Cultural dinosaur?

lew_carver · September 17, 2012

Is it a cultural period thing that the photograph is taken emotionally as a “direct” transcription of reality and as such has a kind of gut level verity? I matured (chronologically) before the digital age and feel this. And I resent it (I am ashamed to say) when it's difficult to tell when a “print/reproduction/image” is mostly a creation of the techniques of the graph arts, not the photographic arts and this fact is not made explicit. The print and the photographic print are distinct in my mind/gut. They are distinct aesthetic experiences, the same image, different contexts at the gut level. Further I am most interested in creating images that are “direct” transcriptions but used to make the visible the invisible visible which. Any doubt that the image is "real" tends to poison such images for me.

I understand that there is valid semantic/aesthetic content in the “act” of presenting a graphic arts print as a photographic print and some historical justification in trompe-l'œil. Not that such justification is needed. I very much enjoy and value graphic arts prints and find referring to the techniques of the graphic arts as photoshoping etc, as potentially degrading. But when so many muddy the distinction between the graphic arts image and the photographic image, my experience of both is made less than ideal. Art is one of the few areas of life where the ideal is not only possible but palpable. It is a loss, at least for me.

Cultural dinosaur?

Use of the term, print, is antiquated, please substitute “realized image” or reproduction.

Spearhead · September 17, 2012

I ... feel this.

I resent it

distinct in my mind/gut.

I am most interested

poison such images for me.

my experience of both is made less than ideal

It is a loss, at least for me.

</blockquote>

What you have told us is that you like and dislike certain things. There's no reason anyone else has to feel the same. For many photographers, including famous ones, going back to the beginning, the goals were distinct from yours. Enjoy what you enjoy and don't worry about what other people do.

JDMvW · September 17, 2012

That's nice. Do what you like. Like what you like.

But also try to learn, if you can.

I didn't care much for German Expressionist painting when I first encountered it. Now it's one of my favorite art styles -- after I learned more about it

alan_zinn · September 17, 2012

Lew,

Don't get me started. I feel your pain. What I miss in contemporary photographic art is the absence of craft. The photos in many exhibitions are no better than trade show or advertising displays. There seems to be a common acceptance of the idea that all the viewer will see is the image so why bother to make it a special object as well. People generally appreciate the craft of other media, so its not like they are blind to the idea.

Just saw Ori Gersht "History Repeating" show at MFA in Boston and was very disappointed with the indifference to craft. <a href="http://www.mfa.org/">LINK</a>

Most of what I do ends up as a 72 dpi web pic but I have not quit trying to improve my print quality and presentation. Maybe it is a need to respect or honor the medium in some way besides just enjoying holding something I made with my best ability.

Wouter Willemse · September 17, 2012

JDM +1.

It's OK to have the opinion that photoshopping detracts from photographic art. As long as you realise that it's an opinion, and not necessarily the truth. Personally, I prefer to look at the image and judge the image for what it tells me and how it tries to do that, rather than the techniques used. But that's just another opinion, and far from being a truth.

No need to label anyone as 'a cultural dinosaur'. Such labels just get in the way of looking at things with an open mind.

sarah_fox · September 17, 2012

Lew, take a look at the various representations of Manzanar, a Japanese internment camp during WWII. Looking at the work of Toyo Miyatake (a prisoner), Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, and Clem Abers, you might wonder whether they were photographing the same camp. None of these photographers manipulated their photos (much). This was straight-up documentary work. And yet each had a different vision, and their photos tell different stories. Why is that?

I submit that there is no such thing as a completely neutral photo. The manipulation begins in the mind of the photographer, whether intended or not, whether film or digital, and whether or not tools such as PS are used. There is no such thing as a "direct transcription of reality."

cyanatic · September 17, 2012

If the history of this board is a reliable indicator of what kind of responses to expect in regard to a thread like this one…fasten your seat belt, Lew.

"But when so many muddy the distinction between the graphic arts image and the photographic image, my experience of both is made less than ideal."

