Has photography been confused lately?...

I was recently "enlightened" by an academic artist who also was a

photographers apprentice for some years. She informed me that photography is

just a representation of something and not the actual image, it could never

be. As simple as it sounds it makes me wonder, does the pursuit of

the "perfect" photo consitute what a photograph really should be? Should we be

more concerned with the actual subject itself and the feeling it conveys and

less with how the photo looks? I am well aware there should be some quality to

understand and clearly see the subject, but these days it seems more of

importance that the picture is perfect and not the object in itself. After all

the image we see will never be the image the photographer saw at the moment in

time...

Edward

 

I came to this same enlightenment during my sophomore year in college. During my History of History class we did a segment on the history and methodology of photography. The first thing that we learned is that the use of photographs as history is conterversial because a photograph is a meer representation of an actual scene or event in the eye of a photographer. So the question was then asked well why do we want more and more acurate cameras? The answer my prof gave was to more acuratley make the image the photographer wants and give him or her more room to crop/edit the image they want by offering a higher resolution.

If you want to discuss angels on pins, you can't really see anything anyway. All you ever see is the light reflected from the surface of something, so you never really see the actual thing itself.

 

In fact, seeing is merely electromagnetic radiation detection. What connection does that have with "reality" anyway?

 

"How a photo looks" *is* the photo. How can one be "more concerned with the actual subject itself" if the subject we are really concerned about is photography?

 

Photographs are all just images created with specific technology. Images are not actual subjects, unless they are the subject of the discussion. As the Zen masters would say, we are confusing the finger pointing with the moon.

 

I'm not sure this will go anywhere important.

"After all the image we see will never be the image the photographer saw at the moment in time..."

 

With all due respect, then in order for your above to work, you'd have to color me blind. Most of the time, the finished image on the screen in front of me, accurately reflects that what I was seeing in my minds eye. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to convey.

<i>I am well aware there should be some quality to understand and clearly see the subject, but these days it seems more of importance that the picture is perfect and not the object in itself. </i><P>

 

I don't think photography is confused (not even sure how photography can be confused), but I think you might be. None of the assumptions in that statement hold up.

Ive made a similar thread that encompasses a similar question. Roger Scruton, a british philospher has written a good essay on the subject of how photography cannot represent. It says we cannot appreciate a photograph like we would a painting, because the painting is a representation of how the artist percieves a person or place, where as a photography is a carbon copy of a angle and a time and that appreciating the photograph is just an appreciation of the subject.

You like a photograph of a ferrari not becuase of the photograph but because you like ferraris.

However there are counter arguements as such, but at the moment i cant remember the guys name.

 

http://d-sites.net/English/scrutonphotography.htm

I wonder if Scruton is familiar with the cigarette butt photos of Irving Penn.

 

Challenged by a critic who said his pictures were so good primarily because he used the best equipment to photograph the most beautiful models, Penn responded by using an ordinary camera to take pictures of cigarette butts he came across lying in the street.

 

The resulting images are absolutely striking.

 

Would Scruton claim that I like Penn's photos of cigarette butts because I like cigarette butts themselves? I don't even smoke!

 

<photography is a carbon copy of a angle and a time and that appreciating the photograph is just an appreciation of the subject>

 

Selecting, from an infinite number of possibilities, just the right angle at just the right time can give meaning to the resulting composition. That, anyway, was HCB's view -- the decisive moment, as it were. It's a view that I share.

"She informed me that photography is just a representation of something and not the actual image, it could never be. "

 

I think what she probably meant was "photography is just a representation of something and not the actual thing photographed."

 

But a photograph, even if it is a straight forward representation of some/one/thing/place else, is a thing itself.

 

Photography itself is never confused, but lots of photographers are.

