The Kiss
The photo is from Doisneau – one of the master photographers of the 20th century and easily one of my favourite street photographers. The picture was taken in 1950 and has been an iconic image for years. The woman in the picture, Francoise Bornet, received an original copy of the picture a few days after it was taken and subsequently in April 2005, surfaced to sell it at an auction for 105,000 UK Pounds (a cool couple of hundred thousand US dollars).
Now, if there was any controversy surrounding this photo, it is that the image was originally believed to be spontaneous – a priceless moment stolen from the streets of Paris just a few years after WWII. It speaks to all of us about capturing and holding onto those wonderful moments in our life – something we all too often fail to do or we do it too late, long after the sounds, smells & cerebral images of the experience have faded from our memory and only a sense of feeling remains. The Kiss, for me, brings back that which is lost – and carves out a perfect moment, frozen in time.
However, there is a catch. It would now appear that the image is not spontaneous at all but rather a staged setup. Doisneau paid the couple to pose for the photo. Perhaps naively when I first saw it, I actually assumed it to be a ‘captured’ moment and only months later found out that it was not the case.
So the debate aside about whether it’s true or not – the real question for me is does it even matter? From an aesthetic or lets call it “artistic” view perhaps not. It certainly would be an irrelevant question in another important form of art – painting. There, the viewer naturally (and correctly) assumes the events are staged, or even just symbolic rather than "real". However, photography is a little different. Perhaps because it requires fewer barriers to entry to be able to press a button than to carve our lines, colour and images on a canvas and produce something that is vaguely recognisable – photographers must differentiate themselves in other ways. And “seeing” or “capturing” a fleeting moment of reality is certainly one way of raising that bar. But that aside, the real question for me is – do the circumstances that lead to the creation of a photo affect the meaning, or even quality of the image itself?
I’ll get to that question but first an aside as this question stir another point I’d like to address first. I believe there are two types of great photographers (of course, there are more than two but I’m momentarily simplifying things for the benefit). The first kind are those who are the directors – they are able to creatively and beautifully arrange their subject(s) through the manipulation of light, the setup of a scene, the creation of a story and then take many captures – looking for an absolute guarantee of least one of those being able to dazzle us with its pure aesthetic beauty. Here you usually expect the technical aspects of an image to be spot on as the photographer has time to be able to face and overcome those challenges. These photographers take the top fashion photos as well as some types of portraits / landscapes / contemporary art and create such beautiful images that the eyes sometimes even wonder if real life can ever be so exquisite.
The other type of photographer you could say is the equivalent of the hurricane hunter. The person who chases that perfect spontaneous moment – where the subjects do not pose nor is there time to manipulate anything other than the camera in your hand and the position in which you stand (and even then only sometimes). Great shots like this, are literally plucked from the uncountable experiences that happen every day and stand apart for their interest, uniqueness and sometimes simplicity. While their images can still be technically perfect, it’s less expected as the ‘moment’ is the thing of primary concern. The best evidence of that comes from the fact that the great street photographers like Doisneau, Cartier-Bresson, etc would often not even focus their cameras when shooting a subject – just set a small aperture, choose a reasonable focal length and hit the shutter knowing that most of the image will be sharp. Some could argue that street photography is as much to do with luck as it is skill and while there is some truth to that, it’s also a rather redundant point (being able to equally argue that you make your own luck)..
So, which do I prefer? Which type of photographer would I rather be? It used to be an easy question for me to answer as I would have almost certainly said the hurricane hunter. However, more recently I’ve come to appreciate that there is as much skill and challenge in thinking of, creating and setting up a scene as there is in hunting, finding and recording a moment.
A different skill for sure – but no less impressive when done right.
Recently, as I uncovered and have become influenced by new types of work, I quite clearly am more focused on executing the ‘staged’ style of photography. That slight pendulum swing certainly has not caused my appreciation of street photography to diminish one iota however and I imagine it will be interesting to see how I feel and look back in a year or two’s time at where I am leaning towards. Certainly tho, this more recent realization has made me come to appreciate a whole new realm of photography – and probably given me a greater appreciation for film and direction also.
