I think it's interesting that not only did the photographers see what they were lead to believe about the subject, but they also used conventional stylistic devices to portray him as what they were told he was. For example, the photographers who were told he was a former alcoholic, or a criminal both created "moody," "gritty" images using conventional techniques to convey a deeper, darker past. The photographer who thought he was a fisherman created a happy, relaxed, colorful image, etc.
The millionaire portrait caught me a little more. The photographer said he wasn't sure how to convey that about his subject. The image he chose was a sort of awkward closeup with a stark background. The photographer's uncertainty about who the subject should be comes across in the final image. The portrait shown could be used for almost any purpose--not that it's generic, but that it doesn't convey a specific mood--it's sort of neutral.
For the past year, I've been using "technique" as I learned my camera using mostly flowers as subjects, to try to create specific moods. I really appreciate when someone looks at a pic and "gets" what emotion I was going for that day. It also, though, shows that we as viewers have been trained culturally to respond to particular technical cues as having an emotional counterpoint. For example, if an image is hazy, or misty, it would be seen as nostalgic, or sentimental. If that haziness is dark, or black and white, it would be sadness, or longing. If it is bright and colorful, the image would be seen as a pleasant memory, or hopeful of the future. By virtue of creating a hazy image, though, either way, the image is interpreted by the viewer as being from another time; dark=past, bright=future. These stylistic conventions apply to all the arts, and how we understand and use them is what creates tension and power in our images.
What would have happened if the photographer who was told the subject was an ex-con had submitted a bright, happy, satisfied portrait like the "fisherman"? If it accompanied an article about a former con who now does charity work, would the photo indicate he had turned his life around and was contributing to society now, or would it look suspect? What if the article said he was a former con who continues to go in and out of prison? Would it indicate that the subject was oblivious to the harm he causes, and doesn't care? What if there were no article to accompany the pix for context? Would the photographer have failed at his job if he saw and portrayed a relaxed, happy man who was supposedly a hardened criminal?
Anyway, more coffee now....
