Fraud or Art

Jim Chinn · Oct 25, 2005

does the PPA hava a super secret handshake you can let us in on?

John Bartley · Oct 25, 2005

blansky said:
Hi John,

(Mike wrote a good description of the process by which the public eventually gets to see this individuals work)

Now that I understand how this works and now that I see who assembles, transports and displays the images, I wonder how you'd feel about this interpretation of the responsibility for disclosure (I'll call it disclosure. Is it a fraud? or is it a dispute about a definition?);

1) If the image maker does the display, they are responsible for disclosing the method of creation.

2) If the Association does the display, they are responsible for making sure that disclosure regarding the process gets to the viewers, assuming that the Association has had disclosure from the maker.

However, I would assume that the image maker would want to be sure that their images are being properly presented, so I would hope that they would speak up in the event that they found their images misrepresented.

Sooooo...my impression is that with this process that you have described, either the Association is misleading the public, OR, they believe that the viewing public has a different definition of the word "photograph" than we here at APUG do.

...... art .... ??? .... I'm beginning to think that "art" is in the eye of the beholder.

cheers

blansky · Oct 25, 2005

Jim Chinn said:
does the PPA hava a super secret handshake you can let us in on?

I left in 1986. Then is was sort of a reach for the wallet kind of thing.

I do know that there were a lot of neck injuries from people with so many merit bars around their neck.

To clarify, when you received your craftsman and masters accreditation you received something like an olympic medal around your neck. After that what you received was little bars that attached across the ribbon and if you were alive long enough, and kept achieving merits, you would eventually choke yourself with them.

Michael

Charles Webb · Oct 25, 2005

Hmmmm, Seems I left the PPofA in the mid eighties due to their judging methods etc. I actually was many times on the judging committees, but was usually unable to convince other judges that the print itself be what was judged rather than their buddy who made it. Much emphasis was put into getting 26 or so prints hung, so you could claim your little yellow ribbon. The same amount of emphasis was exerted by the members in the campaigning that went on to influence the judges. Merits and credits once earned had a mysterious way of disappearing and never appearing again.
Don Peterson, Alvin Duis, and Kurtis F G Jafay were my sponsors, and Don P awarded me my Masters Ribbon and Craftsman medal. Today no record of any of this is in the PPofA records or files. When I elected to leave D peterson Photography, and open my own studio, all of my merits disappeared mysteriously along with my records. It has nothing to do with a print that gets it hung, it is who you "brownie" up to. Sour Grapes, yah I guess so, but I soon got over worrying a obiit it. Since it will never change. Rules then stated that any print submitted had to be made/printed by the person submitting it. Later they allowed that a color print could be submitted for judgment if the person submitting the print supervised the making of it. Many of those holding masters rating never made or supervised the making of a color print in their entire life! Charlie........

tim atherton · Oct 25, 2005

blansky said:
To clarify, when you received your craftsman and masters accreditation you received something like an olympic medal around your neck. After that what you received was little bars that attached across the ribbon and if you were alive long enough, and kept achieving merits, you would eventually choke yourself with them.

Michael

it's sort of the Shriners for photographers, but without the "good works"...

blansky · Oct 25, 2005

tim said:
it's sort of the Shriners for photographers, but without the "good works"...

Sort of the Shriners for photographers without the motorbikes in all the parades.

Michael

laz · Oct 25, 2005

blansky said:
Sort of the Shriners for photographers without the motorbikes in all the parades.

Michael

How about those tiny little cars and nifty hats with thw tassels? I'd join for those......
-Bob

Rlibersky · Oct 26, 2005

Getting back to the subject. Even without actor print can be fraudulent, by some of those writing here. I've attached a print I took at a KKK rally.

Disclaimer "these are not actors, the people and charectors are real. Only the interpatation is left up to the viewer."

Randy

laz · Oct 26, 2005

Rlibersky said:
Getting back to the subject. Even without actor print can be fraudulent, by some of those writing here. I've attached a print I took at a KKK rally.

Disclaimer "these are not actors, the people and charectors are real. Only the interpatation is left up to the viewer."

Randy

Sorry Randy I don't get your point? Photo looks rather straight forward to me but I can't tell what's going on from it and wouldn't venture a guess.
-Bob

BruceN · Oct 26, 2005

yerbury said:
Not sure why the outpouring of angst over this image!
---snip---
The association involved who selected it had no problems with the manipulation so why the outpouring of 'hate'?

Why is it, these days, that any expression of disagreement, or attempt to hold some person or group to a higher standard, is quickly seized upon as an "outpouring of hate?" It seems as though the dirty political tactic of "ignore the arguement, attack the dissenter" is now entrenched in everyday life as well. I don't know why I'm surprised at that. It is kind of sad, though.

Bruce

Rlibersky · Oct 26, 2005

All right most people assume the guy, with the confederate flag on his shirt is being arrested. But the reality is he is being helped to leave. He was standing there in a crowd protesting the KKK. When he had been spit on enough he decided to leave. They wouldn't let him, just started kicking and hitting him. So the Policewoman asked if he want to go out the back way. She helped him over the fence and left.

My point is all picture are can be misinterpreted. So if someone sets up a picture, so what. He wasn't doing it for a photojournalistic purpose. From what I read anyway. So wether you like the photo or not it is irrelevant to the question. On the other hand if you want to print a straight print with no manipulations to effect the viewer, thats ok to. But would be boring.