Ultimately, I think all photographers end up being a bit of each type – and that brings me back to the original question of Doisnea’s classic. So, simply – knowing what I know now – do I find it a lesser picture?
Well, the answer for me on this is a simple "no". It was and still is a wondrously beautiful image that represents the essence of being caught in the moment (whether or not it that is actually true of itself). Now, to say that my attitude towards it hasn’t changed would be a lie. Certainly, a certain sense of magic perhaps was lost when I found out it was set up – maybe a bit like when I found out Santa Clause did not exist (apologies to all 5 year olds who have somehow stumbled on this blog and have miraculously made it this far down the page). But then, when I think of it, a couple of years after that clearly pivotal moment in my childhood, I still remember being just as excited about Christmas because I started to understand it was about more than just a guy sliding down a chimney (that’s right, it was about toys!). OK ok, so you might argue that while Christmas has certainly lost some of its excitement in more recent years, I would counter that that the in future when I have children, my appreciation will undoubtedly grow to new heights.
And that strange analogy, is perhaps a little about how I feel about this picture. The secret has been discovered, the initial aura of impossibility gone – but my appreciation for it has continued to grow over time. The more I perform photography the more I expect that appreciation to grow as I’ll realize, for very different reasons that I originally thought, that this really was a one in a million shot. And while that appreciation grows, alongside it will live a small but rather ludicrous hope, that one day, staged or captured, I’ll be able to take a picture this good.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Well thought out and well said. On this issue, I find myself disliking the idea of being tricked and therefore, rightly or wrongly, dislike the image after learning that it was a set-up. So this image for me, goes to the top of the heap in the cliché category.
Not to simplify things, or shrug it off, but to me there is a signficance to the idea of whether the image is outright in being posed, or secretly posed. When the secret is out, the image loses a tremendous amount of appeal for me, because my viewing of the image is populated now with thoughts of technique and design choices and less about enjoying the image for what it is.
I manipulate images all the time, so I guess I'm a hypocrite here. So I guess I'm saying, if it's a good secret…keep it that way. Otherwise it takes away from the image.
So I thought of a circumstance to illustrate my point about keeping it a secret.
"The immaculate reception" by Franco Harris
Harris has said he will go to his grave with the truth about whether or not the ball hit the ground before he caught it…a point of controversy that no videotape evidence exists to prove/disprove. If it's a good secret…keep it.
Completely off topic, I know.
Lol Chuck, I don't think there has ever been a more appropriate example in the history of… ever. The immaculate reception. For those of you not already aware of this pivotal moment in mankind's history, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_reception
Interesting read Lawrence – thanks for the link; once I get back to London I'll bookmark the journal.
I thought at first that I was with Chuck on this one, but the more I think about it the more I find I'm sitting on the fence.
My instant, gut reaction is to (at least) attempt a withdrawal of my admiration as soon as I find out it's staged. The purity of the moment is so central to this photo's appeal for me, and I can't see how it would be possible to argue with anyone who felt that this magic is ripped from it as soon as you find out that it's staged.
But, having said that, I can't withdraw my admiration for it. It still captivates, it still tells a story.
Gah.
This photo is such an extreme example though; the perfect choice for this kind of question.
Hmmm…
After reading my comment, I realised I have basically got the same attitude towards the photo as you, only you've put the reasons for that across far better than I have!
Can I propose a dumbed down sister-blog with voting buttons?
