Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration

#11

Post by chicob »

aethertap wrote: post #9
Leszek wrote: post #2

I there any reason to prefer these illustrations over photos, other than "charm"? Something like not recording things that weren't the centre of attention?

I've been learning how to sketch recently (not for courtrooms, just for fun), but something I noticed in the process might be relevant. When you're sketching, you have to make choices about what's important and what to leave out. That means you have to study the scene pretty closely and pick what to represent. If courtroom sketching works like that, then I could see how having a skilled observer picking out important…

This is a bit like scientific illustration, where one has to portrait an archetype representing a whole species, in the form on a perfect individual that has all the important characteristics but doesn't exist and was never directly observed by the artist.

Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration

#13

Post by d_e_solomon »

m1el wrote: post #12

Is there a reason an illustration is allowed and a photograph isn't? Why would you prefer a version of events warped through an artist's mind and hand OVER an exact picture?

I would say that a picture isn't an exact replica either. The photographer chooses what to photograph at what time and with specific framing and with a particular set of features on the camera. A photographer makes choices just like an illustrator does. So a photographer is still warping a version of events through their mind as well.

One photograph of a person crying or upset could be used to represent then entirety of a trial. Imagine if that one moment is published in a newspaper. The person would be immediately assumed guilty in the court of public opinion.

Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration

#14

Post by moduspol »

Leszek wrote: post #6
throwaway2048 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many courtrooms do not allow photography

Well indeed, I suppose I should have also said "aside from photography being disallowed". Perhaps to phrase another way, why could anyone be against the reintroduction of photography into courtrooms?

I could easily see it being perceived as distracting and leading to different behavior than is explicitly necessary for justice.

Like pauses until camera flashes stop, lawyers grandstanding more, consciously planning grandiose gestures for the purpose of having the picture taken and shared, etc.

Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration

#15

Post by sametmax »

m1el wrote: post #12

Is there a reason an illustration is allowed and a photograph isn't? Why would you prefer a version of events warped through an artist's mind and hand OVER an exact picture?

Because one feels imaginary, while the other one feels real. If you see a drawing of an event, it doesn't have nearly the same impact as a picture of it.

Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration

#16

Post by Brendinooo »

Leszek wrote: post #6
throwaway2048 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many courtrooms do not allow photography

Well indeed, I suppose I should have also said "aside from photography being disallowed". Perhaps to phrase another way, why could anyone be against the reintroduction of photography into courtrooms?

Ever been on jury duty for a criminal case?

Most jurors would probably object to having their faces seen in public for concerns of retribution after the trial (and/or influencing during the trial), particularly in the brave new world of facial recognition tech.

Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration

#17

Post by pavel_lishin »

Leszek wrote: post #7
danbolt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While all the sketching seems less efficient, I'd really rather not have courtroom activities be photographed and used in mass media. Or, images have so much power and I'd hate to see them twisted or misused for someone's personal/political gain later.

Sure, but surely sketches can be just as twisted and misused (e.g. drawing a defendant with a menacing snarl), and even more so given that there's no source of real truth.

But people seem to inherently understand that the sketch artist controls what you see, the moment they're showing you. They're less aware that photographers do the same thing - most people treat photographs as "objective truth".

Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration

#19

Post by Finnucane »

m1el wrote: post #12

Is there a reason an illustration is allowed and a photograph isn't? Why would you prefer a version of events warped through an artist's mind and hand OVER an exact picture?

The article states that cameras were allowed in the US until the Lindbergh trial, which was the 'trial of the century' of that year. It was a zoo in the courtroom, so the Bar barred cameras. But now, with digital cameras that can operate quietly without a flash in ordinary indoor light, that objection would seem obsolete.
Post reply on HN