I do believe that print for journalistic purposes should not be set up or manipulated. They can easily be misinterpreted as they are.

laz · Oct 26, 2005

BruceN said:
Why is it, these days, that any expression of disagreement, or attempt to hold some person or group to a higher standard, is quickly seized upon as an "outpouring of hate?" It seems as though the dirty political tactic of "ignore the arguement, attack the dissenter" is now entrenched in everyday life as well. I don't know why I'm surprised at that. It is kind of sad, though.Bruce

Bruce, I think that so often people don't pay any attention to the context of a discussion or even it's content. This is especially on Internet forums. Many don't bother to read carfully the question at hand or the whole thread before posting.

People don't understand the arguement so they ignore it, I find that just as sad.

-Bob

John Bartley · Oct 26, 2005

laz said:
Bruce, I think that so often people don't pay any attention to the context of a discussion or even it's content. .... snipped .... Many don't bother to read carfully the question at hand or the whole thread before posting. .... snipped ....

-Bob

This is so true. The question here was "fraud or art?". Nobody seems to have cared that the image maker made his disclosure, he was just instantly labelled a fraud for not using traditional methods, even though he openly disclosed those methods. Nobody seems to have cared to check whether or not the methods he used produced an image that meets some current definition for the word "photograph".
Instead, the topic got all emotional and went in the usual fourty-seven different directions.
This case would have been a great place to apply the recently proposed photographic "standards" . As I recall, that thread also went in many non-productive directions.

just my $0.02

benjiboy · Oct 26, 2005

Groucho's Letters

laz said:
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

I have a very funny book I once got for a birthday gift of Groucho's letters, and before he made the big time he sent a letter to a very exclusive Rhode Island golf club applying to become a member, the club refused to admit him because he was a Jew. A few years later when he was a big movie star they wrote offering him membership, to which he replied " why would I want to be a member of a club who would have people like me in it ? "

laz · Oct 26, 2005

Bentley Boyd said:
I have a very funny book I once got for a birthday gift of Groucho's letters, and before he made the big time he sent a letter to a very exclusive Rhode Island golf club applying to become a member, the club refused to admit him because he was a Jew. A few years later when he was a big movie star they wrote offering him membership, to which he replied " why would I want to be a member of a club who would have people like me in it ? "

My all time favorite Groucho Quote is "Last night I shot an elephant in my Pajamas and how he got in my pajamas I'll never know."

yeah we threadjacked, wanna make something of it?

df cardwell · Oct 26, 2005

John Bartley said:
This is so true. The question here was "fraud or art?". Nobody seems to have cared that the image maker made his disclosure, he was just instantly labelled a fraud for not using traditional methods, even though he openly disclosed those methods. Nobody seems to have cared to check whether or not the methods he used produced an image that meets some current definition for the word "photograph".
.....just my $0.02

Actually, there was concern by some over the nature of a photograph that was tending to break along Modernist vs Post-Modern lines. The issues of 'disclosure' and 'methods' are, to me, irrelevant and just a distraction to the core issue: what IS a photograph, and what is the responsibility of the photographer.

The nature of fraud is rather a deep issue here, because the intent of the image is the determinant. Some, who think a picture is probably a lie anyway, are not bothered by it. Some, who think a photograph is by nature saying " I saw this ", think its a big deal.

So, do you think a photograph claims to say, " I saw this " or " I thought of this " ?

And then the original question was over the responsibility of the organisation to promote standards with this sort of product .

.

John Bartley · Oct 26, 2005

df cardwell said:
.... snipped ....
And then the original question was over the responsibility of the organisation to promote standards with this sort of product .
.

Was it though ?? It seems to me that Blansky asked this ::

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?.....

So, the trial had already been held and the image maker found guilty of fraud by Blansky - the question really was "am I (Blansky) right - is it a fraud?"

cheers

C.Dawley · Oct 26, 2005

I didn't read all the posts in this thread, but I'm going to respond on a couple I've read.

David A. Goldfarb said:
The thing that disturbs me the most about this is the staging, given that there are some serious documentaries about the Amish where photographers have had to gain the confidence of the subjects by getting to know them

jovo said:
Funny how the mantra "it's the final image that counts, not the process" sounds particularly hollow in this situation.

It seems to me, bear in mind I'm fairly new to all this (although I hope I'd never feel the need or desire to have some people dress up like they were Amish just to get a 'good picture'), that the process and the final image should be one in the same, I'd like them to be anyway. That the final image should remind me of the entire process, where I was when I took that photo, what was going on... if I were in this situation, all the time I spent living with these amish people, getting to know them, so out of the GOD knows how many pictures I would've shot, I could get one that I could truly decide captured these Amish folks and what they were all about. And that whoever views the picture might be say 'Damn, look at these Amish folks, what are they all about?', perhaps even that the photograph would convey something that didn't have meaning to me alone.

My vote is for fraud...

jmdavis · Oct 26, 2005

Directorial photography is popular now. Maybe I should say that it is popular in photo schools. We've come a long way since Greg Crewdson's thesis show.

My problem with the sample is that its not a portrait. If it is being presented as a true portrait or as documentary work, it is a fraud. If its a commercial shot for the cover of a brochure, so what.

I guess that my point is that its status depends on how it's being used.

Mike Davis

scootermm · Oct 26, 2005

blansky said:
fraud or art?

its a fraurt.

that pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.

smieglitz · Oct 26, 2005

scootermm said:
its a fraurt.

that pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.

Did somebody just fraurt in here?

jford · Oct 27, 2005

there's really only one word for this... Kitsch

laz · Oct 27, 2005

jford said:
there's really only one word for this... Kitsch

I thought of calling it Kitsch, but ya know, it just isn't worthy of being called Kitsch! Crap seems to be the most apt description.

Wait, was that too harsh?

Fraud or Art

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency