Short story behind "American girl in Italy" photo

[batterytypehah!]

I'm in the "matters not" camp. One more thing the photographer controlled, so what? Just like she controlled equipment, film, location, framing, timing, editing, etc. -- except nobody considers those. Not even necessarily on a photography forum, which I do find surprising.

 

[micromontenegro]

But obviously more than a dozen guys looking at a girl that way at the same time, just couldn't be a natural scene...

Exactly. Plus, the girl is obviously acting. None of which detracts from the image, BTW.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

More than if it matters or not to anyone, it's about if the shot subjects were actors in that moment or not.

I mean, saying "I don't feel different about the photograph if it was staged or not" is not giving too much of an opinion... But saying "They were acting (or not)" is a real opinion, as it has a direct relation to what the image says or pretends to say, not just with a subjective point of view that doesn't take part...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[twopointeight]

I didn't read every word of all the posts, so apologies if this is redundant. Yes, it matters because for all these decades, including its acknowledged place in the history of the medium, it was taken for granted that this was a decisive moment. If we would have known the backstory much earlier, it would not have had the same status as one of those great shots. Its a dramatization based on reality, a do over, a misrepresenation of the genre.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I didn't read every word of all the posts, so apologies if this is redundant. Yes, it matters because for all these decades, including its acknowledged place in the history of the medium, it was taken for granted that this was a decisive moment. If we would have known the backstory much earlier, it would not have had the same status as one of those great shots. Its a dramatization based on reality, a do over, a misrepresenation of the genre.

It was?

And besides, even a staged shot has its decisive moments. Try re-creating it and see if you can do it as well.

It's a lightweight amusing shot of a kind that has been semi-staged ("Can you do it again, love?") as long as there's been newspaper photography.

Cheers,

R.

 

[batterytypehah!]

^ Oh boy, here come the big words.

You presuppose that there is an objective "history of the medium" and an accepted definition of the "genre." I disagree.

 

[TXForester]

Its a dramatization based on reality, a do over, a misrepresenation of the genre.

Not necessarily the case. I don't anything about the history of the photo other than the background story in the link. Between the photo being taken and the time the photographer passed away, did she ever tell people it was not staged? Did she say it was a decisive moment? If asked about it, did she imply it was not staged by an indirect answer?

I'd like to know, because if the photographer did not lie (including implying the nature of the photo), then it isn't a fault of the photographer and model. It's our fault for taking the nature of the photo for granted.

I'm more interested if the photo portrays Italian men of the 50's accurately, even if a little exaggerated. We all know men then and now who behave this way, but the photo shows several men acting in the same manner. It implies that their behavior was common to much of the male population then. Was that common, or just a trait of a small part of the male population?

 

[Andy Kibber]

I think there was an implication in some of the posts (and even by the woman who was in the photo) that it would not have the same value if it had been staged. Otherwise, as I said, why would it matter?

Gary

I don't do a lot of valuing photographs. I don't look at them and say "7/10. Oh wait, it's staged? 5/10." My point is simply that knowing a photograph is staged changes what how I react to it or interpret it. I suspect others feel the same way.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, from everyone I know who was in Italy in the 50s...

Conceivably 'hammed up' but not inaccurate. And as soon as it's a retake, they're going to ham it up.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gns]

I don't do a lot of valuing photographs. I don't look at them and say "7/10. Oh wait, it's staged? 5/10." My point is simply that knowing a photograph is staged changes what how I react to it or interpret it. I suspect others feel the same way.

Don't we all evaluate the pictures view? We don't give them a grade, but we ask is this good or interesting.

Could you elaborate on just how it changes your reaction, interpretation or understanding in this case (this photograph)?

Gary

 

[rionda]

Well, from everyone I know who was in Italy in the 50s...

Conceivably 'hammed up' but not inaccurate. And as soon as it's a retake, they're going to ham it up.

Agree, and I have been living in Italy for 25 years (although not in the 50's...😀). By the way, similar situations still occur in Italy, i.e., a group of men (3,4, seldom I saw larger group of just men in Italy, except for soccer games) turning or stopping to look at a nice girl. They try do to it much more inconspicuously now. I know because I do it. 🙄

 

[russelljtdyer]

My Edit on the Photo

My Edit on the Photo

I always felt like this photo showed a sexual harassment side of Italy, a side that I have never witnessed living here--not that men are generally very respectful of women. In fact, I've been surprised at how many times I have witnessed beautiful women walking by and men showing absolutely no interest in them. I've wondered what it takes for a woman to get the attention of the men on the street. Now I know that it requires her to do something ridiculous, such as walk past them a few times for no apparent reason as was done for this photo.