At first thought … I was of the opinion that the image's aesthetic quality was not dependent on whether or not it was staged … but on further thought I think it is. I don't think you can separate the aesthetic quality from the image's genre. If Doisneau's image were photojournalism it might rank as one of the greatest in history. As a staged image it is good, but not necessarily one of the greatest. The works of Joel-Peter Witkin and Cindy Sherman are superior staged images not to be confused with street journalism. The photographer wants you to know this and this knowledge works to have a certain effect on the viewer. Photojournalism is the same. There are "general" aesthetic qualities (e.g. composition, lighting, etc.) and also "specific" aesthetic qualities determined by the genre. Part of photojournalism's aesthetic is that it is captured in spontaneous real-time in real situations. As a result, certain aesthetics determined by staged photos are not included in the final criteria of its "greatness" but other qualities are. If the specifics for photojournalistic aesthetics are plucked out – this will (usually) – leave the image lacking in overall greatness. This is, of course, all happening on a sliding scale. It is possible that a photojournalistic image – if discovered to not be journalistic – could have enough other qualities to still rank it very high on an aesthetic scale, but I think this would be very, very rare. Doisneu's image – when the spontaneous moment is removed – becomes not much more than a potential ad for GAP clothing. It's not a bad photo, but it's not great.
Fantastic comments – I didn't think writing about this image and this topic would inspire such interesting comments so am both surprised and pleased.
It seems the issue most people have with The Kiss is that "if it's gonna be staged then it better be perfect cause it's gonna be judged as such". And so aesthetics and otehr technical aspects play a much greater importance than if it were a spontaneous moment. Now normally, I would agree 100% but with this image I would offer two more points:
1. The images / photographers that this picture is compared to came 40 years later. We all know of classic films that were the first, breakthru concepts or even genre defining that do not necessarily stand up to the aesthetic quality of today's production. BUT because they were the first (or 40 years earlier, they deserve special attention and appreciation). I think this is one.
2. Although we all clearly feel at least partly tricked by this image, isn't that part of the photographer's skill? Should we credit Doisneau as by looking at the image, it's actually impossible to tell that it's staged or not – in fact, you naturally assume it is not. Although that one point is the source of frustration, it's also potentially the source of some of its beauty and creativity.
Stu raises another point that perhaps this image is an extreme example – and I agree. I would normally find it much easier to sort out my feelings on something like this… I'm enjoying this debate immensely.
The image no doubt has a certain level of aesthetic quality, but I would argue that it would be higher if it were a photojournalistic photo. Some photographers do mix "reality with illusion" which adds to the mystery and quality of the image, but it is done in a way that tweaks our sense of disorientation. The Doisnaus images does not in my opinion play with this illusion. It is portrayed straightforwardly as photojournalism.
As for older, more "classic" films or images not standing up to the aesthetic quality of newer films or images I'd have argue strongly against this idea. The early films of Eisenstein, Dryer, etc. can easily hold their own against contemporary film on an aesthetic level. The same is true with early photographers (e.g. Strand, Ateget, etc). Technically there are advantages had by today's photo artists, but not aesthetically.
Thank you Lawrence for inviting me to this blog.
Very interesting to see such a discussion on such a delicate subject.
I think that no matter what and no matter when, the picture itself does not contain any truth, nor lie and it is in the eye of the beholder to beleive what ever he wants to believe.
Some will be disapointed when the truth (if we can dare say that ther is one) comes out about the reality behind the shot but on the other hand when you expose the picture without explaining the whole story behind it then the reality becomes another.
The main reason why all these questions might be asked do not have place anymore when you consider that they are relatif to different moments, subjects and point of views and all these factors influence the way you look at the same point but from a different angle. The object itself is still the same and has not changed. The moment caught may it be staged or not is still the same.
I am not sure if what I just said is clear enough.
If we are going to talk about movies for instance, I just ask one question : why is it that a simple fiction, a story, a lie "since everything is staged" no matter it's aesthetics can bring "real" tears to our eyes ? or maybe is it that those "real tears" are just an illusion and are, after all, false ones since the movie is just "a movie". Photography is just the same.
I believe that there is something even bigger than what one sees in a picture… simple and genuine feelings.