</blockquote>

Is a muddied distinction between a photograph and what you have termed "graphic arts image" anything new? Collages and mixed media have been around for a long time. There is no governing body to say how or when a photograph crosses over into territory in which it becomes something other than a photograph. It is, as Jeff said, a matter of personal preference. Like a PN poster who recently said he would only buy a print that came from film, you are free to view only images which are "straight" or "transcriptions of reality". But how would you know that unless someone clearly indicated it? (That may be part of your point.) And who would believe them if they did? Or argue with them that their point of view, or choice of film, or use of digital contrast or b&w conversion, was every bit as much of a manipulation as the removal or addition of some significant element from the original negative or digital file? (I do not believe that they are equivalent, but that is a different discussion.)

When you use the term "cultural dinosaur" I am not sure if you are referring to yourself as a seeker of "straight" photographs, or to the notion that there still is, or should be, such a thing as a "straight" photograph.

There is no such thing as a "direct transcription of reality."

</blockquote>

I should know better than to get into another ontological discussion, but I'm stupid that way. I understand what you are saying, Sarah, but using your internment camp as an example, I interpret Lew's phrase "transcription of reality" (not direct transcription) as something along these lines:

Miyatake, Adams, Lange, and Abers no doubt had their own unique ways of photographing a similar scene. But, for the sake of argument, let's say they each had photographed a particular part of the camp in which a particular building could be seen. If that building still existed, you, or I, or Lew, could go to that camp and identify that building from any one of their photographs, regardless of their interpretation, regardless of the two dimensionality of the photographs, and regardless of the true, relative, subjective, or changing nature of reality. A photograph which bears that kind of correspondence to the subject photographed is what I believe Lew intended by transcription of reality.

I will now bow out before someone comes along and brings a unicorn into this discussion.

lew_carver · September 17, 2012

“It's OK to have the opinion that photoshopping detracts from photographic art.” W.W. Wrote.

But I don't have that opinion at all. I simply get more out of an image knowing which crafts were used in it's creation. Rightly or wrongly I feel that gives me a bit of insight to the aesthetic intent, and the artists relationship with reality. So I feel as though I may have been misunderstood, and perhaps it's by my self, I'm open to that criticism. I think there is nothing wrong with photoshoping, I'm just expressing a bias based on gut level responses and wondering if that is age dependent and how unique that bias/experience is. And perhaps hoping that some photographer/graphic artists might be willing to grant notice as a courtesy if hiding the mixing is not an integral part of their aesthetic intent. I have expressed shame for my inappropriate emotional response, I understand that it is anecdotal and that as such is “nice” but I thought it was important in understanding the nature of my bias (against the unlabeled). I demand nothing, I expect nothing, I criticize nothing, but I do retain hope that asking politely and with explanation will not give offense.

JDM, you say “But also try to learn, if you can.” Given my posts in ths thread I would be grateful if you could give me more clarity as to what it is I need to learn.

Thank you,

Lew.

AlanKlein · September 17, 2012

I'm a "cultural dinosaur" as you are. At my local camera club meeting critique, the "leader" suggested that someone move the tree limbs down in their picture in photoshop so the main subject would be framed better.

I cringed. No one else seemed to care or at least I didn't notice if they did. These were mainly seniors who would have been conditioned to the "old" concepts that photographs don't lie. Yet they too have been conditioned that photoshopping a picture is OK regardless the adulterations. Fidelity to the original scene no longer matters. It's spitting against the wind except for us museum pieces.

Wouter Willemse · September 17, 2012

Lew, sorry for (partially) misreading you there; at the core, though, it won't change too much of the point I tried to make earlier.

I simply get more out of an image knowing which crafts were used in it's creation.

</blockquote>

That's OK too - as before, it's your opinion and I won't argue with it. I don't get more out of it, but that's just me then.

Rightly or wrongly I feel that gives me a bit of insight to the aesthetic intent, and the artists relationship with reality.

