Exaggeration and Authenticity

[Norma Desmond]

<p>In fairness, Luis, I thought about your statement a little more. And I don't think you were saying that authenticity in an exaggerated photo isn't possible. Your statement is something different. It's about, if I understand correctly, exaggerated <em>authenticity</em> becoming inauthentic. I still don't think this has to be the case.</p>

<p>First of all, exaggeration can take place without intent being there. A beginner can unwittingly use a lens that may exaggerate something, and the exaggeration could be purely accidental and there might be something quite authentic in the results.</p>

<p>Secondly, exaggeration is often used as a tool to help someone to understand. So, for example, when many of the Existentialists talk about authenticity (as opposed to bad faith) they will utilize examples that exaggerate situations (worst-case scenarios, etc.) in order to make their points. I don't think they are being inauthentic when they do that.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>That's what I was thinking, but the example of the unintentional exaggeration does put things into perspective, and exaggeration in myth (or medical illustration) is a good example of the latter.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Unintentional exaggeration is somewhat like saying something humorous without recognsing it and then doubly exaggerating by accepting the applause. I quite like the intentional exaggeration of war and other propaganda, to which writers and photographers applied their slippery pens and viewfinders.</p>

<p>http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/lovehatepropaganda/</p>

<p>Is there food for creative photography there, to make believers of the doubters? Our eyes see in ways already pre-determined by our mind, so I imagine that the tool of visual exaggeration can overlay those visual references and can possibly excite or erase the expected.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p><a href="

faithful.</a></p>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo's link to Jeff Wall is a counterpoint to circular talk about "authenticity" and "exaggeration."</p>

<p>Wall doesn't address mere words, he addresses full ideas and illustrates them with one photo.</p>

<p>Do take a moment with Phylo's link to Jeff Wall.</p>

<p>Wall noticed something interesting, chose not to make the exposure. Later, with that memory, he "faithfully" replicated what he noticed (approximately reconstructed the scene) and made that exposure. <strong>"Faithfully"</strong> not precisely, not authentically, not exaggerated or un-exaggerated... an actual idea.</p>

<p> </p>

[michaellinder]

<p><em>"Exaggerate</em>--to magnify beyond the limits of truth (one definition from dictionary.com)"</p>

<p>As one with a fascination for abstract photography, for me the definition is a wonderful metaphor for this type of work. And, in my opinion, as long as an abstract photograph helps a viewer at least temporarily suspend the usual categories by which he/she experiences the world ("experiences" in the broadest possible sense), then there need not be any questioning of the photographer's authenticity, especially if authenticity somehow correlates with risk.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>That's a really nice point, Michael, about exaggeration allowing us to suspend the usual categories by which we experience the world. Not even necessarily suspend, but alter and realign them as well. The way in which exaggeration is a going beyond is its own transcendence, which has always been important to me when making photographs. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Michael, my impression is that purportedly "abstract" photography is typically the result of attempted total control, and/or is especially interesting to people who don't want the mystery, frights, and surprises that are so common in human subjects. </p>

<p>Although Photoshop allows infinite iterations and manipulations and visual games, it tends to reduce a photograph to a graphic object (unlike an oil painting or serigraph, which have weight and scent) and it doesn't require the commitment that's inherent in most abstract painting. By "commitment" I mean time (a painting might take a year) and materials, not to mention workspace...all of which add up to risk. Risk is very slight in purportedly abstract photography.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p><em>"Risk is very slight in purportedly abstract photography."</em></p>

<p>John, we see things very differently. Abstract photography is as difficult as abstract painting in many ways.</p>

<p>The risk of abstract photography at present is very evident by the fact that few succeed with that approach. There are many less successful abstract photographs as successful landscapes or portraits. I guess the same can be said of abstract painting and sculpture, although artists have made much more headway in those visual media. I see nothing easy with any medium in creating abstract works which are able to hold the attention of the viewer, intellectually or emotionally. </p>

<p>The tool of visual exaggeration (whether in descriptive or abstract photographs) can overlay those visual references and can possibly excite or erase the expected. The authenticity is that of the artist and his approach, as it is not based simply upon a relation to what most consider (believe) the subject to be. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Arthur, risk isn't measured by success, it's measured by success combined with loss. If there is no potential for loss there is no risk...and arguably no potential for reward.</p>

<p>I think very little photography that's labeled "abstract" is at all akin to abstract painting. Holding "the attention of the viewer" has to do with the value of a work, has nothing to do with ease of creation. A digisnap can hold plenty of attention as in my experience can genuine abstraction (as opposed to graphic reduction of "reality" and Photoshop exercises). But I personally find photographic "abstractions" to rarely be more than exercises or decor.</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>A tough question for all the abstract artists in our audience: Which would you prefer? That John Kelly admire and fully comprehend your work? Or that John Kelly not like what you do, that he say that he finds it to "rarely be more than exercises or decor"?</p>

