Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: mezzoduomo on December 02, 2014, 12:26:03 pm
-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/02/hug-photographs-ferguson-protests-lie
Is a photograph 'a lie' if it portrays something other than someone's subjective perspective about what should be presented visually concerning some event?
-
If a lie requires an intent to deceive, this photograph may not qualify.
If a lie means not representing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, photographs always lie.
Jim
-
The article itself is sickening in its negativism and leftist PC terrorism. Unless it is a Photoshop composite (and it isn't), that photograph doesn't lie. What we choose to see (or not) in it, however, is not the photograph(er)'s responsibility.
-
I agree with Jim.
Seems to me that The Guardian writer is looking at this from the "Critical Theory" perspective. I don't mean to offend any of you who are believers, but I don't personally entertain those sorts of arguments any longer.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/02/hug-photographs-ferguson-protests-lie
Is a photograph 'a lie' if it portrays something other than someone's subjective perspective about what should be presented visually concerning some event?
In order not to be taken in by the text, you need to appreciate the newspaper in which it was published. The Guardian would be viscerally opposed to the decision not to prosecute the policeman involved (whatever the actual facts) and to any idea that there could be such a thing as a good policeman, or that one showing some humanity could possibly be representative. It's a mindset. It's unshakable.
The article is drivel (The Guardian publishes a lot of drivel), but what it criticises isn't so much the photograph as an exaggerated interpretation which some have apparently placed on it, namely that it has a wider significance than an isolated moment.
Jeremy
Jeremy
-
...what it criticises isn't so much the photograph as an exaggerated interpretation which some have apparently placed on it, namely that it has a wider significance than an isolated moment.
Jeremy
Which is the most irksome part. As if The Guardian knows more about the significance and meaning of a photograph to its viewers than the viewers do themselves.
-
… what it criticises isn't so much the photograph as an exaggerated interpretation which some have apparently placed on it, namely that it has a wider significance than an isolated moment.
The column subhead seems straightforward enough -- "It’s absurd that a nation’s new, yet old, encounter with its most destructive division can be summed up by this soppy picture of a tearful hug".
Other paragraphs are no more than bombast -- "The camera is a superb liar. … In the context of the completely unresolved and immensely troubling situation, not just in Ferguson but across the United States, where Ferguson has opened wounds that go back centuries, this picture is a blatant lie. … A picture does not have to be staged to be a lie. It just has to be massively unrepresentative of the wider facts and enthusiastically promoted to iconic status in a way that obscures those facts."
The columnist ("Jonathan Jones writes on art for the Guardian") has little to say about the story behind that particular photograph (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crying-boys-hug-with-police-officer-becomes-one-of-the-most-shared-images-of-ferguson-protests-9894878.html).
-
If a lie means not representing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, photographs always lie.
As do our senses ;-)
-
My BS detector goes red every time I see The Guardian. The Guardian is not the guardian. It is the very propaganda it claims to expose and oppose.
-
"Of all the disturbing images … one of the most popular online turns out to be a touching moment of interracial togetherness. … the choice to look at it and celebrate it is clearly a choice to be lulled by cotton candy."
Or a choice to support police officers who comfort children rather than kill them.
-
As do our senses ;-)
Who are you going to believe, me, or your own eyes?
Chico Marx in Duck Soup
Jim
-
Seems to me that good photojournalism or documentary photography sometimes provides maximum edification and insight by presenting something different - something other than the prevailing or obvious theme or opinion - about a situation or event. Finding and capturing the metaphoric hug in the midst of the riot....is valuable.
-
Who are you going to believe, me, or your own eyes?
I believe what I see, and I know that's not the whole truth.
-
In order not to be taken in by the text, you need to appreciate the newspaper in which it was published. The Guardian would be viscerally opposed to the decision not to prosecute the policeman involved (whatever the actual facts) and to any idea that there could be such a thing as a good policeman, or that one showing some humanity could possibly be representative. It's a mindset. It's unshakable.
Jeremy,
Out of curiosity can you post a link to any article or editorial from the Guardian that supports your above contention ? Were they opposed to the decision not to prosecute (once the grand jury handed down a 'no indictment' verdict) ? I haven't followed the reports in the British press, so I really don't know - but I do suspect that it's not so much a British opinion, more a populist American one.
The facts are not disputed, the grand jury has come to the only decision possible in the face of perjury by some witnesses and irrefutable forensic evidence. What happened in Ferguson last week (and the preceding ones) was a display of unadulterated adult delinquency. A national disgrace. A rampage of arson, looting and vandalism, stores and shops firebombed and wrecked. Police ordered not to interfere. Mob violence. Civil rights of law-abiding Americans systematically violated and ( temporarily) abrogated.
