Designating photographic intent and content

[beeman458]

A guy sticks a bicycle wheel on a pedestal and calls it art and somebody's going argue truth in artistic photography?

 

After a while you just want to yell out, "Sit-down!" But we don't/can't as that would be considered impolite. :)

 

Photography has been about manipulation as soon as someone figured out in the beginning you could do this to that and change the image to suit their agenda and now someone's going argue that if it's done in the soup is hoyle and if done in a computer, it's a crime? What about soft-focus lenses used in portrait photography? That's not distorting reality?

 

Well if digital manipulation is a crime, then I swany, lock me up cause after forty plus photographic years, I'm a criminal and this Thanksgiving turkey is done. :)

[andy_laycock]

Same old arguments. Same old arguers. Same old, same old. Wake me when something new pops up :)

[twmeyer]

(are) "<i>we saddled with a greater responsibility for "truth" than any other artist who shares a vision with the tools of his medium?</i>" Why consider such capacity a burden? Painters and others must work so hard to achieve this equanimity with "reality" that they call it "photo-realism", while photographers (here, at least) struggle to throw off the yoke. <p>I guess the grass is always greener, as I fequently find myself striving to overcome this tendancy to the literal portrayal, which photography is so well suited to provide. <p>I envy the abstract expressionists, and was enthralled by Charlie Rose's interview with Brice Marden the other day... I may become a student of oil, minerals and linen... t<div></div>

[pico_digoliardi]

<b>Jeff</b> <i> this photo meets the "Trust Image" creed, </i><p>

Is the street material really brilliant blue?

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>and my wife may someday dye her hair blonde (doubtful) and so I remain open. </i><p>

My ex had brilliant blond hair. But she was also a US Federal Special Agent, a particularly chauvinistic institution. She dyed her hair brown. She called the dye <b>Artificial Intelligence</b>.

[twmeyer]

"<i>what can seem disconcerting... is (when) an image is using the syntax of a certain kind of photography ... one that can be trusted in certain ways ... but then contains elements that are jarring --that don't seem trustworthy in those same ways. We wouldn't experience this looking at something that we know to be a collage or a montage or a composited image, because we immediately know to expect a different set of conventions.<p> But when we read something at first glance as a "straight" photograph ... one that belongs to a certain tradition with certain rules, and then at second glance we see something that breaks that tradition and those rules, it can be jarring. The image stops working in the way we expected it to work ... so suddenly the burden is on the image to start working in some different way.</i>"<p> by Paulr, who (ironically) bills himself as the "Abuser Of God's Light". <p>Exactly so, I say. Invoking the signifiers and language (syntax) of a certain tradition, and then deviating from the precepts that <i>define</i> that tradition produce work that is either devious, or satirical. And it therefore behooves us to be astute observers and skeptics (are we not photographers?)... t <p> thanks, David S, for that link, I will pursue it further.

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>Thomas Gardner , nov 24, 2006; 09:49 a.m.

A guy sticks a bicycle wheel on a pedestal and calls it art and somebody's going argue truth in artistic photography? </i><p>

First, let's clarify what that was all about. You are refering to Marcel Duchamp's Ready Mades and that period. He was intentionally mocking 'modern art' as it were. He placed that piece and the urinal in a show as a comment and protest against non-judged, uncritical, thoughtless invitational shows. They didn't get it. He eventually left art making.<p>

[twmeyer]

and after that comment (on images that are obiously fantasy photography not documentary} a guy named Paddy (love those LF guys) says "the burden is also on the viewer to give up their tightly held and perhaps cherished assumptions". <p>Everything is not as we wish it to be. So what? We can either adapt or get mad. I like adapting as it has the potential of providing something new. Mad is no fun... t

[znabal]

Can't help myself.

 

Ilkka Nissila Nov 24, 2006; 12:52 a.m. typed:

"The difference is that reality can be observed and verified by several observers and instrumentation."

 

Above is the key. Yes "reality" can be observed (from different observation points) and can be "measured" (with different instruments, at different measurement points). Reality is relative. The man throwing the ball up on a train example comes to mind. How "far" the ball travel depends on if the observer is on the train, or is on the platform watching the train go by.

 

So my point, physics is relative, physics is light, and photography is light, therefore photography is relative (but not always relevant:)

 

jeffl

 

ps. and if I'm colorblind what happens to my photographic reality?