<p>[<em>thirty seconds later</em>]</p>

<p>As the crowd of abstract artists escorts Mr. Kelly to the Exit door to abstract-land, we hear, "Bon Voyage!" "Au Revoir!" "Things just won't be the same without you!" -- crocodile tears streaming from all eyes.</p>

 

[michaellinder]

<p>If Julie's last post was intended as support for those of us who do abstract photographs, I am grateful. If it was intended as support for abstract photography as a legitimate photographic genre, I am even more grateful.</p>

<p>Although John's argument is skillfully advanced, it rests on a false premise. Not all abstract photographs are purely graphic in nature. Every abstract photograph I produce begins with a subject other than colors, lines, shapes, and "special effects". How far I go in "abstracting" from the original is not a linear process; nor is the outcome predictable at the start of the process. </p>

<p>Although I'm not sure on this point, my understanding of his concept of risk is that it excludes all of us who create photographs of subjects other than people. I can't - I won't - buy this for two reasons. First, with a single keystroke, it arbitrarily obviates an entire body of photographic work. Secondly, the concept incorrectly focuses on photographs rather than photographers. Risk is inherently a human process, tied inextricably to choice. Creating an abstract photograph involves no more, and no less, risk than creating portraits or street shots or landscapes. What it involves is a "resolute decision" on the photographer's part to put himself/herself out there. </p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Julie, while it would be nice if John would be a bit less black and white in his thoughts about abstracts in relation to other photography, it really is not too important to those interested in abstract photography. If we had just one viewer for all of our work (John or anyone eklse), on whatever theme or approach that we might apply, we would not be very successful in communicating our work.</p>

<p>Not all abstracts achieve the same effect or command our attention in the same way. Amongst those attracted to abstracts there is much different opinion, as it is in painted or sculpted abstracts. </p>

<p>How much "exaggeration" can one use? Or, as in abstract photography, "what" is exaggeration? This is a personal matter (but one also dependent upon the well known principals of art composition, symbolism, etc.), but my own feeling about abstracts in terms of the basic qualities of the image goes something like this: When the subject matter is too identifiable, when the image is too "busy'", with too much going on, or when the chromatic balance is all over the place (veering toward the kaleidoscopic), I admit I come before a bit of a "wall" to understanding the image and to being impressed. Very simple abstracts are for me the most poweerful, such as this one:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8396543</p>

<p>It seems to me to be exaggerated (in terms of descriptive content) just enough, but not overly so, and therefore for me it is believable as an abstract (not as a description as a moon, but as a composition, or symbolism). Other viewers may need some sort of realistic reference such as recognitioin of the subject matter itself, but for me an abstract should really suppress the impression of being something like the subject matter, but rather be something that stimulates our feelings (which of course covers a lot of territory, including compositional, symbolic and other).</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbBQ9F0VK58&feature=player_embedded#at=75">Heinz Hajek-Halke</a> also did some great photographic abstracts/ '<em>lightgraphics</em>' ( without the use of a camera but yet <em>authentic to photography</em> ), showing that photography as a medium indeed isn't anymore limited - or with less "risk" - to subject than painting is in that regard ( abstractionism ), as long as one is able to see the scope of possibilities.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Halke's work is very fine, quite something given the more limited tools at his disposal.</p>

<p>I think that the "risk" of abstract photography is not in the potential possibilities of the approach, but in the creative approach itself, which is particularly demanding and can't mainly rely on simple craft abilities with a lens and sensor (or film), as it sometimes is with, say, effective landscape photography, where the creative input is often less demanding.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Arthur: Your point about degrees of exaggeration is well taken. I fully agree. And, finally, thanks.</p>

[jtk]

<p>As I read Julie's post, she doesn't authorize certain thoughts or perspectives.</p>

<p>Her way or the highway :-) </p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Arthur, I can't imagine where you came up with the idea that there's opposition between craft and "creative approach." It's a common viewpoint for people who are averse to the craft aspect of photography, true. I regularly hear people saying that software designers are not "creative," using logic like yours. Am I missing something?</p>

<p>My impression is that you believe your own highly developed craft, particularly your printing, has a lot to do with your success as a photographer.</p>

<p>Also...your notion of "risk" as equivalent to "creative" is a spur-of-moment invention...is entirely unrelated to conventional use of the respective terms. Nice try :-)</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John,</p>

<p>When I say risk I mean that successful creative abstract photography, which is not based so much on the craft of photography but rather on the quality of a thought process that leads to an artistic creatioin, which is fraught with risk simply because it is not at all easy. For me craft (such as much but not all of the work from the disciples of Adams and the zone process) is subordinate to thought inspired visual creation, always has been, even if I attain the latter not very often and even if I work hard in a parallel sense to produce satisfactory prints.</p>

<p>It's not thecraft of making a good print that qualifies for me a creation and thew craft part involves little major risk. A lot of landscapes I view are simply crafted and not created, or at least not subject to a lot of inspiration from the photographer, which is why I mentioned that comparison.</p>

