This has been an interesting discussion, so let me begin by thanking all who have tossed their two cents in. At 12:13 PM 1/5/2003 -0500, Alan wrote: >I'm in the minority on this issue, as usual. I think that most good >photographs are probably lies, and that the better a photo is the >bigger chance that it misleads the viewer as to the nature of what >was going on before the camera at the 'decisive moment'. I was just getting ready to post something similar myself -- or at least similar enough to probably put us in the same camp or at least somewhere close to it. For starters, while I do understand that some might want to make a distinction between "staged" and "non-staged" photographs, there must also be an acknowledgement that all photographs are inherently staged to a high degree: at the most basic level, the photographer selects a certain camera and lens combo, a type of film, decides what to shoot, what to include in (and exclude from) the frame, shutter speeds and f-stops are selected in order to manipulate the scene, flash is used or not, and so on. And then there is the darkroom, where all sorts of techniques are used to alter the image. Simply put, no photography is innocent of serious manipulation at every stage. That said, it is equally true that knowledge of Doisneau's (or any other photographer's) context (the fact that he hired people to kiss) will shape the reception of the photo. But even if we want to say that this photo is "staged" and somehow inauthentic, it still wouldn't be accurate to say that the entire scene was staged -- only the kissing couple are actors, for example, and for me the most interesting part of the photo is the reaction of the bystanders, which was not "staged" at all. And even if I were to find out that all of the individuals in the photo were actors, I'd still say that Doisneau captured the essence of something true in his photo, despite the "falseness" of the practice of staging. To continue with that a bit, I would say that "truth" of the image might very well not be affected at all by the "staged" nature of the photo, depending on your interpretation. If the photo is about the romance of Paris and the liveliness of street life there, as so many post-card buyers probably understand it to be, then knowing that the couple were actors who "staged" the scene probably doesn't change that -- it is still an image that screams "Paris is for lovers" and "la scene qui passe" despite that knowledge, I would suggest. And finally, to give an example in a sort of parallel field, in documentary literature, critics accept that events can be altered in many ways (characteristics of a number of different people portrayed in a single character; regularly occurring events shifted; individuals used as a "type" to stand in for a group; etc.) in order to get at a deeper "truth." The only recent flap about authors "staging" events in their texts was a rather poor attempt by a political opponent to "disprove" Rigoberta Menchu's testimonial novel, and it was laughed away by serious scholars in the field. Thanks for the discussion! Keith ___________________________________________________________ Keith Alan Sprouse / Department of Modern Languages 176 Hampden-Sydney College / Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943 (o) 434.223.6335 / (f) 434.223.6347 / (h) 434.244.0465