</blockquote>

It's not about right or wrong. The question you should/could ask yourself (and this might be the point to what you could try to learn which JDM referred to) is whether the aesthetic intent can be read from the choice of tools, or changes because of them (by definition). Sarah gave a very good example where I think the choice of tools is unrelated to the intent (even if Steve makes a good counterpoint there, though I think 'correspondence to the subject photographed' leaves a lot of room for Steve and Sarah to actually say the same). The relationship to reality is a tricky thing all the same. First there is the question what reality is, and whether "reality" as we each individually perceive it is not already a biased point of view. Second is how/if a photo manages to represent that reality; if it does, how? Is there an objective way to depict something? Is the perspective of a ultra-wide angle lens held very up close not as much distorting as many filters (either glass ones or in Photoshop)? Is the choice of a very saturated colour film versus a B&W film not changing this representation of reality equally profound? At what point do these choices become "too much" and cause a disconnect between the perceived reality of the photographer, and the photo? And when that "disconnect" happens, was it by intent, or by accident? Or should all these questions be put on the backseat and be judged as an integral part of the aesthetics and the communication that the final result (the photo) has?

It's not a bad question you're asking, Lew, and you should not excuse yourself, nor feel any kind of shame. The seemingly negative answers are more to raise questions, not to dismiss what you ask. (Often enough there are rants in this forum proclaiming that photoshop is killing the art of photography because it is fake, and photos are real. That's part why you see the reactions you see.) The question raised is simply to take one step back and think to which extend a photo does represent realism, and on the other hand whether the use of photoshop or similar techniques actually does change the aesthetic intent of the photographer or not. It's a lot of greyscale, and little black and white.

__

Edit: Alan and I posted at the same time, and just to add: editing is not something that started happening with Photoshop. It's not something new, only the access to these techniques has become a lot easier.

mark_drutz · September 17, 2012

I think that the degree to which photos are manipulated and the acceptance of that manipulation is greater today than in the past. With the exception of hard news, when one looks at a photo today one does not know how much that photo shows reality and how much it is the result of manipulation. That may bother some people and not others. I know that it bothers me.

It's true that photos have always been manipulated to one degree or another. To me there's a difference between tweaking exposure or using a light balancing filter or polarizer for example, and altering the image to the point that it no longer represents reality. I think that when that is done there should be some mention that the photo has undergone considerable alteration. I would have no problem with the photo if that is done.

rossb · September 17, 2012

Well the world has changed and is changing. Now the camera's, phones, computers are all connected via the internet. A new day I guess. Photography will just take the shape that it will take. Mostly I am not going to look at them however. The millions of digital photos all look about the same to me. How many pictures of some old guy with a lot of wrinkles would I want to look at. Well no more of them would be about right.

lew_carver · September 17, 2012

Sarah Fox: " ... This was straight-up documentary work. And yet each had a different vision, and their photos tell different stories. Why is that?”

</blockquote>

I assume there is one underlying reality/world (even if it's split into “many worlds”, or floats as data on higher dimensional branes etc.). From that and simple observation of human behavior it is clear that every individual has his or her own unique map of that world and which maps together bare varying degrees of correspondence with the underlying reality. And each of us unavoidably operates on some degree of assumption our map as accurate. The only places we should expect high degrees of agreement are directly testable assertions regarding physical reality within the context of the scientific method. Else where, especially in the arts--because of their subjective basis, “views” should be all over the place in terms of what they reveal about the reality or its lack, for a given subject, because each such revelation is through the agency of the artist as interpreter who is translating experience and emotion from their own unique “language and map” and through the "lens" of their chosen techniques.

And from another angle: when I write music I generally prefer the constraints of contrapuntal techniques and genres because those constraints most naturally facilitate both the “tone and tenor” of the conversation I want to have with the listener. With art just as with ordinary speech many different conversations of many different “tones and tenor” may be had on any given subject.

