Critique Welcomed The Spiv

[Peter Roberts]

Another re-enactment shot. We used to go to in lot of those sort of events. Great for photographing people who consciously put themselves on display and expect to be noticed. Sometimes we dressed 'in period' ourselves so as not to feel out of it.

Then doubts crept in. With the world as it is now and war seemingly edging closer to home is it right to celebrate an era defined by conflict? On the other hand it would be difficult to pick an era that isn't.

I have a lot of these sort of character studies that beyond family, friends and some of the subjects have not gone further than my files. Should I post any more here? I would not wish do so if it would cause offence to even one person. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Well I for one am not troubled by such pictures, and I’m definitely not one for reenactment personally. I love the previous picture and this one too. He’s very like the spiv out of Dads Army, I forget the character’s name. Was it Walker? I imagine there’s no anti-German sentiment in any of this, more a case of celebrating characters and perhaps even grand parents and the like. I imagine there is a lot of humour at their own expense too. And the music was great from that era.

But I understand your concern, Peter, so it is good you are canvassing opinion.

 

[Gianluca Drago]

I would not wish do so if it would cause offence to even one person

No offense taken by me. Go on Peter!

 

[Brian Moore]

is it right to celebrate an era defined by conflict?

Depends on what you're celebrating I guess. To celebrate conflict would be off-putting to say the least, at least to me. But to celebrate the fashions or behaviors of a time-period is just fine.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

By the way, the exposure on hi face is perfect. And what charming face.

 

[Peter Roberts]

Well I for one am not troubled by such pictures, and I’m definitely not one for reenactment personally. I love the previous picture and this one too. He’s very like the spiv out of Dads Army, I forget the character’s name. Was it Walker? I imagine there’s no anti-German sentiment in any of this, more a case of celebrating characters and perhaps even grand parents and the like. I imagine there is a lot of humour at their own expense too. And the music was great from that era.

But I understand your concern, Peter, so it is good you are canvassing opinion.

Thanks, Rob. Yes, I'm sure he modelled himself on Private Walker. In so doing he has become a caricature of a caricature which I found amusing. It was, no doubt, the intention.
Rest assured there is no animosity in any of this. If there were I would most definitely avoid it like the plague.
And yes, there was also the music.

 

[Peter Roberts]

No offense taken by me. Go on Peter!

Thanks for the reassurance, Gianluca.

 

[Peter Roberts]

Depends on what you're celebrating I guess. To celebrate conflict would be off-putting to say the least, at least to me. But to celebrate the fashions or behaviors of a time-period is just fine.

Exactly what I worry about, Brian.
There is a fine line between celebrating and glorifying. Grown men playing at soldiers by staging set piece battles I find both distasteful and disrespectful.

 

[Julian Tanase]

How and why this kind of photograph may give offence to anyone, Peter? Just curious!

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

View attachment 18921

Another re-enactment shot. We used to go to in lot of those sort of events. Great for photographing people who consciously put themselves on display and expect to be noticed. Sometimes we dressed 'in period' ourselves so as not to feel out of it.

Then doubts crept in. With the world as it is now and war seemingly edging closer to home is it right to celebrate an era defined by conflict? On the other hand it would be difficult to pick an era that isn't.

I have a lot of these sort of character studies that beyond family, friends and some of the subjects have not gone further than my files. Should I post any more here? I would not wish do so if it would cause offence to even one person. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

I think it is Grand. Why not? It is after all a great portrait. Well done.

 

[Peter Roberts]

'How and why this kind of photograph may give offence to anyone?' 'Why not?'
It comes down to the thin line that separates commemoration and celebration. The difference between honouring, albeit in a humble way, our forebears and having fun in fancy dress.
Popular myth, for instance, portrays a spiv as a cheeky chap who merrily provided hard to obtain items. The reality is he was a black marketeer, a criminal who took advantage of the situation to sell stolen goods at inflated prices, goods that in all probability merchant seamen had risked their lives to ship in.
Some of the resulting comments above echo my concerns about posting this sort of thing. Subsequently I posted a shot of a re-enactor in uniform. It was accompanied by a few abrupt and misjudged words which immediately drew a vitriolic comment full of invective that verged on personal abuse. I have posted nothing similar since, nor do I intend to do so in the future.

