Well, one must consider a few things and not take the staging completely out of context. Remember, this was Shelby's roots, the environment from which he came, and which he was ashamed of. At some point he even denied Appalachia as his roots, telling people he came from, I believe, Cincinnati. It was only after coming to terms with his background that he went back to photograph the people.
It's true that numerous shots were staged, but lets look at that not from a "street shooters" perspective, or from the pov of pure reportage, but from what might be called "documentary portraiture." Adams used large format cameras, mostly tripod mounted. Naturally that type of photography requires some preparation and set up, call it staging if you will. He's not just following these people around waiting for a good opportunity. Nonetheless, to me anyway, it's clear that he has a good rapport with his subjects. You can't get that kind of meaningful portraiture unless you've got something more than a fleeting moment with the people, and a knowledge of the environment. Now, consider most portraits ... consider all portraits, perhaps. They are set pieces, staged, at least in the context of the subject knowing they're being photographed, and the situation being decided ahead of time as to where they are going to be photographed. Regardless of that staging, some portraits are nothing more than "head shots," little more than an 8x10 glossy for the "actors" book, if you will. They tell you little or nothing about the person, and all too often don't even provide a context for the subject, nothing that speaks of time, place, or situation. Shelby Adams's portraits sure do that much, and therefore, imo, making them more real than those flimsy photos portraying to be portraits. Now, let's take a step back in time. Since I've been reading about WES lately, allow me it use his work as an example. He staged or set up many of his shots. Take his essay, "Country Doctor," for example. Let's look at just one photo from that series, the one in which the doctor is walking through a field, carrying his bag, and with a look of concern on his face. Smith at the doctor walk that route many times, while he, Smith, secreted himself somewhere along the route. There were numerous exposures made until finally, the right one manifested itself. Is that any less of a setup than some of Shelby's work. This ain't straight reportage or documentary work. It's portraiture ... there has got to be some set up or staging. Does it detract from the story and the feeling you have for these people? Does it change to any extent their situation as we see it. I think not ... generally what you see is what their lives are all about. Could Adams have been less exploitive, assuming that he was to begin with? Hard to say. Don't all photos exploit SOMETHING or SOMEONE? And yes, Frank, these are interesting issues, and I'm glad we're having a chance to discuss them here. BTW, the photos on the web look awful. The prints I have here, although in a book, are so much better ... gorgeous. And, of course, that brings us, perhaps, to another point. Can such photos, which purport a certain truth, be art as well? Another thread, perhaps <LOL> Yes, tea, beer, coffee, or wine would be excellent with a good discussion about this issue. Just some fuel for thought ... Shel frank theriault wrote: > > Hi, Paul, > > I didn't really mean to criticize him. I meant to point out other's > criticism. I still haven't decided what I think. > > I do have misgivings, I have to admit, but the photos ~in and of themselves~ > are quite stunning. I thought that before I heard of the critics, and what > they said, along with SLA's rebuttals. > > And, this issue is quite complicated, really. IIRC, you used a model who > was role playing as white trailer trash. Shelby Lee Adams is using real > people, in their environment. There may be some staging, but that's the way > they look. And, that's where they live. Is he exploiting them? > Documenting them? Both? Neither? > > I think we should all get together for a beer (or tea, for those of you who > prefer that) and talk about this into the wee hours tonight. I could talk > about this forever, but I won't (collective sigh of relief heard <g>). > These ethical issues really interest me. >
