When is photography no longer photography?

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If that's PN's opinion then eliminate the Philosophy forum as PN would deny there is reason to have one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One can only conclude that your view of photography is that it's only about digital vs film. This forum isn't going anywhere. You are free to post on other forums here where digital vs film is not specifically excluded, which is clear in the guidelines for this forum.</p>

[jtk]

<p>"Photography" is only a word when it's taken out of context. It is not even a concept, all by itself.</p>

<p>Words have less power, mean less, in their definition than they do in their contexts.</p>

[riz]

<p>Well I am <strong>The Purist</strong> and <strong>The Moderate</strong>.</p>

<p>Hurray, I invented new a term <strong><em>"Artography/Artographer"</em></strong>! :)</p>

[trisha jean-angela]

<p>I think if the image is initially created using a camera, then it is a photograph. Yes, it may be altered digitally, but it is a photograph. One would not question the validity of a painting as a painting if it were created using paint, right? At least I wouldn't. Even if one were to put paint on themselves and have a roll around on a huge canvas, it is still a painting regardless of how the paint were applied. Hmmm...sounds like a good idea, maybe I'll give it a try on one of these hot summer days... :)</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"One can only conclude that your view of photography is that it's only about digital vs film."</p>

<p>Jeff, how do you come to that conclusion? I mean this is not a digital vs film thread unless you've made it one now. That's happened before in this forum and others. Why do you reduce these discussions to film vs digital? What's in it for you to do so?</p>

<p>"Don, it what ways is this question significant to you, to your photography, or to photography today?"</p>

<p>Fred, it is interesting philosophically. It relates to my photography because, ideally I want my response to the stimulus to occur without lag; the taking rather than pre or post is where I'm most involved in photography. My interest is in the power of the subject (meaning what is in the vf), it's dominance in the taking. I see some other ways of photography as efforts to control, dominate, subjugate, tame, domesticate the subject, even if it means doing so in an image editor or in the darkroom, pre and post become a form of waterboarding the subject until it complies with the artists wishes.</p>

<p>It is significant to photography today because photographers, painters, critics, philosophers write and act on it. </p>

<p>Gerhardt Richter says that painting can produce photographic description. He paints photographs and then photographs the painting of the photograph, for example. Some of his paintings look more like photographs than some photographs do.</p>

<p>http://www.gerhard-richter.com/exhibitions/detail.php?exID=573&show_per_page=32&page_selected=1&paintID=5554</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Maybe a somewhat party-pooper way of looking at it, but how does all this matter? Call it graphic, a photo, light-painting or a print of a digitally manipulated recorded image on a light-sensitive material... does it change what it is?<br>

Suppose I take a photo of a fence up close, and it only shows a few lines, without any context; many people will not see it as a photo either, but as something purely graphical. Not a bit of touchup work done, and still some people will not see it as a photo because in their mind, photography "represents reality", and just a few lines is not real (enough).<br>

In my view, what you try to do is just glue labels on things - why? Does a work change for you substantially when you know it is heavily photoshopped? Does a musical recording change when you know each song is a mix of 25 different recorded sessions?</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Trisha Jean-Angela -- <br>

By your statement, "I think if the image is initially created using a camera, then it is a photograph.", both of the following are photographs.</p>

<p>Personally, and the reason I started this thread, I believe that the top image is a photograph and the bottom image is digital art. Now, I assure you that the top image is a photograph...I took it. I also assure you that the bottom image is the same photograph digitally altered to resemble a watercolor painting. In doing this I have created, from my photograph, a piece of digital art. To use the term coined by Rizwan Abbasi, I created an Artograph.</p>

<p>RS</p><div></div>

[riz]

<p>Excellent ending Richard. You and I are from the same school of thought. Keep up the good work and be firm on your stance on the 'real' thing.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Rizwan, </strong>Moderate and Purist you may be, but you did not invent "Artography". I just Googled it, and there were <em><strong>Thirty-thousand </strong></em>results.<br>

<em> </em><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm with Wouter on this one. </p>

<p>Don, I don't see how the question of when we start or stop calling "it" a photograph would relate to the fact that you want your response to occur without a lag. If you refer to someone else's work as "waterboarding," does that somehow affect philosophically how you will think about or approach your own subjects and photographs? </p>

