Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:United States President Barack Obama bends down to allow the son of a White House staff member to touch his head.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:United States President Barack Obama bends down to allow the son of a White House staff member to touch his head.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 13:41:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

United States President Barack Obama bends down to allow the son of a White House staff member to touch his head
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •  Info This photo was taken in May 2009 and in all the articles written about Pete Souza's new book "Obama: An Intimate Portrait", this is an image the picture editors choose. The composition isn't perfect (the boy's dad's head is cropped), the focus isn't perfect (slightly back focused), but Souza only had time for one click and fortunately froze just the right moment. A photograph isn't just about technical attributes. The little boy asks "I want to know if my hair is just like yours". You can read the full transcript in this NY Times article, and Souza's own opinion of and story behind the photo on p38 of his book (currently being shown on his web page). Whereas most photos hung in the White House are rotated every few weeks, this one was kept up for three years. Its removal prompted protest from staff who regarded it as an important stop when taking people on a tour of the White House. So it went back up again till the end of Obama's term in office in 2017. The image shows the achievement of a black man in America and possibilities open to a black child: is he just like me; could I be just like him? It also shows the most powerful person of a most powerful nation bowing to a mere child and permitting intimacy. Souza took 1.9 million photos while following Obama's presidency, so I guess a few of them should be worth featuring! Created by Pete Souza - uploaded by O'Dea - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with you. Quite a nice illustration for "Head of State". ;) Yann (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose is not FP JukoFF (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • JukoFF, the rules at FPC require an explanation for an oppose vote. Simply saying "is not FP" is not a reason. Please note the FPC criteria include "Symbolic meaning or relevance" and that for FP wow factor can overcome technical shortcomings. This has become a historically important photo by a notable photographer. -- Colin (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The photo is very, very, very poor quality, very bad focusing, cropped heads, blurred faces. Do not understand the uniqueness of this photo. Or do you think that this is a random photo and it was removed from the first and not the tenth attempt? JukoFF (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Souza wrote: "It happened so fast. I clicked just one picture". The aperture of f/2.8 does not permit much focus range, and the focus is more than acceptable for many print sizes. He also writes "Later, when I saw the picture blown up, I knew it was special". I suggest you buy a book of Magnum photos, many of which are regarded similarly as classics that make other photographers envious, and you might realise that most of them are really nothing special technically, with all sorts of focus, exposure and composition shortcomings. -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support An unusual situation worthy of a feature. Trust a kid to surprise everyone. :) I'm also intrigued by the bent paper clip on the Resolute desk. --cart-Talk 14:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Croped head of person on left is very disturbing. At least photo cut have different crop to avoid that. --Mile (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per nom. I visited an exhibition on Martin Parr's work last week. Barely any picture of his would survive here on FPC. Which is both sad and intriguing... for us. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The president's face is out of focus, not a very good photo - I expect better from a professional.--Peulle (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Come on, folks! This is a historic, iconic photo, and you're complaining about trivia? So what that it has technical shortcomings? This wasn't a posed photo - either you get it or you don't. You might as well nitpick to death the photo of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon if you're just going to ignore the historical and societal importance of a photo like this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, the composition is just bothering me too much, even if it is a nice moment. I think this one is just as humbling/cute, and much better technically, so I'm judging against that very high standard -- Thennicke (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thennicke (and others) you can't judge this against a posed photo, or against our other people photos taken in a studio or outdoors in bright light. This is one of those images, as Ikan puts it, of "historical and societal importance", and for that reason the technical aspects are just irrelevant. I have no doubt this photo will remain significant, as the symbolism is just too high. We are enormously lucky that Sousa's output is copyright-free, most other countries would have this image heavily licenced and making pot loads of money. Comments like "not a very good photo" or "very, very, very poor quality" are not only wrong but a sign you aren't really looking properly. When the world disagrees with you, and news photo editors all over the world love this image, it is time to re-evaluate your personal criteria for what makes a great image. The bit you all praise at FPC, sharpness, exposure, that's the bit done by Nikon and Canon and Sony, and frankly we don't deserve any praise for that. -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the world does disagree with me, but that doesn't make