Neither the American President nor his Attorney General fulfilled their oaths. Worse.
So is the photograph a lie ?
' A picture does not have to be staged to be a lie. It just has to be massively unrepresentative of the wider facts' - and in the context that the Oregonian printed it, it probably is - and that is what the Guardian said.
M
-
Hi,
A sample. Hard to interpret without a context. The image is probably true, but once you put it in a context it may tell another story.… World is not either or…
Best regards
Erik
If a lie requires an intent to deceive, this photograph may not qualify.
If a lie means not representing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, photographs always lie.
Jim
-
…in the context that the Oregonian printed it…
Do you mean the context provided by the photo caption -- "Sgt. Bret Barnum (left) and Devonte Hart take pause amid an otherwise hectic Ferguson rally in Portland earlier this week." -- and introductory paragraph -- "As thousands gathered to make their voices heard during a rally earlier this week, one officer and a young man paused to hear each other out (http://www.oregonlive.com/multimedia/index.ssf/2014/11/photo_police_officer_and_citiz.html)." ?
-
re The Guardian, a LuLa reader just sent me this email,
<
The Guardian actually has a regular spot entitled 'Comment is free' for people to post their views on events in the news. It does not mean necessarily that those views reflect the editorial policy of the newspaper. Indeed, by the banner 'Comment is free' is also printed '...but facts are sacred' - a 1921 quote from the iconic Guardian editor CP Scott (head shot included).
>
Comment is free / Framing the debate - the title of the series:
A great photograph doesn't only say more than a thousand words, it can also create a hundred different reactions. In this series we take a close look at contemporary and historical photographs and videos that divide opinion ..
-
Do you mean the context provided by the photo caption ...
No.
"Devonte struggles with living fearlessly when it comes to the police and people that don't understand the complexity of racism that is prevalent in our society,” she wrote, according to The Oregonian.
-
... The facts are not disputed, the grand jury has come to the only decision possible in the face of perjury by some witnesses and irrefutable forensic evidence. What happened in Ferguson last week (and the preceding ones) was a display of unadulterated adult delinquency. A national disgrace. A rampage of arson, looting and vandalism, stores and shops firebombed and wrecked. Police ordered not to interfere. Mob violence. Civil rights of law-abiding Americans systematically violated and ( temporarily) abrogated.
Neither the American President nor his Attorney General fulfilled their oaths. Worse...
+1
...So is the photograph a lie ?
' A picture does not have to be staged to be a lie. It just has to be massively unrepresentative of the wider facts' - and in the context that the Oregonian printed it, it probably is - and that is what the Guardian said.
M
Not sure I agree with this. Are you suggesting that, in general, a white policeman hugging a black kid is "massively unrepresentative of the wider facts"? That the "wider facts" are that whites can or will not hug blacks? That, in itself, would be a massive lie.
-
Are you suggesting that, in general, a white policeman hugging a black kid is "massively unrepresentative of the wider facts"? That the "wider facts" are that whites can or will not hug blacks? That, in itself, would be a massive lie.
No, anything but. I was paraphrasing the newspaper '.. and that is what the Guardian said. '
-
IMO the photo tells a truth. If any of us insist on it telling the truth, or conversely fabricating the lie, that's our mistake. Or, perhaps, our deceit. Reality tends to be more complex and nuanced than politicians, dogmatists & polemicists are willing to admit.
There are many truths to be told in this situation.
-Dave-
-
This is a complex topic. Let me add the following...an article which appeared on this site (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/warning.shtml) some 7 years ago, and which directly addresses this topic.
Michael
-
"Devonte struggles with living fearlessly when it comes to the police and people that don't understand the complexity of racism that is prevalent in our society,” she wrote, according to The Oregonian.
That quotation is from an article, posted 12 hours later -- "150,000 Facebook posters share story of young demonstrator's tearful hug with Portland officer".
In that article the photo is captioned -- "In this photo shot by freelance photographer Johnny Nguyen, Sgt. Bret Barnum (left) hugs 12-year-old Devonte Hart during the Ferguson rally in Portland on Nov. 25, 2014."
The quotation in that article continues (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/11/post_495.html) -- 'He asked Devonte why he was crying. His response about his concerns regarding the level of police brutality towards young black kids was met with an unexpected and seemingly authentic (to Devonte), "Yes. *sigh* I know. I'm sorry. I'm sorry." The officer then asked if he could have one of his hugs.'
-
This is a complex topic. Let me add the following...an article which appeared on this site (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/warning.shtml) some 7 years ago, and which directly addresses this topic.