<p>If that is not a point of common understanding, so be it. You are entitled to your opinion, as are each of us. Take care.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, thanks for bringing up possibilities. It makes me realize that a lot of my own use of exaggeration is wringing all kinds of possibilities from the ordinary or from what I'm starting with.</p>

[jtk]

<p>"...simply crafted and not created, or at least not subject to a lot of inspiration from the photographer, which is why I mentioned that comparison." ...Arthur P</p>

<p>Arthur, I've been involved with that discussion since at least 1966, when I spent time with a few former Bauhaus students, exhibiting photographers, and avant garde industrial/architectural designers (eg Whole Earth Catalog contributors). I'd generally accept your popularized perspective if this wasn't supposed to be a more demanding Forum.</p>

<p>http://www.wholeearth.com/index.php</p>

<p>http://www.arcosanti.org/</p>

<p>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/black_mountain_college.html</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John, your references don't tell me anything about the subject of this discussion, rather like the easy one liners we have to assimilate somehow into the flow of a more detailed philosophy of photography topic.</p>

<p>I don't give much time to what colleges or schools of thought influence a poster in the philosophy forum, or whether they even attendeed a college. The power of reason is simply there, or it isn't. My own university of graduate work typically places in the top ten in most comparative studies (Western or Asian sponsored) that determine the 200 best educational institututions in the world, however I don't consider such statistics very important. There are students who are taught by Nobel prize laureats but who might just as well not had that privilege, others who never had it but who are capable of reasoning of high order.</p>

<p><em>"I'd generally accept your popularized perspective if this wasn't supposed to be a more demanding Forum".</em></p>

<p>Another one liner, of trivial message and without educated explanation, in this case of why you consider creative thought and approach subordinate to craft, and thus some sort of popularized perspective. You should explain your viewpoint, rather than using the crutch of others careers and unexpressed (by you) thoughts on the subject. You must have visited art fairs where the mass of the work you view shows much good to excellent craft but no creative input other than that. It is very common in many venues and not just art fairs.</p>

<p>But my point is not about craft (for example, perfect brush strokes or impressive photographic print tonality) without visual message, but rather the superiority of photography or art that does have some visual message, that is a creative work in providing that communication.</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Arthur, I mentioned Bauhaus, linked to Black Mountain College and Arcosanti assuming they would ring bells for you. The do for people with certain interests and educations. Sorry about that.</strong></p>

<p>The formal education and statistics about which you have exhaustively bragged are obviously important to you...they do sound impressive. <strong>Is there evidence in your photography?</strong> I've mentioned aspects of my own formal education when they've seemed relevant, but they don't just now. I doubt they relate much to my own photography.</p>

<p>My own "arts" education has almost entirely developed from accidental or actively sought personal connections (Bauhaus people, Black Mountain College people, Arcosanti people, Whole Earth Catalog people, Minor White people etc). My academic education and "power of reason" have both been adequate. I prefer clarity to circularity: we differ.</p>

<p>Literature is another domain in which I'm self-educated: Joyce, Golgol, Naipaul, Melville (now it's me that's bragging). That sort of thing. The books pile up. Do you regularly read any "creative" writing?</p>

<p>I took a community college introductory journalism course in celebration of my 65th...and for the craft/discipline of it. Just a thought.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John: </p>

<p><em>"I'd generally accept your popularized perspective if this wasn't supposed to be a more demanding Forum".</em></p>

<p>or</p>

<p><em>"Is there evidence in your photography?"</em></p>

<p>I guess that you can consider these and all your former bating of other contributors, with self important bold texting, as most succesful to your own aim in this forum, John.</p>

<p>Hopefully, I will step back and stop myself in future from replying to that sort of abrasive bating in future. This forum is a great place for purposeful discussion, but it minimally requires respect of others. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Arthur, it appears that you are not familiar with the role Bauhaus played (architecture, photography, design, dance, music, poetry).</p>

<p>All of the links and references I've made point conceptually back to Bauhaus. Black Mountain College, for example, was a survival vehicle for it in the US. It doesn't exist any more, but it remains an influence. Most modern architecture and graphic design are rooted in Bauhaus.</p>

<p>I mentioned Bauhaus assuming you would know its influence...to remind you about the integration/overlap of art and craft in photography (and architecture, and painting, and dance, and music and...believe it or not...photography). </p>

<p>I've not studied in any of those places but I've studied them, and the work of their teachers/students on my own, meeting a few of them. That's how I've driven my intellectual life. I'd rather meet the players and deal first hand with their actual work than rely on teachers and popular literature. </p>

<p>You seem handicapped by a few generic beliefs (eg your narrow distinction between art and craft) but we all know you're a fine photographer. </p>

<p>I know you're capable of clarity when you try (your critique of one of my photos was startlingly clear...thank you), but you typically invest more in typing than in communicating.</p>