Comments on: Staged? Faked? The ambiguities of the photograph http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/27/staged-faked-the-ambiguities-of-the-photograph/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 27 May 2012 11:48:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Tim Wilkinson http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/27/staged-faked-the-ambiguities-of-the-photograph/comment-page-1/#comment-284269 Tim Wilkinson Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:07:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12200#comment-284269 <i>the big question is really, did she instruct the Sicilian guys to ogle again</i> Not really - I reckon parading past a second time is likely to make them take more interest, not less. But was she walking more provocatively than usual? I think we should be told. I doubt whether the photo could exaggerate the lack of furtiveness of typical Italian male ogling in any case. It's pretty obvious, but the extent to which the presentation of a photograph has a (factually) informative purpose/function has to be taken into account in deciding whether it is ethically objectionable on the grounds under discussion. If it's purely artistic and presented as such, anything goes I suppose. If it's Exhibit 21 in a murder case, not so. In between you have various stuff such as stock illustrations to news stories v photojournalism. There's also more or less subtle propaganda whose impact is primarily emotional and can't be pinned down to any particular propositional content. You might include much advertising in the latter category, to which any objection is likely to be on grounds other than mere image-manipulation. the big question is really, did she instruct the Sicilian guys to ogle again

Not really – I reckon parading past a second time is likely to make them take more interest, not less. But was she walking more provocatively than usual? I think we should be told. I doubt whether the photo could exaggerate the lack of furtiveness of typical Italian male ogling in any case.

It’s pretty obvious, but the extent to which the presentation of a photograph has a (factually) informative purpose/function has to be taken into account in deciding whether it is ethically objectionable on the grounds under discussion. If it’s purely artistic and presented as such, anything goes I suppose. If it’s Exhibit 21 in a murder case, not so. In between you have various stuff such as stock illustrations to news stories v photojournalism.

There’s also more or less subtle propaganda whose impact is primarily emotional and can’t be pinned down to any particular propositional content. You might include much advertising in the latter category, to which any objection is likely to be on grounds other than mere image-manipulation.

]]> By: ogmb http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/27/staged-faked-the-ambiguities-of-the-photograph/comment-page-1/#comment-284041 ogmb Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:20:59 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12200#comment-284041 I find the locational evidence pretty uncompelling, but I doubt that a man who is being thrust backwards by a bullet he took to his head or torso just a fraction of a second ago would have his rifle-carrying arm this far back. That looks more like a protective movement by someone who knows he's about to fall backwards than the reflexive response to an unexpected hit from the front. About the other pictures Gefter discusses: Lewis Hine: Obviously staged, and I can't believe people think otherwise. It also has no bearing on the impact of the photograph, which rests wholly on the composition. Rosa Parks: ditto. Ruth Orkin: the big question is really, did she instruct the Sicilian guys to ogle again, or did she just trust they would have another look without prompting? He also forgot to discuss <i><a href="http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/128_migm.html" rel="nofollow">Migrant Mother</a></i>. I find the locational evidence pretty uncompelling, but I doubt that a man who is being thrust backwards by a bullet he took to his head or torso just a fraction of a second ago would have his rifle-carrying arm this far back. That looks more like a protective movement by someone who knows he’s about to fall backwards than the reflexive response to an unexpected hit from the front.

About the other pictures Gefter discusses:

Lewis Hine: Obviously staged, and I can’t believe people think otherwise. It also has no bearing on the impact of the photograph, which rests wholly on the composition.

Rosa Parks: ditto.

Ruth Orkin: the big question is really, did she instruct the Sicilian guys to ogle again, or did she just trust they would have another look without prompting?

He also forgot to discuss Migrant Mother.

]]> By: Henry (not the famous one) http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/27/staged-faked-the-ambiguities-of-the-photograph/comment-page-1/#comment-284028 Henry (not the famous one) Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:08:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12200#comment-284028 @1-- I believe that is a pom pom (I'm sure there's a better word, but I'm no expert on military headgear) on his cap, not parts of his brain. And the point is not that he moved things around, but staged an event that never happened. If so, then how would you feel about that photo once you accept that the militiaman got up after being "shot," either to be shot again or to walk away? @1—
I believe that is a pom pom (I’m sure there’s a better word, but I’m no expert on military headgear) on his cap, not parts of his brain. And the point is not that he moved things around, but staged an event that never happened. If so, then how would you feel about that photo once you accept that the militiaman got up after being “shot,” either to be shot again or to walk away?