The slideshow pictures (http://antarcticabook.com/gallery.html) show a strong vignette.
-
Jeremy,
Out of curiosity can you post a link to any article or editorial from the Guardian that supports your above contention ? Were they opposed to the decision not to prosecute (once the grand jury handed down a 'no indictment' verdict) ? I haven't followed the reports in the British press, so I really don't know - but I do suspect that it's not so much a British opinion, more a populist American one.
You're missing my point. I don't read The Guardian unless I'm stuck in a waiting room having finished The Times, its crossword and Su Dokus, counted the ceiling tiles and been left with nothing else to do. I've finished with that penance.
I didn't suggest that they've written anything specific about Ferguson (although they may have done); I'm just aware of the spiteful, small-minded lefty pettiness which permeates everything they publish, the champagne socialist mindset which combines middle-class self-loathing with unexpressed but thinly-disguised contempt for the working class it professes to support. This article is entirely in keeping with that attitude and my suggestion was that it be interpreted in that light.
Jeremy
-
You're missing my point. I don't read The Guardian ...
Larfing-My-Head-Off!
Very good reply, very well written - so am I safe in assuming that you're not one of their long term subscribers ?
M
-
Intent to deceive......there are propaganda photographs (intentionally made and staged to support a POV) and then there are photographs made for other reasons that are appropriated for propaganda purposes. None of these are lies perse (unless one considers advertising photography is all lies.....well :) ) unless you are naive enough to think that photographs taken by humans do not always represent the POV and personal agenda of the picture maker.
This site, given the judicious manipulation obvious in most photographs shown, could be more appropriately named Luminous Landscape Lies.........:)
-
"The Guardian" didn't say anything.
What the Guardian does, and has consistently done in the 50 years that I have been reading it, is to separate Comment (which is free) from News or Facts (the sacred bit). That is why the article is headed "Comment". Comment, unless it is in an editorial, does not reflect the position of the newspaper. You read it and agree or disagree, as you choose.
It's a shame more newspapers and news channels don't adopt the same rigorous approach.
Dave
-
Larfing-My-Head-Off!
Very good reply, very well written - so am I safe in assuming that you're not one of their long term subscribers ?
Thank you! I think you may reasonably draw that conclusion, yes.
Jeremy
-
What the Guardian does, and has consistently done in the 50 years that I have been reading it, is to separate Comment (which is free) from News or Facts (the sacred bit). That is why the article is headed "Comment". Comment, unless it is in an editorial, does not reflect the position of the newspaper. You read it and agree or disagree, as you choose.
So the Guardian has no employed columnists and the fact that all their comment articles adopt the same soft-left stance I described above is mere happenstance? Come on.
Jeremy
-
…and the fact that all their comment articles…
The relevant point would be that they are comment articles not news articles or editorials.
-
The relevant point would be that they are comment articles not news articles or editorials.
Written by employees, published in a newspaper, reflecting the view of the world which is prevalent in all its writing and which was particularly noticeable in the unpleasant piece which led to this thread.
I don't think you're obtuse, Isaac; try not to be naive.
Jeremy
-
As may be, and the relevant point is that they are comment articles not news articles or editorials.
You seem to be in danger of conflating your point of view with The Truth ;-)
-
This site, given the judicious manipulation obvious in most photographs shown…
Which makes Michael's old LuLa article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/warning.shtml) particularly interesting (here are some of those Antarctica photos (http://antarcticabook.com/gallery.html)).
-
As may be, and the relevant point is that they are comment articles not news articles or editorials.
I withdraw the first part of my last sentence.
Jeremy
-
Any piece published by a newspaper, whether in print or electronic form, is reviewed by an editorial committee. The fact that it passes muster and gets published means it reflects the position of the editorial board at some level. Do you think if someone were to write a "comment" piece refuting the above referenced comment piece and supporting the findings of the grand jury that it would pass the scrutiny of the editorial board? I highly doubt it.
-
To Colorado David
I'm thinking that you aren't a regular reader of the publication. Does The Guardian tend to employ columnists who share the paper's political stance? Yes of course. Do they do so exclusively. No. Try telling Simon Jenkins, ex editor of The Times who writes a weekly column and makes other contributions, that he is of the soft left and you'd get a pretty robust response.
It may seem hard for you to accept the columnists' independence, but no, there is no veto on content.
For the record, the paper is owned by a trust, and is not in hock to a wealthy proprietor such as Rupert Murdoch, who of course has the right to play with his toys as he wishes.
Dave
-
I am not a regular reader of The Guardian, however I did spend eight years of my career in a newsroom. I understand pretty well how the process works. And yes, I may be a little cynical.