me wrong - looking at an image is a subjective thing, and I'm not feeling the "wow" - just another picture of Obama to my eyes. Perhaps I needed the backstory or something before I looked at the image, so that I came to the task with preconceptions (and that's not intended as snarky). I agree that the story behind it is nice, as is the symbolism, but I am not judging this image from the same perspective as a magazine publisher or a news outlet. Yes we are lucky to have this image freely-licensed. But I hope you can see my opposition as legitimate by the standards of this particular forum - and no, I am not a pixel peeper, as you might've noticed; I admit to often reviewing images merely from the thumbnail. Arguments from authority don't impress me; there are plenty of "famous" photographs that would be rightly criticised here. Fame is often different from wow. Although I can see why you would nominate this if it is trending at the moment, and sorry for what might seem like a harsh opposition. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And can I add that there is a political dimension to this; I don't think the same image would have been nominated here if it was Donald Trump in the frame. There is also a political element to what is considered "historical" and what is considered otherwise. I think it is best to respect peoples' differing opinions on this matter in an otherwise "apolitical" space. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I didn't nominate it because it is "trending at the moment", the photo is eight years old and was viral 5 years ago. The only reason the photo is getting current coverage is because of the 1.9 million photos Sousa took, this is one of handful that picture editors (and Sousa himself on his own web page) have selected as among the best. Yes there is politics about race, which is part of what makes this photo historically important, and part of what makes this photo possible is how accessible Obama was. But there are 101 reasons why you wont ever see a similar photo of Trump, and they are nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the kind of guy Trump is. Well, if take a photo of a person, aspects of that person come out, and we're seeing that here. That's what makes a successful photo. In contrast, Trump's recent photos have all the charm of a school photo. -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, sorry, trending 5 years ago - my mistake. Yes this image shows Obama's personality, but so does the other one, with much better image quality. All I'm trying to say is that we've got 2 FPs featuring Obama already, zero of Bush and zero of Trump, and that reflects not the photographic merit of the images, but whether we as a community consider them "historical" - it's a question of values, otherwise we wouldn't see them nominated in the first place. To elaborate on the point, 3/5 of the images in the 1990-now section are of 9/11 (with another in the unsorted area). Our community chose to nominate those images, and that shows what they care about. Obviously there is bias in this community; most of us are westerners and so forth. What I am saying here is that the "it's a historical image" argument bothers me when we already have such a bias. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focal point is on the desk, of camerman with 1.9 million shots !? Lot of profs are using Auto mode, which can be much more clever than a man. For more see Do professionals use auto mode?. Its still too ordinary shot. If this would be JFK in Dallas in 1963, that would make much more sense. Otherwise i saw many more similar videos of Trump than Obama, and if someone made shot here we go. --Mile (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kiril, you have trimmed the full statement I made about the image (which is merely my own interpretation, one of many possible): "The image shows the achievement of a black man in America and possibilities open to a black child". That the image has a back-story "Is my hair the same as yours?", tells me this is a story-telling image, and not merely something photogenic. See this for details about a form of educational publication where image+story are absolutely intertwined. While our boring photos of landscapes and buildings stand alone, the very best educational images ever produced all have a story behind them. Unless one is so out-of-touch with current affairs over the last 10 years, I think most of our readers would recognise Barack Obama and know he is the first black president of the USA. So I think it is stretching things a bit to claim the message here is "abstract and unnoticeable". Your claim "the image has no educational value" is really quite amazing. Do you think nobody writes educational pieces on black equality in the USA, or that nobody writes educational pieces on Obama's character, which included being a very family-friendly personality? I could keep going... there are loads of educational uses for this image. I guess all the newspapers around the world, who have used this image, found nothing educational to comment on it? Is it just a funny cartoon? FP is about "finest on Commons" and that is more than pictures of landscapes and famous buildings. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Kiril, just Google "I want to know if my hair is just like yours". Dozens of newspaper articles from 2012 when the NYTimes interviewed the family, many of the articles wrote about race and Obama's presidency. Similar when The Grio re-interviewed them earlier this year. The google results also includes several books on racial issues, all citing that photo and the story behind it. We have here one of those special educational images that not only document a story/person/event in a special way, but the image itself becomes a story in itself. It is almost certainly to be included in any biography of Obama and any extensive discussion of race in the USA. I don't think any of us could say our FPs have the same unique educational value at all -- ours are all quite replaceable with numerous other similar images. -- Colin (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone can have own interpretation of what story does this image tell. The notion of "black equalty in the USA" is something that I cannot recognise here at all because that would have properly worked had there been a "white" president in this image. I also don't think that this breaks any social equality barriers either with all people being well-dressed in a presidential room. The missing value here that could have made that interpretation easily noticeable lies in the lack of contrasting elements. I would have assigned great educational value to an image depicting the motion from the interaction between a well-dressed billionaire and very poor people in a ruined village or social shock from extremely poor people accessing tecnological gadgets for the first time. Unfortunately, this has nothing to offer of it, no matter what the general public says about it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand your argument at all. Not one bit. It's like you are trying really really hard not to get it. It isn't people in a room, this is the president of the USA, a black president, in his office, bowing to a child and letting them touch him. Which part of that is not just a wee bit unusual given the history of the US, or indeed, any first world western democracy? But importantly, we aren't really here to judge if you personally have no educational interest in the picture, but whether others might find an educational use for it. And is most certainly has, and here it is most certainly free for anyone to use. -- Colin (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image has no educational value? I mean, if you wanted to argue that Commons should do away with educational value as a criterion, that's one thing (though not something to argue in a nomination thread), but arguing that this image has no educational value is just so absurd that it makes me wonder whether anything else is behind the statement. I have to agree with Colin's comment above. It's a pretty restrained response to the stuff you wrote above, and I'm restraining myself, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, well you know me, "restrained" is my middle name :-) -- Colin (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, like it or not, this image does not have any educational value for me. After all, it's just my subjective judgement that you don't need to agree with and something that you're not going to change. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat: whether it has educational value "for you" is irrelevant. Putting one's Wikipedia hat on for a moment, it only takes to briefest research to demonstrate multiple reliable sources regard the image as having educational value. It is already being used educationally. So that's simply a fact and doesn't require subjective opinion to guess whether perhaps in future someone somewhere might have an educational use for it. It is of educational value. Fact. That is all that matters. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and what goes into your "subjective judgment", I probably would do best not to imagine, but I've lost a lot of respect for you, and I'll leave it at that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may post millions of sources with explanations of what this image really means and how big its "educational value" is, but it's completely irrelevant for me to make own assessment of it as a piece of art. Art is all about "subjective judgement" of its value based on how it articulates beauty and emotions, whereas the position of arguing against someone's assessment with some general opinion just kills the artistic spirit. I may be the only person in the world to assess that a book, painting, musical composition, film, photograph or any other piece of art has or hasn't any educational value against the prevalent opinion by the critics and the least that those who don't agree with me can do is to respect my opinion. Finally, art is different from science in recognising educational value. Unlike theories, which explain the nature of the things in a technical way and provide a relevant learning resource equally for everyone, pieces of art distinguish in that they invite personal thinking on whether there is potential for relevant learning or not.
I respect your intentions and encourage you to do whatever you want, but please stop wasting my volunteer time counterproductively. I'm here to contribute to the project to the best of my abilities and not to debate with users about my every single comment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kiril nobody is forcing you to comment, so it isn't valid for you to complain about wasting your time. If you want to post comments about your opinions here, then expect them to be challenged. If you don't like them being challenged, don't post, or at least unwatch afterwards. One last time to clarify. We often have to judge if an image here has the potential for educational use, and thus be "in scope". While the image isn't actually being used, that remains a judgement call and open to subjective opinions. The moment an image gets used on Wikipedia, Commons regards it as "in scope" because the educational value of an image is no longer a judgement call but a hard fact (the image is used on two articles). And when we go outside of Wikipedia, we see the image is being used educationally widely. It's like having an argument, today, about whether Trump could be president of the USA. He is the president of the USA, so anyone offering a personal subjective opinion to the contrary, just looks really really odd. The image is being used to discuss issues of black equality in the USA and aspects of Obama's presidency, regardless of whether you think it could not do so. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 15:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:United_States_President_Barack_Obama_bends_down_to_allow_the_son_of_a_White_House_staff_member_to_touch_his_head.jpg&oldid=268203752"