Talk:Jim Lee (photographer)

Truth in citing?
We read in the first version:


 * Invariably more interested in the context of the shot than the clothes themselves, Lee's highly cinematic images tended to extend beyond the frame, catching a moment in time and hinting suggestively at further intrigue. An iconic shot, Viva/Boxing 1977, featuring the model Ingrid Boulting (then the face of Biba) chastising the beaten fighter in a boxing ring surrounded by seedy onlookers, was a result of Lee paying some regulars to stay there all night "to get the ring smoky and be there in the morning drunk".

There's a link at the end of it, to this gushy article. And what does this article say?


 * With each [fashion] job, his skills improved and the jobs got bigger, he says. “However, I wasn’t terribly interested in the clothes,” he confesses. “What did interest me were the pretty girls and telling stories.” / Photo shoots with narratives really appealed to Lee[. . .]


 * He recalls one particular shoot with Wintour in the Bronx. / Inspired by a Normal Rockwell painting, Lee found a boxing ring, and paid a group of regulars to stay up all night, “to get the ring smoky and be there in the morning drunk.” He used a Nikon F2 and Tungsten lighting to shoot the ring. “Then we brought in the dresses and the girls and shot them tidy and pert against this background, sort of cajoling the boxers,” he says. “It is a fantastic series that I’m now selling quite heavily in London.”

So there's nothing in that about any of:
 * a tendency to extend beyond the frame
 * catching a moment in time
 * Viva/Boxing 1977
 * Ingrid Boulting
 * chastising
 * a single boxer

And this is a section sourced to something that's actually accessible on the web. As for all the material that cites from thirty-year-old magazines and the like, I wonder how faithfully it reproduces what's actually printed, and how much would turn out to be aggrandizing spin. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfair Criticism
Firstly, many thanks for the series of grammatical and stylistic changes that have been suggested; this is the first article I've done for Wikipedia and I'm a little surprised (and certainly delighted) that anyone's taken the time to actually read through the whole thing.

That said, I'm completely mystified by both the type and the tone of some of this criticism, which appear to cast aspersions on my honesty and integrity. I sure you'll agree that I have used a large number of sources which I've painstakingly collected over the last couple of years (when I first encountered his work and noticed the lack of centralised information,) and my approach is to try and have each point draw on as many sources as are relevant in order to avoid simply echoing one point of view. My paragraphs aren't intended to paraphrase only a single source each; I always include a source that references some of the points made, but including a whole string of numbers after every sentence makes it completely unreadable! I have of course referenced all the sources that I have used, but where the same one is used multiple times in short succession, I've taken it as read that the information reflects the recently aforementioned sources in addition to any new ones that are appropriate to introduce at that point.

I didn't think this approach would be all that contentious! Most articles on wikipedia don't have an in-line reference for every sentence, nor is it expected that when a source is presented, that all the information since the previous reference is being directly sourced from it. Would you have had the same criticisms if I had merely included my sources at the bottom (as some editors do) without any in-line references at all?

Personally I feel that would have made it a much worse article. I have attempted to find a happy medium between verifiability and readability, and I can only apologise if there are any incorrect impressions that a particular reference is supposed to be the entire source for a whole paragraph. I've deliberately tried to avoid the large blocks of quoted text that (in my opinion) often blight articles (and demonstrate both an underlying lack of sources and an inability to re-write the information in an appropriate style) instead preferring to re-write the information available in an encyclopedic style, whilst maintaining the letter and the spirit of each source. The result is intended to be a comprehensive encyclopedic entry that incorporates information from all available sources, with prejudice to none.

I'm glad you brought up the above example as a chance for me to easily 'clear my name'! The 'gushy article' (?!) I referenced in-line at that point is there because I quoted it directly! Moreover, a couple of paragraphs later it goes on to say: "As evident in the boxing series, Lee typically shot his subjects while they were moving, to catch a moment in time." (my emphasis). The Independent article from 2007 (Ref 6) reads: "Boxing, a set-piece composed for Anna Wintour in New York, has Ingrid Boulton (sic), the former face of Biba, set against a boxing ring where the loser's being counted out." A quick bit of googling will easily identify her as Ingrid Boulting, as does The Observer article from 2005 (Ref 13). 'Extending the frame' in photography is the idea that the 'story' extends beyond the scene that's actually visible. Schwabsky (Ref 21) talks about the boy's head being cut off by the upper edge of the frame, and the theme is clearly visible in a number of his shots. (Vincent (Ref 5) does mention that "both men (Newton and Lee) think outside the frame", but I suspect the meaning there is a little different!) I don't know what you mean by 'a single boxer'; the photograph in question, which is re-printed in the Sunday Times article (Ref 2), as well as in the exhibition guidebook from 2005 - where it's clearly labelled Viva/Boxing 1977 - clearly shows the girl in the ring addressing the beaten boxer only. I leave it other members of the community to decide whether 'cajoling' and 'chastising' are all that different in the context of that particular photograph..!

The Kingdom commercial details were relayed to me by a lecturer at my university (which was involved with working on archiving Lee's works ahead of an exhibition). I included a source for the Saudi prince making the comments, but I'm hoping that somebody else will know of a source for the rest of the details. All articles on wikipedia are intended to be work-in-progress, and I'm hoping that many more contributors will come forward with new details and sources of information. (Beware though: The name "Jim Lee" is an absolute nightmare to search for..!)

Stevejohnson82 (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SJ82: I'm completely mystified by both the type and the tone of some of this criticism. Oh that's just because of my evil nature. -- Hoary (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And another
We're told:


 * In 1999, he was commissioned to produce a sixty second commercial for Kingdom Holding Company controlled by Prince Al Waleed bin Talal, nephew of the Saudi Arabian King Abdullah. The production involved the use of over 50 helicopters for a 18 week reconnaissance and shoot at multiple locations around the world, followed by a massive three months in post-production. Costing over £4m to make, making it one of the most expensive to date, it was withdrawn without ever being aired due, in part, to comments made by the Prince over the September 11 attacks.

The source:
 * Savidge, Martin. "Giuliani rejects $10 million from Saudi prince", CNN.com, 12 October 2001. Retrieved on 21 June 2010

Except that the source doesn't mention any of this, aside from the prince's comments. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Response included in section above. Stevejohnson82 (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)