<p>Between "response to the stimulus [occurring] without a lag" and "watereboarding the subject until it complies with the artist's wishes" there is much substantive gray area. Pondering the cut-off points at either extreme seems like a theoretical and academic exercise. I don't get the connection to either philosophy or photographs.</p>

[riz]

<p>Hello Luis. Google with <em><strong>"meaning of artography"</strong></em> and you won't find anything :)</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>What the photograph describes is *not* a forest or a paper forest or anything else; it photographically describes what was in front of the lens. -Don</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well yes, and what was in front of the lens was a paper leaved forest made out of 270.000 leaves. A refinement perhaps : the <em>camera</em> photographically describes what was in front of the lens, which indeed isn't about*this* or *that* but <em>just is</em>, light being reflected. The photograph however ( I suspect to most viewers ) <em>does </em>render, translate and communicate this photographic description into something different, something like <a href="http://www.vvork.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/Clearing.jpg">*forest with the sun's light shining through it*</a>, like if the photographer actually was standing in a forest.<br /> ----------------</p>

<blockquote>

<p>in what ways is this question significant to you, to your photography, or to photography today?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>To me</em> what the OT question ultimately and significantly touches upon has to do with the validity of our perception, more so than our perception of what is or isn't to be considered a valid <em>photograph. </em>Whether or not it's digitally / historically manipulated isn't really the point.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Hello <strong>Rizwan. </strong>"Hello Luis. Google with <em><strong>"meaning of artography"</strong></em> and you won't find anything :)"</p>

<p> Are you trying to tell me it's meaningless?</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Let's clarify this misconception one more time. Adams used the word "visualization" for the process of seeing the final print in his mind prior to making the exposure. Minor White, in his book, "The Zone System Manual," used the word "previsualization."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Visualisation is pre already so the pre- is superfluous.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"The photograph however ( I suspect to most viewers ) <em>does </em>render, translate and communicate this photographic description into something different, something like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vvork.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/Clearing.jpg" target="_blank">*forest with the sun's light shining through it*</a>, like if the photographer actually was standing in a forest."</p>

<p>The photographer cannot control viewers' responses -- or, given specific circumstances subject, time, place, the photographer can play to a statistically or psychologically predictable response in viewers, but that runs the risk of, due to changed circumstances, the photograph being considered kitsch by viewers rather than the cutting edge of art the photographer might have thought he occupied...and perhaps did, for awhile.</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>@Rizwan - Re: "artograph". I absolutely love the term (in the way that you meant it) and will probably test it by occasionally dropping it into casual conversation and see how "ordinary folk" (ie, non-photographers) react. </p>

<p>However, FWIW, when you Google the term, 99% of the hits seem to apply to a company that makes various projector-like devices, light boxes, etc: http://www.artograph.com/ . I have absolutely no idea if they will love or hate the term being used to describe a modified photograph. If the term catches on, it will undoubtedly drive viewers to their website and give them more publicity. However, they may say that it dilutes their product branding or some such gobbledygook.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Richard Snow - "</strong> In doing this I have created, from my photograph, a piece of digital art. To use the term coined by Rizwan Abbasi, I created an Artograph."</p>

<p> Created a piece of digital art? If the first picture wasn't art, what makes you think the second one would be after pushing a button? I'd say, in spite of what the software claims, that it's more of a well-flogged cliche' than anything else, let alone "instant art".</p>

<p>_________________________________________</p>

<p> On previsualization: Even AA changed his interpretations of many of his classic prints over time. Previsualization isn't cast in stone. The photographer can reinterpret his original negatives (or files). In the book <em>The Print</em>, AA makes it clear that carrying the idea through to the print is, in his own words, "very difficult". By this he means the many compromises (and dodging and burning) that go along with the process.</p>

<p>____________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Don - "</strong> It relates to my photography because, ideally I want my response to the stimulus to occur without lag; the taking rather than pre or post is where I'm most involved in photography."</p>

<p> Don, I want to make sure I understand you here. Do you mean lessening total neural lag by working more intuitively? Lag is very important in fluid situations because chaos increases exponentially in a system across time, so even what looks like a small increase places considerable burdens on one's predictive abilities (and remains by far the most significant reason to own and use Leicas).</p>