Anyway that's my best guess as to "Why is that?" May I ask, What's yours?

lew_carver · September 17, 2012

Steve Gubin wrote: When you use the term "cultural dinosaur" I am not sure if you are referring to yourself as a seeker of "straight" photographs, or to the notion that there still is, or should be, such a thing as a "straight" photograph.

</blockquote>

I am referring to emotional aspects of my aesthetic responses (as opposed to aesthetic analysis) which may relate to neural response patterns established before the age of digital manipulations.

luis_g · September 17, 2012

Lew, I respect your (and others') personal preferences. Mine happen to be towards the wide-angle end of acceptance, but that's neither vice nor virtue. In my opinion, this variety is to the good.

Spearhead · September 17, 2012

I think that the degree to which photos are manipulated and the acceptance of that manipulation is greater today than in the past.

</blockquote>

This type of viewpoint, expressed by several people here, seems to be characterized by a lack of knowledge of the history of photography. It is only that it is easier now, which has been true of almost everything technical in photography over the years. If you look at the work of Clarence John Laughlin (in museums around the world, many books, etc.), you will see that the degree of manipulation was similar in the past, just done with different tools. Laughlin shot with a large format camera and worked in the darkroom, but many of his photos have as much manipulation as you see now. There are others like him.

It's worth reading Laughlin's writing too, he makes it clear that there is no inherent requirement for "truth" in photography. And this is fifty to seventy years ago.

I simply get more out of an image knowing which crafts were used in it's creation

</blockquote>

So if you know what brush Diego Rivera used, and where he got his paints from, you will appreciate his murals better? I can't see how. It's his realization that matters, not his work habits. If he thought that was important, he would hang the brushes and paint containers next to his paintings.

The relationship to reality is a tricky thing all the same.

</blockquote>

Very much. The simplest example is the fairly common tree growing out of the head. Well the person taking the photo didn't see that. Reality was that the person was six feet in front of them and the tree was a completely separate entity that the mind filtered out. By cloning out the tree, one comes closer to "reality."

"old" concepts that photographs don't lie.

</blockquote>

Once again, a manipulation of the past.

People didn't believe that. Richard Avedon, who didn't have access to Photoshop at the time, said of photographs, "None of them is the truth." There is no old concept that photographs don't lie except in the minds of people who haven't studied, learned the history.

jaydesi · September 17, 2012

I'm not particularly connected to the world of painters, but I wonder if similar things were thought when different painting techniques arose. Impressionism doesn't really reflect reality, for example, but it was still painting. With new technology comes new ways to manipulate and evoke emotion.

If photographers were stuck with presenting photographs "the way it has traditionally been done," then where is the room for creative expression? Finding new ways to depict reality, even if it goes into unreality, is a pretty standard part of visual art. There wouldn't really be much point to being anything but a photojournalist otherwise, because new masters would become increasingly rare as the bar of perfection is raised higher and higher. Only the truly dedicated and talented would need to bother, because anything anyone else would do would have been done before, and better, by someone else.

Perhaps broadening the definition does cheapen it in a way, but it also allows more room for creative expression, which in turn generates more discussion (like this thread). If everyone agreed on what "good" photography is, only a handful of people would be able to do it, and very few people would be talking about it.

sjmurray · September 17, 2012

I've been making photographic prints since the late 1960's. I have shot every format from 35mm to 4x5 view camera using the zone system. I've never thought of it as anything but graphic art and definitely not a "direct transcription." This is because the photographer first chooses a camera/format to create certain look, add to that choice of subject, film and developer combination, framing, choice of lens, contrast and brightness range, filters, cropping, dodging and burning, paper and paper developer, toning, and so on. There are so many facets of creative control that can be applied, that the end result is never just a literal transcription of what the original scene was. Digital and digital editing has just made the whole process better and more fluid, IMO. I feel liberated now that I shoot digital. There is nothing literal, ever, with photography! That's just an illusion.

john_h.1 · September 17, 2012

I matured.. And I resent...

</blockquote>

The latter doesn't inspire confidence about the former. On this subject that is.