[Spearhead]

<i>Is the street material really brilliant blue?</i><p>

 

Probably not, but this is exactly what the film recorded. It looks like this in a darkroom print and in a scan. There was no manipulation.<p>

 

That is what a choice of film (Ultra 50, in this case) can do.

[Spearhead]

<i>Same old arguments.</i><p>

 

Not really, Ascribing tool use to psychological problems was certainly a new one. Moved it from "same old" to "truly bizarre."

[twmeyer]

Thanks for pointing out that mis-direct, Pico.<p> "<i>A guy sticks a bicycle wheel on a pedestal and calls it art</i>" Which is an classic example of deviating from the precepts that define a tradition in order to produce work that is either devious, or <b>satirical</b>. Marcel went satirical. Jeff Koons went devious... t <p>(I like that ball story, Jeff. Reminded me of a lesson I received from the Dali Lama, Tenzin Gyatso)

[david_senesac]

The following pro/con debating posts were cut and pasted from this other thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=15729&page=4

 

It goes to the heart of my point above that some will submit a premise arguing all photography is a lie in order to follow with the essential conclusion that anything goes ought to be ok while here the articulate responder effectively reduces the validity of such an overgeneralized point. Of course please read on more in this thread as one would need to read through the earlier posts to that thread to understand the context of these excerpts. ...David

 

==========================================

 

Kirk Gittings >>>

I fail to see how any photograph, analogue or digital, is anything but a manipulation of reality if by nothing else simply the framing/selection process. B&W is by nature an abstraction. Saturated color films exagerate color.

After all, even unfiltered Panchromatic films alter normal tonal relationships, because they are not truly panchromatic. They manipulate normal tonal relationships. But by some peoples arguments, if I use a light yellow filter to more "realistically" portray grey tones, I am not manipulating, but if I use a red filter I am manipulating? It is all some form of manipulation.

Some aesthetic philosophies and methods simply strive to hide the manipulation.

Photography is an art form that always utilizes some manipulation. It is inherent in our materials. It is a continuum from imperceptible to obvious but it is always present.

We should celebrate the controls that we have, because they give us artistic tools and license.

============================================

 

paulr >>>

"(quoting) I fail to see how any photograph, analogue or digital, is anything but a manipulation of reality if by nothing else simply the framing/selection process. B&W is by nature an abstraction. Saturated color films exagerate color."

 

There are differences in HOW different mediums manipulate reality. A photograph that we traditionally consider unmanipulated does alter reality in a number of ways. But there are certain key ways in which it doesn't alter reality. Its the combined effect of the ways it alters the world and the ways it doesn't that we think of as a "phtographic" depiction.

This is part of what I posted to the original thread:

Photography introduced a way of seeing that is in some ways distinct from other art media. Semiologists have refered to it as "indexical," meaning that the image is in some way created by that which it depicts. The indexical quality introduces an element of objectivity into photographic seeing--which is not the same thing as saying a photograph is objective. A photograph does, however, in its purest forms (I was hoping to avoid the P word ... really) have a relationship to the subject that is fundamentally different from what a painting has.

In "straight" photographs, all of the deviations from objectivity, whether contibuted by the process (the optics, the format, the spectral sensitivity of the materials, etc. etc.), or by the artist (cropping, adjusting exposure and contrast, selective lightening and darkening, etc. etc.) change the way the image looks, but do not alter the indexical nature of the image.

In the images that we tend to think of as manipulated, the indexical nature is typically altered. An element will be added, moved, or removed. A scene that fundamentally never existed in front of the camera will be depicted.

I'm not addressing any claims of heirarchy. But i am suggesting that claims like "all photography lies, so there's no such thing as purity" might be every bit as naiive as believing that photography always tells the truth...

============================================

 

Kirk Gittings >>> "(quoting) A photograph does, however, in its purest forms (I was hoping to avoid the P word ... really) have a relationship to the subject that is fundamentally different from what a painting has."

 

...This is true and this is what gives photography its unique power, but that does not negate the fact that all photography does lie to some extent. That is not naive. It is undeniably obvious. It is naive to believe otherwise. Some photographers adocate an aesthetic which denies this but that is simply marketing to an audience who basically distrusts ART and ARTISTS. These photographers simply hide behind the veil of truth because they lack the self worth to simply own the fact that their work is their creation, their personal point-of-view of reality, absolutely devoid of objectivity...

