atop Mount Suribachi on each and every day that has followed, more than 18,000 and counting. "I don't think it is in me to do much more of this sort of thing," he said during an interview his umpteen-thousandth about Iwo Jima. "I don't know how to get across to anybody what 50 years of constant repetition means."... rest at link above

Carol · Oct 25, 2005

Suzanne Revy said:
As for the PPA's award... they seem to be a little too enamored of photoshop.

I think that's what bothered me about it. This was an award for photography not computer skills. IMO moving the people to the other side of the road made it a computer image not a photograph.

tim atherton · Oct 25, 2005

blansky said:
It is very recognizable, because the thread was not necessarily about this (Amish) photograph. It is more about truth and the expectation of truth, and also the endorsement of fakery by an institution that should stand for higher standards.

The problem is, this picture to the casual observer has no such description and therefore they observer has no knowledge that the picture used actors and was doctored.
Michael

When the casual viewer sees that guy in a lab or a clinic wearing a white coat on the TV telling him to take Tylenol, does he really think they are a doctor? (does he even think they are in a real lab?)

Again - it's all about context - this wasn't in NewsPhotographer Magazine, or the Journal of Documentary Photographers or Ethnophotographers - it was in The Professional Photographer, the trade journal of the PPA - which is basically an association for commercial photographers of different sorts - not photojournalists, documentary photogrpahers, medical photographers, SOCO officers etc. The PPA's motto starts off "Business First..." that should tell you something. I'm not really sure you should set them up as an institution that should stand for higher standards - they are really just a trade organisation to imporve the businesses of their members - it's commerce plain and simple.

As far as I can tell they don't have a code of ethics in the sense that the NPPA or such has one - it's really more about fair business dealing and such.

BruceN · Oct 25, 2005

Gosh, I didn't even notice the scale thing until I went back and looked. It does rather look like a family of hobbits, doesn't it? I guess he should have PS'd them further along the road.

tim atherton · Oct 25, 2005

Suzanne Revy said:
Seems to me this photographer just couldn't be bothered. Couldn't be bothered to get to know his subjects, and couldn't be bothered to get it right in the camera. His time is spent in front of a computer, and in the end, he comes up with a deeply boring photograph.
QUOTE]

Once again, it's context, context, context - if you are doinselling National Geographic - then yes, maybe

But if you are selling Amish County Cookies or Pennsylvania Dutch Oil&Tires nobody cares if the photographer got to know the subjects or not.

SuzanneR · Oct 25, 2005

QUOTE Once again, it's context, context, context - if you are doinselling National Geographic - then yes, maybe

But if you are selling Amish County Cookies or Pennsylvania Dutch Oil&Tires nobody cares if the photographer got to know the subjects or not.[/QUOTE]

Point taken, but, really, something this boring, made with such a lack of care should win an award?? Selling cookies and winning awards are two different contexts.

You'd think by now that people would have gotten over the gee whiz factor of photoshop, and bother to look at the image. Digital and darkroom manipulation are very powerful tools, but they sometimes look so corny!

tim atherton · Oct 25, 2005

Suzanne Revy said:
Once again, it's context, context, context - if you are doinselling National Geographic - then yes, maybe

But if you are selling Amish County Cookies or Pennsylvania Dutch Oil&Tires nobody cares if the photographer got to know the subjects or not.

Point taken, but, really, something this boring, made with such a lack of care should win an award?? Selling cookies and winning awards are two different contexts.

You'd think by now that people would have gotten over the gee whiz factor of photoshop, and bother to look at the image. Digital and darkroom manipulation are very powerful tools, but they sometimes look so corny!

Ahh - now I'm with you 100% - it's a schmaltzy piece of mediocrity (okay, I tried to resist "crap") imo - but then the whole PPA salons system/"levels" of membership and so on really just encourages that. It's not about photogrpahic excellence (whatever that means) it's about beign one of the boys and getting the next boys scout badge.