-
I am not a regular reader of The Guardian, however I did spend eight years of my career in a newsroom. I understand pretty well how the process works. And yes, I may be a little cynical.
I don't understand what you mean by cynical.
A newspaper has the right to have an editorial slant, it seems to me. They all do, don't they? This one happens to have one that you don't have much sympathy with, nothing wrong with that. That, in itself, doesn't make it any more or less credible, other than to you. (I am not a reader of the Guardian but am aware of its reputation.)
-
The fact that it passes muster and gets published means it reflects the position of the editorial board at some level.
On that basis, are we to likewise interpret any piece or comment that is posted on LuLa as necessarily reflecting the position 'of Michael, Kevin et al' on some level ? I think not.
-
On that basis, are we to likewise interpret any piece or comment that is posted on LuLa as necessarily reflecting the position 'of Michael, Kevin et al' on some level ? I think not.
Sorry, wrong analogy. This is an open forum, and admins do not read first for approval. In a printed press, or even their online edition, what goes in is subject to screening.
-
I don't understand what you mean by cynical.
I believe Colorado David was simply acknowledging that the opinion he expressed was based more on pessimism than specific information.
-
In a printed press, or even their online edition, what goes in is subject to screening.
Yes, for legal liability.
The section of this newspaper is clearly marked 'comment is free' and expanded upon in the quotes I've posted above. The bias you and others are railing against should, in this case, be attributed to the author of the piece, not the newspaper. Editorial comment is clearly marked as such.
I've run a quick check on some of the contributors today :
> Syreeta McFadden is a Guardian US contributing opinion writer ...
> Ann Widdecombe has been a Conservative member of parliament for 20 years, ...She served as prisons minister under John Major and shadow home secretary under William Hague
> Simon Jenkins is a journalist and author. He writes for the Guardian as well as broadcasting for the BBC. He has edited the Times and the London Evening Standard and is chairman of the National Trust.
> Richard Stein is a partner at the law firm Leigh Day. His practice covers judicial review and human rights ..
> Anne McElvoy was a correspondent in East Germany, and is the author of East Germany's Life and Legacy. She is public policy editor of the Economist.
No comment on Syreeta, but the others aren't exactly your typical collection of biased, anti-establishment, left-wing loons - ( to use your inference).
-
This thread was meant to be about 'that' photograph and its context.
Is it poignant ? - yes.
Does it appeal to the hopes of many Americans ? - yes
Is it representative of the mood surrounding Ferguson ? - no.
IMO
-
... Is it representative of the mood surrounding Ferguson ? - no.
The purpose of that photo is not to represent whatever the mood about Ferguson is, but to be a counterpoint to it.
What mood that photo represents for ME is the following: whether police will hug you or chase you depends not on your skin color, but your attitude and deeds. As is should be, and overwhelmingly is. What "the mood surrounding Ferguson" is for ME: "Hey, we are just honest criminals trying to make a buck, so we want the police to stay out of our way. If you try to stop us, we will attack you. And if we end up with a short end of the stick, we will accuse you of racism."
-
"All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
— Richard Avedon (1923 –2004).
-
"All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
— Richard Avedon (1923 –2004).
Superficially deep; but on reflection, merely superficial.
Jeremy
-
What "the mood surrounding Ferguson" is for ME: "Hey, we are just honest criminals trying to make a buck, so we want the police to stay out of our way. If you try to stop us, we will attack you. And if we end up with a short end of the stick, we will accuse you of racism."
I think the most you can say is that may be true of some of the participants.
-
Ferguson was all about Police Brutality before the multi-billion-dollar MSM hijacked and co-oped it into a racism debate. Mark Twain succinctly says, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
-
Vacuous opining.
(Wow! Snide commentary is sooo easy!)
True. But if vacuous, pointless. Gulag posted that quotation as if it meant something, as if it had some profound relevance to the topic. It doesn't. It just means nothing. No photograph is "accurate"; and even if one searches kindly for some meaning, "None of them is the truth" has none.
My comment was a riposte to the post. Yours is the irrelevant howl of a teenager.
Jeremy
-
…even if one searches kindly for some meaning…
If one searched kindly for some meaning, one would find Avedon discussing his photography - but your response was not charitable and you didn't look for meaning.
-
Mark Twain succinctly says, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
I find that to be true, surprisingly often.
Rather than using that dictum to criticize others, we should apply it to ourselves.
-
I find that to be true, surprisingly often.
Rather than using that dictum to criticize others, we should apply it to ourselves.
yes,
(http://www.critical-theory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Zizek-Trash-1.gif)