From behind the veil

John, on these matters (and others) we seem to agree.

One hesitation, on the organic vs. contrived issue. My problem with this photo and many others (super-saturated ones, etc.) is not that they are not organic or that they are contrived. It's that they're shallow and unrefined. A contrivance can actually be accomplished with a great deal of organic harmony to it. Some of the best photographs, paintings, theater, dance, is extremely contrived. I actually often strive for contrivance in my work. It may or may not have an organic feel. What's more important is that it comes from a genuine place in me, that it's not done for the sake of looking good or pandering to popularity, but is done to show or communicate something I want to show. Often, my feelings are exaggerated or I want to exaggerate for the sake of a photo. That can be done genuinely. I don't dislike this photo because it's contrived and I don't dislike super-saturated landscapes because they're contrived. I dislike them when they show no finesse. And I dislike them when they don't seem to come from an individual vision but rather seem to come strictly from the alluring tease of a software slider bar or photo paper's over-the-top characteristics. Those slider bars and paper's characteristics, over-the-top though they can be, can still be used with purpose and insight, even in an over-the-top way. But they are mostly used, or at least it seems to me, mindlessly.

Fred, I am not sure I made a judgment regarding organic or contrived. But in this case, I was referring to the fact that there have been several instances recently in the POW's where organic subjects have been altered and there have been expressions regarding the resultant contrived nature of the image--again, no judgement, just an observation.

In this POW, I think there was some discussion, and certainly some conclusions that drew comparisons, maybe some contrasts, to an image that was created in a more organic way, McCurry's, to this studio portrait which is completely artificial as to its form (not referring to post here necessarily, just methodology to create the image). Certainly something worthy of discussion when so many powerful portraits have been made in more controlled settings.

So, again, I wasn't using the comparison in a judgmental way, just in how the two concepts related to the images we have viewed here recently.

John, there has been a great deal of discussion here about manipulation. It is productive to identify a way to avoid confusion in such discussions. This is what I am trying to do. If we call what Bader is doing by a correct (at least not misleading) name, that is, digital art, then the manipulation discussion takes on a completely different form (that is, a discussion about artistic intent, etc., as opposed to a discussion about fakery or trickery). The need to defend some view about how much manipulation is appropriate in photography evaporates if we don't call the type of thing Bader is doing photography. It's amazing how many problems disappear when the language is used correctly. And as I said above, the tendency to use old words to denote new forms of life is a significant cause of these kinds of problems. Photography is an old word being used to denote something new. It isn't a right word for it, and, as yet, I believe we have not found the right words.

As it turns out, most people think that words don't matter much. That's one reason that the reaction to the kind of suggestion I have made is usually a pretty negative one. Words do matter a lot though. All I am suggesting is that we can avoid a lot of confusion and upset by simply characterizing what we are doing correctly. Bader's work is a form of digital art using a photograph as a rough initial template. It is a form of art for which we do not currently have a well developed lexicon. My post offers a suggestion for avoiding the aimless debate. In that sense, it is worthwhile. But as Fred does rightly say, I have offered nothing to aid in our artistic understanding of Bader's work.

So, is it good art? Let the experts speak I say. And John, since you are an expert, I'll just keep reading and learning. JJ

Photartgraphy. (writing with light to create art). Noun= Photargraph.

Photolectrophy. (Writing with light and electrons). Noun = Photoelectrograph.

Certainly there's got to be a better term.

Jeremy, I thought about this for awhile and have composed a few different answers. There is some merit to some of what you say with how one might approach describing work here. But to do it globally, to get everyone on the same page, it would still entail someone making a determination, drawing the line, for your proposal to work. The question is who does that? And if someone were to do it, there could be as many comments here about the resultant classification and I think that would have less relevance to evaluating the image than what we have now.

My sense, because I am not sure anyone is willing to do that, or should, for everyone else, is that each individual needs to make a determination for themselves and respond to the image presented in that manner. In fact, I do see people do that here from time to time. They indicate how they don't feel the image is any longer a photograph and as a graphic they do or don't respond to it. That is taking responsibility for your comments and presenting them in a more coherent and referential way. It would be nice if more would make such a determination and then actually confront the image in "their" context rather than making rude and disruptive comments which benefit no one. What is presented is still a visual image to discuss and critique and some will consider an image like this one to be fully a photograph, which I do, and others maybe not, but that really isn't the issue, the image's success as each of us sees it is.

Alan , in my chosen vocation of Graphic Artist, I did most of my work by hand and in the early eighties when computers came into the work field I called them Electric Crayolas. I still refer to my computer as such. I like your definitions as well!

Does this indicate any changes, do we still using this camera, what happen to most of yours todays camera if not the computer, do you make photos like he old days or the majority are having their images made by a digital computer within the camera?