Subconscious ways of telling a story, choosing a frame, the light, the moment, the way you compose it, the way you manipulate it, the way you see and feel it when you are creating it… may it be when you thought of this feeling or just felt a subconscious need, something you just want to get out from the bottom of your soul… these are the reel things that sometimes get stuck within your image. That's at least my firm belief.
Antonio
P.S.: I did not read myself so I might not make any sense. Just wrote what I felt was true to my beliefs about writing with light.
I don't think this is a question as to whether "staged" or "real" is better or worse than one another. With films we know they are staged (fiction), real (documentary) or fiction/real (mockumentary; e.g. Borat or Spinal Tap). The viewer is not tricked by film, but goes into the viewing knowing which of these genres is being represented. If Spinal Tap were a true documentary we might cringe at what is being portrayed, but because we know it is a mockumentary we laugh. Borat crosses two lines. We cringe AND laugh because we know that 1) he is not a real Kazikstanie and/but 2) he is interacting with real people. Because we know this about the film it affects both how we react to it AND how we judge its aesthetic quality. Borat is highly rated as a film because of its subversive qualities in using a "bogus" character to unmask the qualities of a certain "real" segment of American society. If we find out some day that the entire film was staged – its subversive aesthetic quality will not only be diminished, but will be lost entirely. It is the same for me with Doisneau's photo. It's aesthetic quality can not be separated from its creative process (e.g. real or staged). That is part of its intrinsic value. An artist can play with illusion and reality (e.g. Cindy Sherman), but the viewer knows this and it is part of the aesthetic quality of the experience. Doisneau, and maybe Capa's photo of the shot soldier during the Spanish civil war, were projected to viewers as real-moments which place the viewer on a certain experiential platform. The aesthetic quality of the image is thereby judged accordingly. You can't lie to your audience and receive an accurate response and aesthetic judgement. Thus, in the end, Doisneau's image becomes nothing more than a decent, and not great photo once I find out that it is staged vs. real. Its aesthetic values shift because they cannot be separated from its creative process or the artist's intention.
I do understand the point of view you are explaining Craig but I still think that there is much more to it…
What I tried to say in my first statement is that whether you chose to create your picture from scratch or just caught it because you were at the right place at the right time, the picture itself remains "true" to itself and to the original "intention" of the photographer to catch, describe, share, communicate, a feeling, an emotion, a thought, a question… you name it.
We can look at it as being aesthetic (from the greek word "aisthèsis" «feeling») because we felt something while looking at the picture or we can judge it as having more or less value because the feeling we felt was based on a "true" or "false" presumption of what we had considered as being the "truth".
Showing Doineau's picture to the same person before and after he got to know the "behind the scene" story that "made" the picture should not change the value of the picture itself.
" You can't lie to your audience and receive an accurate response and aesthetic judgement."
I think that neither Doisneau nor Capa did lie. The lie was born the moment the picture was "judged" based on the question of how it was made and not as much as for what it represented.
Therefore it is the ethics or morale of how things should stick to a certain rule that created all this not as much as for how aestheticaly good or bad the picture really is.
I truly believe that when a picture is true to itself no matter when and no matter what is the context of how it was created, it will remain a strong one just as Doineau's, Capa's or Henri Cartier-Bresson's.
Luck can be a factor in taking pictures like Henri Cartier-Bresson used to take but as far as I am concerned I begin to understand that these masters of the decisive moment were not as lucky as I used to imagine them. They were just very good observers. They could predict an action a few moments before it happened because they had been watching something attentively for a few moments,minutes or seconds before they took the shot.
Knowing that, does it remove any value to the pictures they took or to the attitude they had in order to get the picture ? My answer is, absolutely not.
And what make me say it is this simple sentence Henri Cartier-Bresson once said about photography :
Taking a picture is having your eye, your heart and your brain working together in one straight line. This being said if one truly believe the "aesthetics" behind Cartier-Bresson's statement might understand that no matter if you staged your picture having a true feeling\idea\message\thought etc… behind it that is the important thing to recall.