 

============================================

 

paulr >>>

"(quote)This is true and this is what gives photography its unique power, but that does not negate the fact that all photography does lie to some extent."

 

It's the "to some extent" part that needs to be examined before the statement can be seen as useful or not. As a parallel, all maps lie to some extent: they all make omissions, they all distort, and they can never be up to date. But we don't consider them fundamentally wrong if the information fundamental to their primary purpose--getting us from here to there--is correct. Is the map really "lying" if the scale is off by half a percent, if all the trees along the route are not marked, if this section of road is marked as unpaved even though it's paved?

It's a slippery slope if if we call everything that isn't 100% accurate a lie. We would have to accuse every form of representation of lying, and as jj points out, every form of perception. While you can make a case for this, I don't know what purpose it serves, because it suggests all lies are equal. Which we intuitively know not to be the case...

 

[twmeyer]

just what I hoped to get from this offering. I will be reading this thread for a while. <p>I am particularly interested in the "indexical" description of photography that David Senesac mentions. Recognizing that artwork may be created (to some degree) by that which it depicts, fits into my approach to and affinity for portraiture, a genre of photography plagued by the extreme attitudes that circulate around these topics. Thanks again, David... t

[jason51664876150]

Perhaps to truly get a grip on the question we need to consider how the final piece is to be used. Should an artist working on a photo in an advertisement be required to proclaim he has altered the image? Or the retoucher working for Playboy? How about the editorial photographer working for National Geographic? (Remember the stink emitted from the staged image of the cheetah and baboon squaring off?) I think when photography, in any form, is intended as art, in any form, the sky is the limit. Artist should not be burdened with the task of explaining their work. The art is the end. I imagine most artists know what to call their own art. If someone feels their work is ?created? on the computer only using photography as a base, they probably wouldn?t object to it no longer being referred to as a photograph. For me, the only question I have is whether I am buying a digital print, or a silver gelatin print. My personal preference is for the latter and of realistic content, but not because it is more worthy as art, it is just the medium I am drawn to. But Man Ray?s photograms are not photographs and I?m sure he would agree, and in fact, that?s why he called them rayographs. There is a line as to when we should stop calling a piece ?photography? and start calling it something else, but that line exists in the heads of each artist, and each viewer.

[dickhilker]

"There is a line as to when we should stop calling a piece ?photography? and start calling it something else, but that line exists in the heads of each artist, and each viewer."

 

In our local art guild, the argument raged over what was Photography and what was Digital Art. We finally decided somewhat arbitrarily that if it generally looked like a photograph and wasn't obviously a grossly manipulated image, it was the former. If it was clearly an image created on a computer, even though it originated with a photograph, it was the latter. So far, that definition has worked well in assigning submissions to classes for a juried show.

[twmeyer]

context... what a concept!... t

[thomas_sullivan]

Deep back in the recesses of my mind I have always wondered why photography had to be compared to any other art form. Think about it, all of the other art forms....painting, sculpture, writing, dance, theatre, etc....were born hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. Photography is not an "old" art form. It actually is the newest art form. It is an art form born of the technical revolution. Why has the art world, and the rest of us, felt the need to compare it to any of the older art forms?<br><br>

 

But, then i always ended up thinking, well, who am I to question the entire art world and every gallery and collector out there?

<br><br>

Until, just recently, some one pointed out Brooks Jensen's, of Len's Work, <a href="http://www.brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm#commerce"><u>philosophy about editions and numbering</u></a> of photographic works. Which actually makes sense to me.......for a photographer.

<br><br>

And my own old/latent thoughts about photography, not really being like any other art form, resurfaced again. So, in answer to Tom's proposal above, I don't believe photography should be compared to ANY art form. It is unique, and it's really about time photographers stood their ground and set up the thing the way that photography should be set up. NO RULES. No preconceptions based on any other art form. Just what ever photographer can do, should be done. Photography is still advancing with in itself. Painting started with berry juice.........now we have the most highly technical man made stuff available. Painting started on cave walls, and now is on canvas. Writing has gone from papyrus to computer screens

<br><br>

I say, leave photography to itself. Let it develop the way the photographic artists want it to. No pigeon holing, no restraints, no comparisons to other art forms, just let if be free to advance like only photography can. It's what....150 years old? Painting was still in caves in it's first 150 years...........photography has a long way to go.........don't inhibit it before it even gets out of it's onw little cave.