Dave Wooten · Oct 25, 2005

but don't you love the way the road comes out of the left corner and leads us to the mother and children.......also what a glimpse into a life style so different from "our" own.....who would be the "our"?! I'm still with the cows...."unbelievable"

thanks Blansky....this is hilarious!

laz · Oct 25, 2005

BruceN said:
Gosh, I didn't even notice the scale thing until I went back and looked. It does rather look like a family of hobbits, doesn't it? I guess he should have PS'd them further along the road.

I went back and looked and I don't think they look like hobbits. They should however watch out for the herd of giant cows eyeing them from across the road!

yerbury · Oct 25, 2005

Not sure why the outpouring of angst over this image! Seems that many photographers have conveniently forgotten that the 'manipulation' of images has been carried out by photographers since the beginning of the 'art'. Whether the image has been altered by digital means or by multiple printings from several negatives the end result is the same, an individual interpretation by the artist. There is no 'fraud' here as has been claimed so not sure why that comes into the argument! For those of you who have little knowlege of the history of photography I suggest you look at the link given below where you will see the work of one Henry Peach Robinson who thought nothing of composing an image using between 5 and 14 different negatives to achive the finished result. He was recognised as one of the 'greatest photographers' of his time. Now can anybody tell me what is different in what he did to a modern Photoshop artist? My Grandfather created 'The Master and the Merchant Company' in 1935 using 18 individual portraits all set around a boardroom table. Professional photographers today when shown the image are hard put to tell that this is a composite image perhaps even better than what can be achieved in PS and the reason it was done this way was it was impossible to get all together at one place at one time. I think you should look at the image and not how it was achieved. The association involved who selected it had no problems with the manipulation so why the outpouring of 'hate'? As to the 'use of models' charge what is the problem here? As has been mentioned elsewhere in the discussion models have always been a part of professional photography, what ever his/her reasons were for using 'models' is irrelevant as he is not trying to sell us the image as part of a documentary on the Amish people.
The only question that remains is 'is it a good photograph?' and I leave you to make your own decisions on that!
Dead Link Removed

arigram · Oct 25, 2005

When it comes to photography I am a tad "purist" in the sense that it ought to be performed like chinese calligraphy: one line, one stroke, no changes after.
My idea of photography ends with the click of a shutter.
Furthermore, I value the "reallity" of a photograph even if it distorted or surrealistically presented. If one wants to completely design a picture, let him/her paint. Otherwise it feels like lack of real skill and artistic abillity. In regards to creating a scene, I do not object it at all unless it is presented as photojournalism and such.
An example would be my latest photo of a man with an East German uniform. I present it as a staged idea and not the portrait of an actual officer of that era unlike for example the portrait of the iconpainter which was not staged or posed at all.

This said picture is dull and uninteresting and could only work in a cheesy advertising.
It is not art, photojournalism or anything.
A credited institution to recognise one as such, award it and rave about it, is very sad indeed, but not surprising. I have seen many images like that been recognised by clubs, organisations and competitions and they all fall into the "cheesy" category that those people seem to like and only understand.

John Bartley · Oct 25, 2005

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

Someone mentioned that it wasn't fakery because he admitted that he staged the picture and photoshopped it. That is not quite correct. When one has a picture accepted by loan collection they usually are expected to give a sort of teaching description of how you achieved it. The maker obviously impressed with his photoshop skills, let people know how he achieved it. This information is only really available to the PPA members.

The problem is, this picture to the casual observer has no such description and therefore they observer has no knowledge that the picture used actors and was doctored.

Michael

Hi Mike,

That would be me who said something about disclosure. I think it's important to keep to the context of the original question when reading the replies. The request for responses was :

With all that out of the way, I would like to hear peoples opinions on the ethics of what has been shown and described here.

There is no mention in your post of this being displayed without disclosure to "the public", so my opinion stands regarding the article in question. (that would be the "here" part)
When I have robbed a bank, you can point at me and call me a bank robber, but until I do it, I'm not one, so by comparison, when we see where this photographer has displayed without disclosure, then we have the right to accuse him of fraud.
As to the "art" part.......?...I still have no idea what "art" is.

cheers

rfshootist · Oct 25, 2005

Maybe this is art, who knows ?
Photography it isn't tho, that's for sure.
Bertram

laz · Oct 25, 2005

yerbury said:
Not sure why the outpouring of angst over this image! Seems that many photographers have conveniently forgotten that the 'manipulation' of images has been carried out by photographers since the beginning of the 'art'. .....For those of you who have little knowlege of the history of photography I suggest you look ....