]]> By: fred lapides http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/27/staged-faked-the-ambiguities-of-the-photograph/comment-page-1/#comment-283918 fred lapides Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:26:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12200#comment-283918 Sometimes fake more real than real. Except in nude women. Fiction is faked reality so why not photos? Say Cheese. Sometimes fake more real than real. Except in nude women. Fiction is faked reality so why not photos? Say Cheese.

]]> By: gmoke http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/27/staged-faked-the-ambiguities-of-the-photograph/comment-page-1/#comment-283686 gmoke Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:39:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12200#comment-283686 I'm trying to remember the film-maker (Robert Altman?) who talked about seeing "archival" movies in others' documentaries that were actually his staged sequences done for industrial films and then "dirtied up" to appear as old. The idea I got was that this was not deliberate fraud but bad scholarship on the part of the documentarians. With Photoshop and CGI, photographs and films should not be taken at face value. After the experiment counting how many times the basketball bounces which made me ignore the man in the gorilla suit coming onto the court, I don't believe my own eyes. http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php I’m trying to remember the film-maker (Robert Altman?) who talked about seeing “archival” movies in others’ documentaries that were actually his staged sequences done for industrial films and then “dirtied up” to appear as old. The idea I got was that this was not deliberate fraud but bad scholarship on the part of the documentarians.

With Photoshop and CGI, photographs and films should not be taken at face value. After the experiment counting how many times the basketball bounces which made me ignore the man in the gorilla suit coming onto the court, I don’t believe my own eyes.

http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php

]]> By: Tim Wilkinson http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/27/staged-faked-the-ambiguities-of-the-photograph/comment-page-1/#comment-283685 Tim Wilkinson Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:39:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12200#comment-283685 Immediate tentative thoughts: if a photo is posed, I'd suggest ethical journos should have the subject looking into the camera to signal that fact. Also think you can make too much of the 'selection' business. Certainly a photo may be misleading, but in fulfilling their epistemic duty to assess whether it might be, and in what way, the viewer should be able justificably to assume that the photo does record something that actually was the case (the photo is not doctored or of a mock-up), and I'd suggest they ought also to be allowed to assume that what actually happened at that moment was independent of any significant and unobvious interference by the photographer (portraiture/mere-fashion-recording, for example, can be signalled as above or in some other way.) A more rigorous treatment might try to get a workable distinction in terms of false suggestion (tending to give rise to untrue inferences) v false assertion (providing untrue data). Or more generally intrinsic/extrinsic misleadingness or something. Probably quite tricky though. btw, CB - off-topic, but may I respectfully suggest starting Ashes threads before the matches start rather than at the end? Immediate tentative thoughts: if a photo is posed, I’d suggest ethical journos should have the subject looking into the camera to signal that fact. Also think you can make too much of the ‘selection’ business. Certainly a photo may be misleading, but in fulfilling their epistemic duty to assess whether it might be, and in what way, the viewer should be able justificably to assume that the photo does record something that actually was the case (the photo is not doctored or of a mock-up), and I’d suggest they ought also to be allowed to assume that what actually happened at that moment was independent of any significant and unobvious interference by the photographer (portraiture/mere-fashion-recording, for example, can be signalled as above or in some other way.)

A more rigorous treatment might try to get a workable distinction in terms of false suggestion (tending to give rise to untrue inferences) v false assertion (providing untrue data). Or more generally intrinsic/extrinsic misleadingness or something. Probably quite tricky though.

btw, CB - off-topic, but may I respectfully suggest starting Ashes threads before the matches start rather than at the end?

]]> By: StevenAttewell http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/27/staged-faked-the-ambiguities-of-the-photograph/comment-page-1/#comment-283663 StevenAttewell Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:43:05 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=12200#comment-283663 I get that Capa moved something around, but how did they fake what looks like the bit of his head blowing off? Squib? I get that Capa moved something around, but how did they fake what looks like the bit of his head blowing off? Squib?

]]>