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.
Originally Posted by John Bartley
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 .
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
Was it though ?? It seems to me that Blansky asked this ::
Originally Posted by df cardwell
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?"
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.
I didn't read all the posts in this thread, but I'm going to respond on a couple I've read.
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
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.
Originally Posted by jovo
My vote is for fraud...
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.
Originally Posted by blansky
its a fraurt.
that pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Did somebody just fraurt in here?
Originally Posted by scootermm
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.
Originally Posted by jford
Wait, was that too harsh?
[SIZE=1]I want everything Galli has!
[SIZE=1]I want to make images like Gandolfi!