Cultural dinosaur?

</blockquote>

Just plain ole' snobbery. Not because of mere dislike. We all embrace some things and reject others. The discussion based on resentment, telling other people to define their work as unworthy 'realizations' and masquerading elitism as a instance of "culture" just makes this yet another film vs. digital rant post. It has nothing to do with culture.

lew_carver · September 17, 2012

So if you know what brush Diego Rivera used, and where he got his paints from, you will appreciate his murals better?

</blockquote>

No, but looking at it, understanding that it is a fresco and not, say an oil, I can, in fact, appreciate it better. I understand the sequence and time constraints under which the artist had to work because he chose that particular media. For example the meanings read from the energy of the brushstrokes in fresco and oil are potentially different. It's that kind of knowledge of media that helps one understand and appreciate the work on multiple levels. Can you have a powerful, valid aesthetic experience with a work of art without a clue about how it was created? Absolutely.

lew_carver · September 17, 2012

Lew, I respect your (and others') personal preferences. Mine happen to be towards the wide-angle end of acceptance, but that's neither vice nor virtue. In my opinion, this variety is to the good.

</blockquote>

I too deeply respect the preferences of others.* But, personally I think calling “it” variety misses the point. And as others here have done calling such “Digitally Manipulated” images an adulteration of photography denigrates the work of the artists who use these techniques.

The “digitally manipulated” image is simply a new thing under the sun. It is, in effect, a new media with it's own propensities and nature and should be judged as such. Moreover it offers the imagination a vast space in which to spread its wings. And as the tools of this new art are tied to Moores law it brings the dizzying excitement of accelerating change that can feel as if the wind was at your back. Yes, one can easily understand its appeal. And if this new media gains complete dominance over photography in the market place, so what? As long as there are cameras some people will practice “straight” photography and some people will appreciate it for its own sweet self. What more is to be wanted on that count?

*That doesn't mean I'm not willing to assert that an image makes me want to gauge out my own eyes, if the need arises.

Spearhead · September 17, 2012

The “digitally manipulated” image is simply a new thing under the sun.

</blockquote>

Are you aware that the original process for photography didn't allow for enlargement or darkroom manipulation? And that when those things came along, nobody changed the name to accomodate the new processes? The absence of knowledge of photographic history is stunning.

unkadaved_g. · September 17, 2012

Some of the best work I ever did (in my mind) was with water colors when I was fifteen. I've made some scans of them (digital now) and still like them. Not many others do. Some of the photographs that I made in my late teens and early twenties are on my wall. I'm fifty five now and have chucked most of my film & digital gear and bought a GRD IV. I'm loving photography all over again. But I digitally manipulate the hell out of it in LightRoom. So it goes.

lew_carver · September 17, 2012

<a name="00apmH"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=937861">John H.</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 17, 2012; 10:38 p.m. I matured.. And I resent... The latter doesn't inspire confidence about the former. On this subject that is.

</blockquote>

I'm of the entirely self-serving opinion that maturity is the ability to recognize that emotions are a kind of summation over experiences that tell us about ourselves and not the stimulus that prompted them. Read closely, the resentment was confessed as an act of self criticism and self analysis. Does this help your confidence? And if not, please, tell me what could?

Lew

lew_carver · September 17, 2012

<a name="00apmy"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 17, 2012; 11:29 p.m.

</blockquote>

The “digitally manipulated” image is simply a new thing under the sun.

Are you aware that the original process for photography didn't allow for enlargement or darkroom manipulation? And that when those things came along, nobody changed the name to accomodate the new processes? The absence of knowledge of photographic history is stunning.

</blockquote>

Actually, Jeff, yes I was aware of that. Its been over thirty years since I have done anything or reading in this area, however it is coming back. But to make sense of your criticism I have to assume I do not understand what “digital manipulation” means. Could you please give the the proper definition for “digital manipulation” so I can reformulate my thinking around that correction. Then we may be better able to understand each other.

Sign In

Cultural dinosaur?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in