I meant when everyone was simply admiring the image at face value.
Before the liars and cheaters that would rob Doisneau of his pocketbook
inadvertently robbed the image of its innocence and the public of their
ignorant bliss.
I suspect the answer is "no, no one asked because it didn't matter."
I am still trying to get to the root of this thing. Upon the disclosure
that the image was set up, who lost credibility? Life magazine? or
Robert Doisneau? Better yet, whose credibility was the assumption that
the image was "real" based on? It must surely have been the magazines
perceived trustworthiness.
Robert. Street photography is to a great degree voyeuristic for the viewer as well as the photographer. If the photograph is outstanding it is no less so if it was set up. But with the knowledge of the setup it's no longer a slice of life, and it leaves the realm of street photography. As far as credibility, the photographer has to live with his or her deception. It's perfectly legitimate to fabricate a scene for a commercial assignment. But don't pretend it's a decisive moment.
Dave Small