I would suggest that it all depends on your intentions and final purpose for taking the photo in the first place. If your purpose, for instance, is straightforward documentary of fact then the photographer's foremost concern should be capturing an image or series of images that truthfully express that fact. If however it is your intention to portray something in a well arranged, visually appealing manner, with a mind for manipulating the scene to create a desired final outcome, then certainly your main concern would be on "how the photo looks".<br>

It is so simple to change the final meaning of photos. An odd angle or different lighting might turn an innocent, workaday butcher into a maniac with a knife. It all boils down to "What do you as the photographer want to portray?" And that's why questions for canned answers like this one that encompass "everything" are simply impossible to solve.<br>

Also, is this nihilistic nonsense about electromagnetic fields and "never really seeing anything real anyway" useful in any way, or is it an invitation to perpetual philosophical debate on the nature of perceived reality? Hokum.<br>

Edward, good luck in your quest.

There is no such thing as an "academic artist."

"There is no such thing as an "academic artist."

 

You should add "in my opinion", because that's all it is.

This is not exactly plowing new ground.<div></div>

Denying the validity of "academic artist" is closer to the truth than accepting that "artist" and "academic" are commonly related.

 

"Artists" seek things that are impossible, and the struggle makes magic if we're lucky. Academics seek tenure.

JDM ....."This is not exactly plowing new ground."

 

I agree.

 

john kelly......""Artists" seek things that are impossible, and the struggle makes magic if

we're lucky. Academics seek tenure."

 

Please explain this complicated passage in words of one syllable for me.

Jennifer: no.

And to think that people pay out big bucks to go to college and study under "academic artists" -- all in order to learn that a photograph is not the object being photographed.

 

Just think; we all could have gone to our graves without knowing that.

I've known some professors who I would consider artists at academics. (True, it's a bit of

turning a phrase, but it has some validity.) Have attended some extremely expressive,

altering, and creative lectures.

 

Some "artists" have more concern with gaining tenure in the art world and recognition by

museum curators than with seeking magic.

JDM, surely you know the response to that?<div></div>

My head hurts.

Fred, you're right.

 

It all boils down to how one uses the quotation marks.

John-- Thanks, it's amazing what a little punctuation can accomplish!

"The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion."

G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)

I thank you all for your comments, although at times the subject was not addressed. However, I still thank you and appreciate your contribution to the answer of my question. I should hope in the future I would be more clear on the questions I may ask to avoid confusion, and will take more time to think about what I will write before I post it...

Some people are audiophiles - they invest thousands in audio equipment that suppoesedly perfectly reproduces every single minute details of the recording. The feeling and emotion of the music seems secondary to reproductive quality of the audiophiles's equipment. Most of the audiophiles I know are single men who are wrapped up in themselves and don't really go out much or communicate with other people, other than on forums where all the finer details of an amplifier or a speaker are discussed. They don't seem to have room in their lives for the more boring things in life like relationships and drinking down the pub. They are technogeeks. If I were to ask one about the lyrics in a PJ Harvey or Bjork or NIN or Queens Of The Stone Age song, they wouldn't have a clue, but they would be able to tell me all about the latest audio set up CD they had and how it really works the bass cones and pushes the tweeters. But then there are those of us who love our music - we like it played on a reasonable bit of audio equipment so it sounds good enough to enjoy and feel and can shake the car to bits when turned up loud, but don't care so much about whether the frequency response is perfect, or that there might be 0.1% THD instead of 0.05%THD or whatever. We want to enjoy the music and that's it. I think most audiophiles probably have small organs!

 

The same is probably true in photography - there are those who are desperate that every minute detail be perfect, and seem less interested in feelings project by photographs. And those for whom subject matter is the important part of an image. If a perfect blemish spot free picture with perfect spot on balance of tones doesn't say something - anything however small - then what is the point of it having been taken other than to show its perfectness?

"Should we be more concerned with the actual subject itself and the feeling it conveys and less with how the photo looks?"

 

It sounds like "how the photo looks" means "photographic quality" to you. Is that right?

 

If there is a lack of conventional photographic quality, it will leap out at viewers. In film this is considered a "production value." With inadequate production values the content and intentions of the film are damaged for most viewers because they've become sophisticated about these things, thanks to television.

 

"feelings" of the viewer count for more than what a photographer imagines he's produced.