Two images from this year’s PRC Benefit Auction have generated some really interesting reactions from exhibit attendees—
TRIIIBE’s Fine
and Pelle Cass’ Tree, Boston Public Garden
illicit similar and yet drastically different reactions. Both really seem to captivate their audiences and spark imaginations, however most viewers assume that the TRIIIBE image is a Photoshop construction (one woman with different wigs) and that the Cass image is a very real moment in time where a tree is over-run with animal life. What’s hilarious is that the TRIIIBE image shows identical triplets without digital manipulation and the Cass image involves the layering of multiple exposures taken over a period of time. So the question is, why do most people assume the first image is manipulated and the second isn’t? Is it that the TRIIIBE piece is done in a very controlled studio environment and with details that point out that it is a constructed scene? And that conversely the Cass piece is set in an space that is recognizably real and familiar (at least if you live in Boston) and the image, I suppose, does not go out of its way to point out how it is made? I guess I just find it really fascinating that most viewers don’t really question what they are looking at, that they immediately jump to the conclusion that one is Photoshopped and the other isn’t, based on reasons about which I can only speculate. Thoughts?
3 responses so far ↓
Pelle // October 18, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
Hey, Caleb, thanks for posting my picture and bringing up an interesting idea. Here’s my take on how these two pictures tackle the idea of fake v. real.
Fine is all artifice on the surface (repeating patterns, fancy studio lighting, formal pose, carefully done-up hair and clothing). The feeling is of stillness and control. Tree is chaotic, loosely composed, seemingly random. The feeling is of life in its messiness. The central joke of Fine is the contrast between the contrived repetition of the floral motif and nature’s human triplication. In Tree, the joke is that the picture’s messy naturalism is entirely contrived—even as the feeling of realism is preserved. Both pictures bank on the fact that people are fooled by appearances and first impressions. It’s no wonder PRC viewers are confused!
Pelle
calebcole // October 18, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
Pelle, I think you nailed it completely! Thanks for your response!
Leslie K. Brown // October 23, 2009 at 9:00 am |
This is so interesting!