Anna Fox Lecture - Composites

My initial response to the lecture is set out in a previous blog - An Audience with Anna Fox 7th May 2014 (posted 8th May 2014).

A part of the talk that I found particularly interesting was Anna Fox's use of composite images in her completed work. We were shown a number of projected images where what we were shown was a combination of a number of single images. I remember in particular the one taken in Butlins Bognor Regis of a children's play area. It showed what appeared to be a children's slide that had the structure of a big top from a circus. The composite image was full of activity and my attention was drawn, by the composition of the image, to the group of children climbing the slide. The tension created by this element suggested that the whole scene was about to descend into chaos and injury. I found myself looking for responsible adults who in some unstated way would bring their calming influence to bear and bring stability. A happy picture of children playing became one of pending disaster. (I have no idea whether this was the intended outcome of the photographer or whether anybody else viewing the image at the same time had the same response).

The 'reality' was that what I saw had not existed as a whole at any time. All elements of the composite were true, in the sense that they were photographs of something that had happened and captured by the camera, but the sum of the parts was false. It is interesting that I claim that the sum of the elements that are true in themselves can lead to a false outcome. Usually one would expect that true + true = true. What is missing is the temporal element. The elements were not concurrent. They happened at different times possibly spread over a significant period. They appear as one event in the photograph because the photographer offers them in this way.  Although there is an increasing cynicism amongst the general population about the veracity of photographs my guess is that when this photograph is published it will be accepted, without thought, as being an image of something that happened. Given the possible use of the image as advertising material our engagement with the image is such that we have no reason for or interest in questioning its validity.

A question that the viewer is unlikely to ask is - What is not there? We were told that some elements had been removed and this was the subject of discussion between the photographer and those of her team responsible for the creation of a possible final image. We were provided with knowledge that would not be available to the general public. Yet the decision to leave these elements out of the finished image is as misleading as the overall composite and possibly more so. Removing things that were there may well lead to a better result but how honest is the practice? Every photographer leaves out possible parts of the overall picture the moment the camera is aimed at an area of interest and the viewfinder used to exclude unwanted elements. We never take an image that includes all possibilities.  In working on an image cropping is almost always an option. Leaving stuff out is something photographers do all the time and this is rarely questioned. So why the sense of unease?

I would suggest that the unease lies in the fact that we, as the viewer, cannot know why decisions of inclusion and exclusion were taken. Are we being deliberately misled to reach a conclusion that is pre-determined by the photographer or possibly the person commissioning the work? Just over twenty years ago I was transferred by my employers to another part of the Country which meant that my family and I had to find new accommodation. Registering with a number of estate agents I received the inevitable flood of hand outs on possible properties. Everyone included a photograph of the exterior. In one case (and this was not an isolated instance) the photograph showed an attractive bungalow with a well cared for front garden. What it failed to show was a huge water tower and an electricity pylon that were almost literally at the bottom of the garden at the rear of the property. The photograph was true but was taken in such a way that the negative elements of the surroundings were not shown.

Is there any difference between this example and the decision to remove elements exercised in the Butlins picture? There is the underlying element of personal trust that differs between the two. Very few people trust estate agents so we distrust the information we are given by them. Although the decision in the case of the Butlins photograph lies with the photographer and her team the general public will see the image, however published, as being the product of decision making by staff at Butlins headquarters and presumably accept it as being true. They trust the source. Yet in some ways the Butlins picture is more dishonest than that of the bungalow. The image of the bungalow is true in so far as it shows something that was there in front of the camera when the image was taken. It was untouched and published in the full knowledge that the client would see the reality. Its purpose was to entice. The same thing could be said of the Butlins photograph except in this case the proffered image was of something that never existed as shown.

Is there an ethical problem with the composite and other images created in the same way. Composite pictures have been part of photography for almost as long as photography itself. Early photographers faced difficulties in exposing for the sky and for the rest. This was largely caused by the sensitivity of the emulsions used at the time. They learned to combine two images to get the desired result much the same as modern photographers do in, say, creating HDR images. It is rarely seen as dishonest. Much depends upon the purpose of the photograph and how much information the viewer is provided with at the time of viewing.  We do not, apart from in technical publications, publish all the details about the type of camera, exposure settings etc used in the production of the image. Even more rarely do we share the use of image enhancing software all of which help us to produce the image we, as the photographer, want to publish.  So is there a need to inform the viewer that the image shown is a
composite? As always the answer is - it depends on what the photograph will be used for and the photographer cannot know this for certain. In the end it has to be a personal decision by the photographer. Personally I see nothing wrong with the Butlins photographs but I am sure that others will disagree.

On a slightly different note and wearing a once discarded health and safety hat if I was Butlins I would not publish this image under any circumstances. It is clear evidence that the safety of the children is not a primary concern. I am sure that this is not the case but the image can be seen as documentary evidence.