 

[Julian Tanase]

I do understand what you're saying, Peter. That said, I rue the day when this sort of things will become the norm. To be honest, I get a whiff of such, even on the sites which were about photography. Just that, photography for what it is. But now...it would seem that there are some out there who just love to stir the s**t, even when no s**t is to be found. And they believe they are the righteous ones. Well, hogwash I say.

I do not like those who try to cancel or deny the past, my friend, instead of facing it, understand it and try not to repeat it. Trying to erase or deny the past doesn't make us better, no. Just stupid. A photograph taken during the war, showing someone like Private Walker, is not commemorating nor celebratory, in any form, shape or manner. It is just a witness of history, of times that for better or worse, shaped us in the humans and the societies we are today.

Ask yourself this: which one of these two movies directed by Clint Eastwood (Flags of our fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima) is "correct" and which is not? Which one is offensive ? And most important: why? Honestly.​

 

[Keith Drysdale]

It's an excellent shot. My view is that people dress up for these events to be seen, fully aware of the fact that people will be taking photographs. If this photo had appeared in the local newspaper the subject would probably bought quite a few copies for friends and family.

 

[Peter Roberts]

I do understand what you're saying, Peter. That said, I rue the day when this sort of things will become the norm. To be honest, I get a whiff of such, even on the sites which were about photography. Just that, photography for what it is. But now...it would seem that there are some out there who just love to stir the s**t, even when no s**t is to be found. And they believe they are the righteous ones. Well, hogwash I say.

I do not like those who try to cancel or deny the past, my friend, instead of facing it, understand it and try not to repeat it. Trying to erase or deny the past doesn't make us better, no. Just stupid. A photograph taken during the war, showing someone like Private Walker, is not commemorating nor celebratory, in any form, shape or manner. It is just a witness of history, of times that for better or worse, shaped us in the humans and the societies we are today.

Ask yourself this: which one of these two movies directed by Clint Eastwood (Flags of our fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima) is "correct" and which is not? Which one is offensive ? And most important: why? Honestly.​

Thank you for replying at length, Julian. Your suportive comment is appreciated and the points you make coincide with my feelings exactly.

I am aware of both films but have seen neither. As such I would not like to comment on them beyond saying that my personal inclination would initially lean towards Letters from Iwo Jima if only because its intention appears to be to show 'the view from the other side'. Whether I consider it 'correct' I am not in a position to say. One of the spoils of war is that the victor gets to write the history, often drawing on his own propaganda to do so. A history that colours perceptations for many years after, so much so that subsequent attempts at reinterpretation or correcting the balance are often labelled revisionist, a term that has overtones of distortion.

All that aside it is interesting how much discussion a photograph can generate. A good sign that forums such as this are alive and kicking.

 

[Peter Roberts]

It's an excellent shot. My view is that people dress up for these events to be seen, fully aware of the fact that people will be taking photographs. If this photo had appeared in the local newspaper the subject would probably bought quite a few copies for friends and family.

Thanks very much Keith. Yes they do expect to be photographed. Sometimes it's difficult to prevent them playing up to the camera!

 

[Pete Askew]

If a single image can result in a discussion like this then it is certainly worth sharing.

Keeping perspective about intent and being mindful of glorification is a part of the process and something that either impacts at the time of taking the pictures or later when deciding how to present them. Interesting.

 

[Peter Roberts]

Thanks for this thoughtful comment, Pete.
Some subjects are indeed difficult to shoot and subsequently problematic to present.
As you say, it's worthy of discussion.