Whoa now my friend!

1)There is no angst here just a damn good discussion of a philosophical/ethical question posed by a thoughtful APUGer. Many are passionate, few here are feeling anxiety or apprehension accompanied by depression over this issue!

2) There is a history of controversy over manipulation that dates from, well to use your words, "the beginning of the art"

3) The advent of digital has presented the field with brand new issues the impact of which are not to be found by looking toward history.

blansky · Oct 25, 2005

John Bartley said:
Hi Mike,

That would be me who said something about disclosure. I think it's important to keep to the context of the original question when reading the replies. The request for responses was :

There is no mention in your post of this being displayed without disclosure to "the public", so my opinion stands regarding the article in question. (that would be the "here" part)
When I have robbed a bank, you can point at me and call me a bank robber, but until I do it, I'm not one, so by comparison, when we see where this photographer has displayed without disclosure, then we have the right to accuse him of fraud.
As to the "art" part.......?...I still have no idea what "art" is.

cheers

Hi John,

In my initial post I tried to describe the "loan" process, because since I was once a member, I know how it works. You're right, I failed to describe it properly.

It is the process of photographs used for "merit" in a photographers progress in the PPA. These photographs that get a certain judged score are hung at the conventions for the membership to see. (generally not the public).

After achieving enough "merit" points for this and other things in the organization a photographer can be called a "master" or "craftsman" designation.

The highest rated of these photographs become part of the travelling "Loan Collection" and travel the country to show the public the state of professional photography today. There are no descriptions of the photographs when they travel. They are just there for the public to view.

What you read in the article was strictly for the membership of PPA.

So a person viewing this obvious documentary/photojournalist/scenic photograph would be of the expectation, however naively, that it is pretty much a straight photograph.

Michael

laz · Oct 25, 2005

blansky said:
It is the process of photographs used for "merit" in a photographers progress in the PPA.....After achieving enough "merit" points for this and other things in the organization a photographer can be called a "master" or "craftsman" designation.

The highest rated of these photographs become part of the travelling "Loan Collection"

It is most disturbing to find that a "professional" organization finds this among its "Highest rated"

Michael, no wonder you are no longer a member; you must have despaired of ever reaching the heights of mastery required of members.

-Bob

blansky · Oct 25, 2005

laz said:
It is most disturbing to find that a "professional" organization finds this among its "Highest rated"

Michael, no wonder you are no longer a member; you must have despaired of ever reaching the heights of mastery required of members.

-Bob

I figured out Woody Allen was right.

"I don't want to belong to any organization that would want me as a member."

Luckily APUG is not an organization.

Michael

laz · Oct 25, 2005

blansky said:
I figured out Woody Allen was right.
"I don't want to belong to any organization that would want me as a member."
Michael

Only because I'm a student of both Woody Allen and Groucho Marx (and a compulsive correcter bent on ordering the universe) I threadjack to say that Woody allen was quoting Groucho in Annie Hall:

Alvy Singer: [addressing the camera]....... the other important joke, for me, is one that's usually attributed to Groucho Marx; but, I think it appears originally in Freud's "Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious," and it goes like this - I'm paraphrasing - um, "I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member."

Woody's addition to the joke is the hilarious Freud remark.

Now back to our originally scheduled discussion.

-Bob

blansky · Oct 25, 2005

Thanks Laz,

I usually only steal from the one directly before me and rarely give credit all the way up the line. In my case that would take all day.

Michael

Fraud or Art

Jim Chinn

Nick Zentena

SuzanneR

Moderator

tim atherton

tim atherton

blansky

tim atherton

Carol

tim atherton

BruceN

tim atherton

SuzanneR

Moderator

tim atherton

Dave Wooten

laz

yerbury

arigram

John Bartley

rfshootist

laz

blansky

laz

blansky

laz

blansky

Fraud or Art

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency