Talk:Ossie Davis/Archives/2013

Not one of the "first," but notable for post-civil rights era

I'm not sure how best to phrase it, but Peebles and Davis were not really among the "first" African American directors... consider Oscar Micheaux. However, they can still be cited as pioneers in the era following the Civil Rights movement of the Sixties. It was a time when Black American popular culture was clearly redefining itself. So a bit of this kind of context might better establish his significance/notability. zadignose 08:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Van Vechten image

whereas i might be persuaded by the argument that a more recent image might carry more weight, in this case it does not. the famous, historic image by the photographer carl van vechten from the archives of the library of congress is far more significant....artistically and stylistically and every other way than what is offered in the very well intentioned, non-professional snapshot. --emerson7 | Talk 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the image famous or historic? And in any case, the article isn't about the image; It's about Davis. A more recent photo showing Davis' most recent appearance, prior to his death, is far more appropriate than one taken 56 years ago when he was a young man. Nightscream 17:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

both the famous and historic question is pretty much settled given its inclusion in the loc archives. van vechten is the ansel adams of celebrity photography. --emerson7 | Talk 15:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What are the loc archives? Can you elaborate on this? Also, you didn't answer my previous point: The article is on Davis, not Van Vechten. The criteria for the best accompanying image has nothing to do with the notability of the photographer. One of the criteria I have seen used in selecting accompanying photos elsewhere on WP is that it should be one that accurately reflects their current appearance, or in the case of someone deceased, what their last public appearance was. Choosing one that's 56 years old as opposed to one that's a few years old is does not accurately represent how most of the public more recently remembers him. Nightscream 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to state my opinion, so here goes. LOC means Library of Congress--the archive is for photos they deem historically important. You're right that the fame of the photographer is not of primary importance, but it can be. Take for instance Alice Liddell. The photos by Lewis Carrol are the most important because she is known for her work with him (and being Alice) so that should be the lead. For Ossie Davis the question should be--what is he famous for? If he's famous for being an actor when he was young then the black and white picture should be used. If he is more famous for old-age work then the other should be used. We are trying to represent why someone is famous and represent the encyclopedic parts of their life. So, there is no good/bad on old/young. For someone like Ronald Reagan you want an old picture of him as president. But, Alice Liddell, for example, is famous for being young so the lead should be of her young. We should use that logic here too. I am not sure why this guy is famous so, we should use what he is more famous for... and if they are equal then I'd use things like fame of the photographer, composition, etc. gren グレン 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument that those who are remembered in the public mind primarily for how they looked at an earlier point in their lives because should have photos from that period as the primary accompanying photo is sound, but only for people whose fame, like Alice, is derived from that isolated period. This is not the case with Ossie Davis, who is not "more" famous for his work in his youth or in his old age. He is famous for his entire continuous career, and when people think of him now, they will think of the older man, because he continued to work and appear in tv/film right up until he died. If he fell out of the public eye 56 years ago, then that older photo would be more appropriate. But that is not the case. He produced work that was released right into 2005, the year he died, including work in Spike Lee movies, The L Word, and other prominent things for which his image would be present in the public mind. Nightscream 06:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All I can contribute to the conversation is this: The Van Vechten image is more aesthetic, and results in a superior article. If I was an editor of a print encyclopedia, I'd ignore the (impossible to resolve) question of what is the more "relevant" phase of a man's life, the begining of his career or the end? In the absence of a compelling argument in favor of a change, in the absence of any evidence to suggest that one image is more representitive of the public perception, I'd say "let's go with the better picture." And that's the Van Vechten image. I say this without regard to, or awareness of the photographer's reputation. He simply produced a great photo.zadignose 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)