Purely for shock value?

[Jim Poor]

OK, so I was reading a story and looking at the photos in a Time photo essay yesterday. It is an archeological story showing skeletons.

One photo of the bunch seemed to be included purely for the shock value. Were it the one and only photo of the subject, maybe, but there is another photo from a different angle that tells the story in a more respectable way.

Without spoiling it for anyone, I think that this one photo is in really poor taste and might even warrant a "disturbing content" warning.

What do you think?

The Secrets of London's Buried Bones - Photo Essays - TIME

[hibou]

I think disturbing content is a bit extreme but that angle definitely wouldn't fly if there were skin on those bones.

[trudslev]

Well, I am pretty sure I know which one you mean, but in this sense I think that what you call "disturbing" I call "thought provoking".

You already know you are going to be looking at skeletons, which is mildly disturbing as it is.

[teaking]

I think I know which one you mean I had to think about it a bit though as I didnt really get any shock value maybe im just not shockable enough haha.

Its pretty much what it says on the tin bones that have been dug up. I suppose if you think about and imagine your self as bones then you get a strange sense of purpose.

[Rajah Sulayman]

I honestly see little wrong with the photo. It's simply a unique angle; there are only so many ways you can shoot a static subject.

I think the reason it comes across as wrong is because the largeness of the empty eye sockets on the skull give the illusion that the subject is looking at you. So it's not a far step to further anthropomorphize the subject (which is a little ironic, when you think about it) and treat it as a person instead of a collection of bones. Once you have the image in your head of it as a person, the angle of the shot combined with the implication that the subject is making eye contact with you gives it a different feel.

But if you take it simply as it is, it's really just a creative angle on an otherwise boring subject.

[windrider86]

I found the entire presenation very interesting. Sorry, but I didnt see a shock value in it either.

[Jim Poor]

Interesting. Maybe I'm more of a prude than I thought

I don't see the value in including what (to me) amounts to a GYN shot of a skeleton. Why, I wonder did they include two images of the same set of remains in this case?

Seems a bit like "bone porn" to me.

[Niresangwa]

I think there were only so many ways to show the fetus' bones in-situ, so to speak. Strikes me the shot I think you're talking about works well at highlighting the womb. Or where it would be as the case may be.

I don't find anything but fascination with that set, I'm grateful you brought it to the forums

[StillFocus]

Maybe I'm just desensitized but I thought it was neat. I honestly don't think it was the intention of the photographer to imply anything "shocking".

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

I think there were only so many ways to show the fetus' bones in-situ, so to speak. Strikes me the shot I think you're talking about works well at highlighting the womb. Or where it would be as the case may be.

I don't find anything but fascination with that set, I'm grateful you brought it to the forums

Agreed,. I took the personification route, and did find it mildly disturbing though. Perhaps, if the skull would have been at a different angle, it would not have affected me.