But then the debate of how much a picture is a true one or a false one could go on forever as much as for the eternal debate about what is or how good or bad a picture really is.
Antonio
I understand what you are saying, but have to respectfully disagree. There is a difference between the "experience" of a work of art and "critical analysis" of its value. The first can be done in silence. That latter employs language. I thought the original question of this blog entry by Lawrence was focusing on the latter. Of the former I don't have much to say because this is an inner experience of the viewer. Of the latter, philosophy of art (aesthetics), I have something more to say. Either consciously or uncosciously the moment we "speak" about the value of a piece of art we employ criteria. First, there are general criteria (complexity, originality, technical mastery, suitability to medium, etc.). Secondly, there are specific criteria. This is what I was trying to describe in my previous post. There are criteria specific to the medium (color for painting, but not for literature), but also to genres within a medium (documentary film, drama, comedy, etc.). We do not use the same criteria for evaluating dramas as we do in evaluating comedies. Thus, Doisneau's "Kiss" was initially evaluated in the photojournalism genre, but now has to be evaluated in the staged genre. They employ different criteria. This is nothing new in the philosophy of art/aesthetics.
However, if the question is one – as I think you are speaking to Antonio – of the experience of the viewer that is a different matter. A person can look at the "Kiss" with no knowledge of how it came to be and have an experience of A or B. That experience can change when they gain an understanding as to whether or not it was real. Their "experience" is relative. The critical reasons behind an aesthetic judgement of a work of art are – in my opinion – much more objective and follow certain general and specific criteria. In this regard, whether Doisneau's piece is "fact" or "fiction" makes a huge difference in its final evaluation.
Fantastic dicussion…I won't remember any of it a week from now other than Craig's comment that has now become the summary of my feelings about this image
"becomes not much more than a potential ad for GAP clothing"
Freaking perfect. (are we allowed to cuss here?)
Yup, seconded, enjoyable discussion.
And a slight restoration of my faith in comment threads and message boards on the internet too.
(Chuck) :-)
I have to admit that I've never been a fan of this Doisneau image (i.e. maudlin sentimentality) and maybe that influenced my argument about aesthetic criteria. In other words, trying to find a more analytical justification for not much liking the photo in the first place. :-)
What a pleasure to see such a thoughful, erudite, eloquent and good natured discussion on a fascinating topic. I must say I agree with Craig and disagree with Antonio, on this one. Craig's distinction between the experience of it with no prior information and the analysis of it within the 'canon' of art history is a useful one, and the clinching point is that is IS possible to have one's cake and eat it, too: when I saw it first, although I don't care for Hallmark sentimentality, I admired the photo for its panache and 'winning' quality; the suspicion that it might have been spontaneous was big brownie points. Upon learning that it was staged, without realising it quite, I then had my analysis hat on, and it immediately lost value from that perspective because it did not meet the sacrosanct criterion for an image proported to be and 'sold' on the basis that it is a moment of photojournalistic spontaneity. Now I'm looking at the image again, I can still admire it for its style and all-too-convincing execution but the boundaries, the breadth of the image have been vastly confined.
Respectfully, I think Antonio's position is a touch naive: it lets artists off the hook for being objectively disingenuous (like Doisneau, in this case) and allows the viewer to use a vague, dare I say 'touchy-feely' philosophy to defend an image, if we're to be honest, on the basis that the viewer LIKES it and is therefore keen to defend it, banishing any troubling thoughts about its integrity. Clearly from what he has written, that is not Antonio's intention, but his argument could be construed to paper over a multitude of sins.Without wanting to sound too pompous, we need rigour from artists and viewers!
Leave your response!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Stay Connected
Tags
Twitter Feed
Recent Comments
Archives
Admin
Best of the Best
Most Commented