Given that this photo was contrived by the model and photographer, I think it would not have been seen as sexually harassing and would have been a fun photo for more people if the girl had not looked worried, but had looked like she was enjoying the attention, maybe looking ahead with a smile of confidence about her sexuality and her beauty. It would have shown her as a strong woman and not oppressed. As it is, she and the photographer have done these men and Italian men wrong. Too much? Well, I think you get the basic points.

-Russell

 

[bigeye]

Welcome to the world of art. It's not completely defined by Winogrand.

.

 

[dave lackey]

Recently there was an article in TOP about all of photography is an illusion.

The story adds a different perspective for me but it doesn't change my opinion that it is a great photo. :angel:

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

It's interesting to see the different interpretations of "staged".

You can also argue that many photographs aren't real because they've been "manipulated" by optics, or having had the colors either stripped off or "enhanced" i.e. "manipulated".

As for whether or not the photo was staged, Craig says no way. "The big debate about the picture, which everyone always wants to know, is: Was it staged? No! No, no, no! You don't have 15 men in a picture and take just two shots. The men were just there. ... The only thing that happened was that Ruth Orkin was wise enough to ask me to turn around and go back and repeat" the walk down the street.

I guess travel photographers also "stage" their photos by consciously traveling to a different place for the purpose of photographing it. Which, of course means that it's been manipulated because, physically, it was pre-meditated. 🙄🙄🙄

 

[Peter Klein]

Welcome to the world of art. It's not completely defined by Winogrand.
.

Exactly. This is not a spot news photo. And it's not being used as evidence in divorce court. But it does show a reality that many women have experienced. It's not as though the men were induced to act contrary to the way they normally did. It's just that their behavior was "amplified" by the repetition of the model's walk down the street.

So what? The picture is not a lie, it's just a bit larger than life. And very funny. It's always been among my favorite classic photos.

--Peter

 

[uhoh7]

A bit more detail and the contact sheet:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44182...subject-american-girl-italy-photo-speaks-out/

Staged? Jeez...pretty light staging. The woman is not a "model", and she's the only person in the frame the Orkin knows.

Orkin did tell the guy on the motorbike to tell the others not to look at the camera.

Hardly the general definition of "staging". But technically maybe so.

 

[easyrider]

Orkin's work was exhibited in Toronto recently at the Stephen Bulger Gallery. There was a launch party at a restaurant. Orkin's daughter came and so did Jinx Allen. The contacts are very instructive. They toured Rome documenting a story of a single American woman touring, asking directions of policemen, etc. Nice series. The two were staying at the same pensione.

I always thought it was shot with a Rollei but the negs were 35mm, likely a Nikon. The shot captures the spirit of the times. Post war Italy and young Americnans touring Italy.

 

[Turtle]

After careful consideration, I am giving this a 8% staged 92% candid rating with a confidence rating of 100%.

So here is a philosophical question about staging: lets say the subject of a later photo happens to do something very simple that completes a wonderful scene, but the photographer does not have the camera to hand. Lets say that person is asked by the photographer to do the exact same thing again and that it requires no acting, just a simple mechanical act, and that the frame is captured.

Yes, we have a set up, but we also have the exact (to all intents and purposes) reenactment of something that happened in exactly that fashion i.e. the photo is highly representative of a reality. Do we agree that this is very different to a staged photo that creates, specifically for the shot, a combination of actions, expressions, reactions etc all within space and time that did not exist, and probably would never have existed, without the photographer having made it happen?

I think there is a difference between 'repeat' and 'full staging', just as we have subjects in candids who see frame one and two being shot and decide to 'assist', without direction from the photographer, in frames three and beyond, yielding potentially iconic candid photos.

So which is more candid and 'honest'? The shot where the subject repeats something, as requested by the photographer, or where the subject is never briefed, but directly assists in creating a photo off their own initiative? Hmmm, I'm bug8ered if I know.

 

[thegman]

Well, does it matter if it was staged or not?
Does the picture change because you know how it was made?

Gary

To me it would, if the "Afghan Girl" was an actress in a New York studio, I think it would lose a little something.