What Would the Judge Say?

[Mike Farley]

Personally, removing the people from the edges of the shot diminishes it as reduces the sense of depth. The main tree is essential, but its positioning could have been better.

The auction which prompted this debate has finished. The print was estimated at $100,000 - $130,000, but did not meet its reserve. The highest of the three bids appears to have been $92,500, suggesting limited interest. Would a better composition have improved the sale prospects?

[davidc]

Better composition or pro photoshopping skillz I wonder.

Time to make a few calls

This has generated a lot of interest and discussion elsewhere too with a split between those who claim the sanitised version is better, if "fake looking" (because of rushed photoshopping) and the "don't touch it" brigade at opposing ends. Most opinion seems to settle on removing the person growing out of his head but leaving the rest.

[Iggy]

Having seen the YouTube below, I am now of the opinion of leaving Exasperated Boy as is or at most just removing the person through the head as you have suggested below. I did say that one tree gave the image balance but two trees reflect the boys legs.
Did Arbus see this as she was shooting or was it just chance? Possibly chance while shooting but observed on looking at her contact prints to make the selection. The other images were not captivating! So no choice really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03vCPk3 ... e=youtu.be

http://www.edelmangallery.com/manager/t ... 2_2014.jpg

[davidc]

hmm I think the "two trees reflect the boys legs" is seeing a little too much. I think it's coincidental. If deliberate, it should be made abundantly so IMO or it looks unintentional.

I do find armchair punditry ascribing motivation & vision to the photographer's image long after they have died and can't join in to be amazing. Especially composition, the cases where people start drawing any and all diagonal they can possible see in an image to justify why that makes it good

[Mike Farley]

So far as I can tell, this shot was never published in Arbus' lifetime. Its first appearance seems to be in a limited edition which was released posthumously in 1972, although it had been taken 10 years earlier. It is possible that Arbus herself decided not to use it, perhaps due to the "faults"? That's pure speculation on my part, though. If I am correct, it is ironic that it has become one of her best known images.

[Mike Farley]

While Googling the provenance of the image, I came across this critique which helps to explain its attraction, compositional issues not withstanding.

https://annaheross.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... s-1962-ny/

[Iggy]

So far as I can tell, this shot was never published in Arbus' lifetime.

In 1964, the Museum of Modern Art had acquired seven Arbus photos, including “Child with a toy hand grenade in Central Park, N.Y.C.”
So it might have been displayed at the museum at some time?

In 1969, the Metropolitan Museum of Art agreed to buy three photographs by Diane Arbus, for seventy-five dollars each but a few months later the museum decided to take only two.
So $92,500 for a print looks like a great offer!

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/06/diane-arbus-portrait-of-a-photographer

[Mike Farley]

In 1964, the Museum of Modern Art had acquired seven Arbus photos, including “Child with a toy hand grenade in Central Park, N.Y.C.”

Thanks, Iggy. My attempts to find this information using Google were clearly not very effective.

An interesting question is whether Diane Arbus was aware of the conflicting background elements when she took the shot. It is possible that she ignored them on account of figure-ground perception, where we observe only the figure - the boy with the grenade in this instance - and ignore everything else which forms the ground. It can easily occur when we are working quickly and the boy might have struck this particular pose only briefly. Whatever the cause, Arbus clearly decided that the photograph was strong enough to publish.

So $92,500 for a print looks like a great offer!

It appears that the print was not sold at this price as it failed to meet its reserve. It is possible that the seller came to an arrangement with the highest bidder after the auction. The lower end of the estimated price range was $100k, not so much of a difference if the owner was keen to sell.