'The bleached skull of a steer on the dry sun-baked earth of the South Dakota Badlands'Arthur Rothstein ©
But Rothstein took two photos of this skull and the other photo show the skull lying on a strecht of grass, a much less symbolially powerful place. Rothstein admitted to having moved the skull a few metres to obtain the more dramatic effect with the cracked, dry earth.
Opponents in the press and Congress seized on this to attack the agency's credibility, calling the picture a fake.
The interfearance of the photographer makes up the question of wether this is documentary photography or not. Rothstein wanted to give his picture a more debt when moving the object to a background that would have more affect on the viewer. By doing so, is he taking away the documentary aspect of his photo ?
His picture turns into his own opinion, even though all photos have a certain amount of the photographers opinion, and he choses how we should interpret the photo.
I feel slightly cheated to learn that this photo was partly a set-up. But I do accept that Rothstein's message was of primary importance to the photo, and the effect created by moving the skull slightly is, in my view, worth the potential controversy generated. As I have been given an understanding of the exact practicalities of the photo, I find it acceptable; however, I can understand how it may be seen as unacceptable to those who didn't know from the start that it is partly contrived.
ReplyDelete