Quote Originally Posted by Joel Eade View Post

I saw the whole thing more like a psychology experiment to see how ideas pre-planted in someone's head would affect the final product.

Sort of a different way of seeing how we are susceptible to prejudice.
That is what they wanted you to walk away with. It was also a pre-planned deception to push that agenda, and photographers are very susceptible to being trapped by that deception. If any subject had walked into any photographers studio, feed him with bad information, and asked for a portrait the depicts me... that photographer is going to do his best to provide a picture that depicts that person in the way they presented regardless of whether it is a lie or not. You only have a short time with the person to determine the essence of that person, and you make the assumption that the person sitting in front of you is giving you relevant information that matters to them... otherwise, why would they be wasting your short time together explaining the most trivial part of there life. So you assume it is important to them and it is factual.

So now, in this case, you get someone who has an agenda and wants to perform a PSA about prejudicial thoughts. In order to prove his point, he creates a series of falsehoods and deceptions, that any person with any trust in his fellow human-beings is going to fall for hook line and sinker. Did they prove their point, or did they just prey on the good nature of the photographers that were trying to portray the picture that was painted for them?