Kora

[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.

[David]

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.

Well Ian, i certainly wouldn't argue with you about the staged nature of the guy with the spiky armor. But i am talking about the large majority of these images, not the odd man out. Take a look at the last group of photos that Mercenary put up for instance. You think a photographer staged all those people in those photos. Of course he didn't, they are the actual event including up to thousands of participants. Even the group shot of the dignitaries doesn't look staged since all their attentions seem to be elsewhere rather than on the photographer.
The photographer you are thinking about regarding Native American photos was Edward Curtis. It is true that he staged many rituals for the camera in order to preserve them for history, though generally not incorrectly. Some of the rituals he recorded have never been seen otherwise by any other white man. He was known to carry some wardrobe with him, but he travelled extensively throughout native lands living with tribes for long periods at a time so he got to know them and their ways rather well. There are not many cases known where he gave incorrect weapons to his subjects to hold. He created tens of thousands of images and collect copious notes chronicling the tribes he studied creating an invaluable collection for research despite what we might consider today to be a few missteps in his methodology.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[ariel]

Say what?

You cannot present a photograph of the movie crew actually filming Pancho Villa at the head of the charge?
Then how can you claim that Pancho was a real living human being? Or that there was a war between the U.S. and Mexico? Or that there was such country as Mexico?

:-))))))))))))))


Argumentum ad absurdum.....

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Say what?

You cannot present a photograph of the movie crew actually filming Pancho Villa at the head of the charge?
Then how can you claim that Pancho was a real living human being? Or that there was a war between the U.S. and Mexico? Or that there was such country as Mexico?

:-))))))))))))))


Argumentum ad absurdum.....

LOL!
I think the problem was that the charge was actual and not staged, so perhaps it posed a reality issue. Also, this was not a war between U.S. and Mexico but an in house problem, the Revolution! We do know that Pancho Villa posed for photographs, as did his men in many cases, and they had weapons, which I believe were real, and not souveniers.

Quo Vadis

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Ian

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.

Ian, I do not know of any Indian elephant armor that looks like this armor, I see no reason to assume that this armor is not real until proven otherwise. If anyone has a picture of Indian elephant armor that resembles the armor being worn in this photo please post it.

I have posted the only other photo I know of Indian spiked armor.

(Indian (Rajasthan) back armor, 17th c, plates of steel with cast pointed spikes joined together with steel mail, giving it strength and flexibility. The entire armour consists of nine rows with five spiked plates in each row. It is padded with red velvet. There are four laces, one at each corner, with which it was tied over a zirah (shirt of mail), L: 66, width : 65 cm. The National Museum, New Delhi.)


Here is a description of the executioner photo from The Wide World Magazine, Volume 1. 1898

LORD HIGH EXECUTIONER OF THE STATE OF REWAH, CENTRAL INDIA.

This picturesque person is not a full - dress character out of one of Mr. Gilbert's operas, nor is he a candidate for a prize at a fancy-dress ball. No, he is none of these things. Do not laugh when I tell you that this is the Lord High Executioner of the State of Rewah, in Central India. As you may see for yourselves, he is a man of most gigantic stature, and he is so rigged up as to inspire feelings of terror in the condemned criminal, whose head he is presently to slice off with his formidable scimitar. He is stuck all over with spikes, even to the underneath part of his forearms, and he would be an unpleasant person to run up against on dark nights, for more reasons than one.