Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ian
David, you raise an interesting point about whether early photographs were "posed" or "staged." I agree with Jim that many early photographs of, say, western U.S. subjects, especially Native Americans, were both posed and staged. The subjects of some of these were given costumes to wear and weapons to brandish that were not their own but were simply props for the purpose of the picture. This is still done today and there was a photographer at the Minnesota State fair who for many years would take pictures of his customers in 19th C. style clothing that he provided and carrying a variety of facsimile weapons.
In this spirit, the picture of the big guy (perhaps a Sikh) earlier in this thread wearing the spiked elephant armor would seem to have the characteristics of a staged portrait. Some of his costume may well be his own, but it looks to me like he was dressed up further for this picture. No way of knowing for sure, I suppose, but I don't see any reason why some of these pictures were not "staged," as Jim suggested.
Ian.
|
Thank you Ian!
As you note, photographers indeed produced many fascinating photos of Native Americans etc. and I found David's edification on the terms 'posed' vs,. 'staged' most interesting.
I fully thought, as you have perfectly noted, that a 'staged' photo would have been of an 'action' illustration, as in my mention of 'combat' photos.
A posed photo would be a still 'portrait type photo.
In an interesting analogy (and I fully expect correction) it seems that in the Mexican Revolution. a movie (film?) maker wanted to use Pancho Villa and his men in a movie. They filmed an actual charge or attack while accompanying him on campaign......however they declined to use the footage.......it wasn't real enough!!!!
Now I cannot state which documentary I saw this in, so I present it here anecdotally for entertainment value only.