This stunning photo was taken by film director, actor and photographer, Fan Ho, in 1954.
Ho was famous for taking candid photos of street life and the city architecture of Hong Kong, in the 1950s and 60s. His striking use of light and shadow, exemplified in "Approaching Shadow", led to him being linked to the Bauhaus art movement.
Does it change your opinion of the photo when I tell you that Fan Ho staged the shot by arranging for his cousin to pose as the human subject?
Furthermore, does it change your opinion of the photo when I tell you that the diagonal shadow was added by Fan Ho, in the darkroom? In reality, the wall didn't have a shadow.
Discuss.
@fitheach It depends, really.
If you're "faking" to build a story or compose a scene, it's actually composition.
If you're covertly faking the story you're capturing, i.e. when the moment itself is supposed to be the object of the story, then it's faking.
Concretely, this photo is composition. But if you went into Grand Bazaar in Istanbul and took photos that depict the faux commercial orientalism found there as Turkey's everyday life, then that's faking, and somewhat unethical.
@fitheach E.g., IMHO there's more to this Ho photo than just the scene. It communicates to me a feeling of insignificance in industrial urban spaces and loneliness in city life. It does not misrepresent Hong Kong, or, does not really represent any particular location. It just uses the space, the model, and the shadow as compositional pieces. The shadow directs focus, the colours and tall straight lines communicate urbanism and industralism.
@fitheach I'd contrast this with some random photo depicting people in some traditional attire, or just the historic quarters of a city, trying to tell that that's how the normal life there. These photos try to capitalise on a sense of exoticism and at times beholder's feeling of superiority. IMHO these are faker than Ho's photo even in their raw form on the negatives, even if they were truly spontaneous.
@fitheach IMO all of art is gray territory. We can develop criteria and analyse in detail, but it's an inexact, case-by-case science. "You know it when you see it", kinda sorta.
But the rest of the artist's work does help a lot, just like context and presentation, to varying extents.
At a more fundamental level tho, yes, any artist should be free to express anything, within the limits of the human rights and freedoms of others. Apart from that all we can discuss is how we receive the art.
@cadadr
It is difficult to separate ones personal feelings about a subject, and a message coming from an artist. Should a photographer be free to make a (or any) statement? What if that statement is something about exoticism?