[h._p.]

"I say, leave photography to itself."

 

That is an extremely sensible remark, Thomas. If we stopped thinking of photography as the poor man's painting, we'd all have much more fun.<div></div>

[twmeyer]

an island? how boring. <p>There's nothing that's less appealing to me as an artist than exhibiting in a gallery with only photography. It seems so one note (honk), as invariably the emphasis shifts completely to the medium (a great way to find out what NOT to do) and away from the content and the actual value of an artistic effort. <p>I like being in exhibitions with sculpture and video and music and painting and other art forms. There's a wider range of input and feedback and the gallery isn't full of camera owners... t<div></div>

[Spearhead]

<i>There's nothing that's less appealing to me as an artist than exhibiting in a gallery with only photography. </i><p>

 

I agree, although there can be enough variation in the photography (if it's a reasonably progressive gallery and not hung up on a limited view of photography.) The <a href="http://rootdivision.org/090906.html">last show I was in</a> was a rock photography show and not only did it have photographs, it had live music, loud live music, which made it a lot more fun. The photography ranged from <a href="http://www.bradelterman.com/">Brad Elterman's</a> documentary work to <a href="http://www.jennylens.com/">Jenny Lens' </a>snapshot aesthetic to <a href="http://www.jimmarshallvault.com/">Jim Marshall's</a> portrait work, which made it more than just one style. Between the music and the variety in the work, it was a <a href="http://www.spirer.com/itsonlyrandr/pages/crowd1.htm">fun experience.</a> And free from all the moaning about what is and isn't photography, or art.

[pico_digoliardi]

I ask those who post pictures to this forum to please explain the pertinence of those pictures.

 

Or don't post them.

[twmeyer]

last one was an example of a contiguous moment. Think of them as photo illustrations for the text... t <p>what's the problem, Pico? is P-net running out of bandwidth, or is it just "bad form, old man, bad form"... ?

[thomas_sullivan]

Leave photography to itself............well, you guys are a little too literal in your interpretation of that statement. I'd a thought that at least in the "philosophy of" it would have been understood without further explanation.

 

I by no means promote viewing, displaying, or anything else of that nature of photography being an island. I have music going almost all the time I'm involved with photography. I go to a museum and when I'm done with the photography exhibits I look at the paintings.........and furniture too.

 

Let's take painting and sculpture. These too are both visual arts. But, it is understood instantly that the rules and building blocks for making a painting is vastly different than for sculpture. Nobody tries to place concepts from one, automatically upon the other.

 

Now, as HP inplied, photography is the bastard son of painting......or is at least treated like that. Why? Because, in my opinion, everyone is comparing the two. Everybody says that photographic elements of design should follow painting concepts. And to a certain degree, this is true.

 

So, painting and photography is not like painting and sculpture. Not different enough. So, photography gets lumped under painting, but..........and here is my point.......it is not allowed to develop on it's own. It looks like a painting, and by God it better act like a painting. that's what everyone thinks of it as.

 

Now, there is a similair relationship in writing. Novels and poems. They are both grouped under writing........but, poetry has been allowed to develop on it's own.

 

this has not, and continues to not be the case with photography. The art world expects photography to follow in suit from paintings.

 

This is what I mean by "leave photography to itself". Just like poetry was allowed to explore it's own boundaries and rules (or lack of).............photography should be allowed to deviate from painting as much as the medium of photography will allow itself to.

 

This does not mean, photo shows only. It does not mean an "island" concept. It just means, poeticially as to novel, photography should be to paintings. Perhaps even more so.

 

On a side note, from the comments made after my last comment........I'd actually like to see more of the shows like Jeff went to. Photographs and Rock music. Could do photo shows based around classical, jazz, alternative, grunge, punk, electronic, etc. That would be great!

[h._p.]

You're quite right, Thomas, in saying that photography is not an island. How could it be? Being, for the most part, representational, it interacts with the real world in a manner that painting or sculpture needn't. I find it interesting, as some photographers move further and further away from straight depictions of the real world, to consider the evolution of the Dutch school, with their breath-taking draftmanship, as they strove towards an unambiguous presentation of their subjects. I sometimes wonder how Vermeer would have considered modern photography; perhaps as a pale reflection of his own 'photo realism'?<div></div>