<p><strong>Don - </strong>" I see some other ways of photography as efforts to control, dominate, subjugate, tame, domesticate the subject, even if it means doing so in an image editor or in the darkroom, pre and post become a form of waterboarding the subject until it complies with the artists wishes."</p>

<p>By choosing where to stand, what to point the camera at, and when to release the shutter, all of us control what the camera will describe, and if you include other choices, how it is described as well, but there is a yawning gulf between that and "dominate, subjugate and tame" <em>Waterboarding the subject until it complies with the artist's wishes? </em>Heady and heavy stuff...</p>

<p> As Winogrand said, the photograph is not what was photographed, it is a new fact. BTW, I find Richter's work and writing fascinating.</p>

<p>___________________________</p>

<p> <strong>Wouter, </strong>we're basically in agreement operationally, though I am also in agreement with Don in terms of theoretical, historical, and philosophical importance. Which puts me in alignment with Fred. When I'm working, there's no internal dialogue in my head, so none of this enters my mind. Does this play a part in my photography? A slight one, mostly after the fact.</p>

<p>___________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[richardsnow]

<p>I'm with Tom Mann...I love the term "artograph" If nothing else comes from this thread, I have a fun term to try throwing around.</p>

<p>Now, to try to get this thread back on track, please use my most recent post on this thread with the photo and "artograph" of the table with flowers and guest book attached as a point of reference.</p>

<p>I will rephrase my question to clarify why I put this topic in Philosophy of Photography</p>

<p>In your <em>philosophical</em> approach to photography, is there a point where your manipulation of an image goes<em><strong> beyond</strong></em> the very blurred line of "<em>when is an image manipulated to the point that it should no longer be considered a photograph?" </em>and, without question, is an artistic interpretation of a photograph?</p>

<p><em>This, again, has nothing to do with manipulation in terms of color, density, processing/cross-processing, cropping, compositing, or any of the hundreds of minor corrections done to "fix", "adjust", or "correct" an image. This also has very little to do with post processing to make an image fit your "style" as many wedding photographers do. </em><br>

<strong><em>This refers to manipulating an image to the point that it no longer resembles a photograph.</em></strong></p>

<p>Another way to ask this question, in non-digital terms, is:<br>

Is a painting of a photograph still a photograph? Or is it a painting?<br>

By many people's remarks on this thread, the painting was initially captured as a photograph, therefore the painting is still a photograph. Or perhaps I'm mistaken?</p>

 

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Is <a href="http://www.uelsmann.com/">this </a>a photograph? Was made using film and totally produced in a darkroom. What about <a href="http://www.edelmangallery.com/witkin63.htm">this</a>? Again, done on film and produced in a darkroom. Uelsmann uses mutiple printing techniques while Joel...well, he may have cut, pasted, rephotographed and then ultimately altered the final image in the darkroom during the printing process to arrive at the final image. Both of these gentlemen have their places firmly carved out in the on-going history of photography</p>

<p>My problem with these types of discussions is that, as Jeff has pointed out, it always comes down to digital versus film based photography with little to none historical context. If you're complaining about digital manipulations, then can you accept the history of photography where manipulations were done that are every bit as severe as computer manipulations? I will pose the question again, what do you call the photographs made from composites or multiple printing? Within the history of photography, they are recognized as being a photograph.</p>

<p>The discussion always seems to revolve around the singular image (1 exposure = 1 photograph) with little to no darkroom or lightroom work. My question to that is why? The history of photography does not support that singular interpretation of what constitutes a photograph.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Don,<br /> To me it's not whether or not the photograph is kitsch or on the cutting edge of art. It's about the fact that photographic manipulation isn't limited to the photograph as in " when it no longer describes what was in the scene at the taking " ( I understand what you mean and from your viewpoint I do agree with it ). But when or when not a photograph is a photograph that tells a *photographic truth* can't be defined in terms of that only. Sometimes the manipulation starts with that which is photographed, that which <em>is</em> the scene. The <em>no longer describing</em> in the definition surely has to do with the validity of our perception, that what we believe to be true ( upon viewing the photograph ). If it doesn't than the <em>Clearing</em> photograph wouldn't be a photograph, even though the photograph is a "straight photograph", and, even though the photographer wants his audience to know that the scene is made out of paper, a copy of reality.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>Fred: Don, I don't see how the question of when we start or stop calling "it" a photograph would relate to the fact that you want your response to occur without a lag.</p>

<p>Is the question you refer to the thread title: when is photography no longer photography? I think we need to back up and ask 'what is a photograph?' because that is what must be determined before we can call something photography or not. Do you agree?</p>

<p>My reasoning is that it is a photograph if it photographically describes what was in the scene at the taking. For some kinds of photography the lag between seeing and taking doesn't exist except at shutter-speed. For other kinds, the lag can be significant to the point that what was seen and what was photographed are not the same or even close. In that event it is still a photograph no matter the photographer had no intention of taking it. </p>

<p>I wrote "ideally I want my response to the stimulus to occur without lag". Surely, you recognize that as my wanting control.</p>

<p>In "The Ground Beneath Her Feet" thread, I wrote:</p>

<p>The problem of photography is its descriptive power -- the power to make anyone feel 'if I had been there to see that myself, that's what I would have seen'. There's the magic. Simple, naive, childlike, and inescapable. I think all photographers attempt to overcome that, including (and may be especially) the artists of "straight photography".</p>

<p>I attempt to overcome it, too, even if I deny it. In the other thread, we were discussing hunting, stalking, violating. I add "waterboarding". How is it different from Sontag's sense of violation?</p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

<p>Luis, is my above reply to Fred responsive to your questions?</p>

 

[richardsnow]

<p>

<p>@Luis G - I'm not claiming that pushing a button in a computer program is making "art." In setting the table the way I wanted it, setting my camera where I wanted it and how I wanted it, and releasing the shutter when I felt everything was proper, I created a photograph, which could be interpreted as a piece of art.</p>

<p>When I went into Photoshop and applied the "Watercolor" filter to the image, my photograph, in my mind, ceased to be a photograph. I would use the terms "Digital Art" "Digital Image" to describe the resulting image.<br>

To make this even more confusing, I could describe the photograph, in it's original state, as both a digital image and digital art in addition to a digital photograph.</p>

</p>

<p>@ Steve Swinehart - Both images you pointed me to are, in fact, photographs. Again, I am not referring to compositing, which you seem to want to keep bringing up. I know we cross posted, so please read my last post.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Don - "</strong>Luis, is my above reply to Fred responsive to your questions?"</p>

<p> Yes, thanks.</p>

<p>_____________________________</p>

<p> <strong>Richard, </strong>the 2nd photo is a photograph filtered. Back in the film era, there were a huge number of filters a photograph taken through a starburst filter was still a photograph.</p>

<p>____________________________</p>

<p> It's interesting to see a few attempt to hijack the language and redefine the medium, the only reason being invalidating that which is (obviously) not to their liking to 2nd-rate status while what <em>they </em>do becomes the supreme and most legitimate form of "photography". Yawn. <em>Where </em>have we seen that line of thinking before? </p>

<p>Looks like linguistic F-a-s-c-i-s-m to me.</p>

<p>[This is not to cast any aspersions on the original question, only the hijacking of the language.]</p>

<p>____________________________</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"He who likes may snip definitions in his old age." --Arthur Bentley</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I first read that quote by Bentley many years ago (in conjunction with his critique of political philosophy and his advancement of behavioral political science), I hated it very much. I still hate it.</p>

<p>It is nonetheless worth noting that this thread is mostly about snipping definitions, since many of the participants are still trying to define what is a "true" photo as opposed to something else. (Defining "photography," that is, still presuppose a definition of "photograph.") If that question were being applied to the practical question of what is eligible for posting on Photo.net, then I could see some utility in trying to come up with a standard definition.</p>

<p>Otherwise, it would seem that any definition offered is largely arbitrary, simply a matter of trying to establish this or that convention. It is hard to see how any consensus could ever be agreed upon. This thread could go on forever or until the participants died, although even then another generation might be willing to pick up the torch and keep carrying it until. . . what?</p>

<p>In any case, I am assuming the logical priority of defining "photograph" before trying to define "photography." Others seem to be coming at it from the opposite direction.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>