When painting like tis one first came, many of the painters did not like it and did not excepted it, today it is priceless.
If not for the F6 SLR 35MM Camera no one else is into film manufacturer wise, what is filling the world market today is Called DSLR ( Digital Single Lens Reflect ) Cameras and I am sure all of you are using it, well I mean your images are digitally processed, if not within the PC, it is for sure within the DSLR itself.
So where would the argument should end, if we are so in love with the originality f this media, why not forcing the camera maker to switch back to film and why not force the film makers to flood the market with films ?
I think, it is too late to go backward and we have to open up our mind and except what the world technologies is getting us these days and I am sure what will come in the future is even more digital

Once more the "Elves" have struck that nerve, fine job with the "Critique of the Week", it is hard to argue against this when the comment replies are nearing 100! Unfortunately we have plodded down the same path many a time. I believe this is a matter that will continue ever on to be debated. Perhaps it will be reconciled by future art historians looking back, when a general consensus is derived from the masses. But I do not believe it will be ours to make, we are too close to the subject. We are all touched by this digital work flow now, otherwise we could not even post on this forum. We all modify the image we have captured, either when scanned in, in PP, or perhaps just even in uploading. I find my brightness and contrast change markedly when down sizing or uploading. To claim digital processing virginity here, on this forum, is merely a case of denial.

As to this particular piece... I have likes and dislikes. I like the ominousness and mysteriousness created by darkening the image. However, the bright sharp eye is unnerving in its peering out. Over all I acknowledge the piece, but I do not enjoy, and quickly move along.

-Dave

Hi John, the thing is that a line has already been drawn. We already have the concept of photography and the concept has been used with little difficulty for many years. It's when our 'forms of life" change, as they have in the visual arts, that we have problems with existing concepts. The problem here is that we have, as yet, failed to develop new concepts to denote this change in the way we do things. Scientists run in to this problem all the time because they are constantly developing new ways to do things. Because scientists understand the confusion that arises when we use words improperly or, at least, allow individuals to use words as they see fit, they typically define early, publicly and clearly. The problem we have here is created by the failure to fully understand the role of definition in the manipulation debate. There would be no debate if we merely used the concept of photography as it correctly applies (that is the process of using a camera to make images and the use of techniques to modify tones and color in those images). Changing subject matter by painting it in or out is not encompassed by this definition and so can not be photography.

The problem you may be having here though is a way of thinking in which you think there is such a thing as individual meaning of words. For instance, that YOU have YOUR OWN definion of photography (or manipulation, art, etc.) and I have MY OWN definition of photography (or manipulation, art, etc.). It is understandable that you think this way. You are an artist. You were trained to think like this. But this way of thinking is flawed I'm afraid. Definition/meaning is public and shared. The definition of photography I am using is not mine, it is the definition contained in good dictionaries. These definitions are public and shared as are all definitions of words in a language. Part of my struggle to develop as an artist is to NOT think like I do...that is, like a scientist. This is what I hope to learn from people like you John. That is, how to think (should I say feel) more like an artist. We all have our issues.

But you raise a key point in the development of new concepts. Who does it? Well, why don't we start now as Ray and Alan have. Let's just engage in the normal definitional debate that takes place when new concepts are developed. Let's define digital manipulation of the kind that is not already encompassed by the definition of photography. We could all go to Prague, have a meeting and decide, or we could just do it here. Once we have what we think is a good definition, we'll just send it off to the Oxford Dictionary for their consideration. You never know, we might become the inventor of a new concept.

Rashed, this is not a digital vs chemical debate. The definition of photography states that it requires the use of a camera...digital or chemical is not specified. So it's fine to use a digital camera and call what we are doing photography. The definition also allows us to modify color, tones, light etc., in a digital environment.

Dave, this is not a modification debate. The current definition of photography allows for some forms of modification of the image we captured in camera. What it does not allow for is the addition and removal of subject matter. When you paint subject matter on a negative or print you are painting, not photographing. This is the line drawn by our definition.

Please don't think that my comments are derogatory with respect to digital manipulation. Digital manipulation is often art... I sometimes think perhaps even more so than photography itself. I am not disrespecting Bader's work as a piece of art.

With respect, JJ

Kitsch of the week.

Dear Jeremy, I respect what you have wrote but I do not agree with it.
When I bought my first camera I looked at photography as an Art, and Art do not have have rules and regulations, the rules and regulations I will leave them for the police to practice not me, that why Art to me is a gift from God and a man exploration process with no limitations.
I am sure more than 70% of the members here are trying to explore their ideas using a camera, not just recording events or taken documentary images, although I experiment with my camera, I still like to manipulate and come with new ideas.
I am also respecting both, those whom taken photography as event recording, and those whom loving to explore whats circulate in their minds.
You have my all respect my friend.

It is agreed by all that digital photography is an integral part of the art of photography,and with the vast and the rapid advances in technology,it became more wide spread than the analogue photography,and in the near future it will surpasses the analogue to a degree that the last may be found only in the museums of art,and at the shelves of those who like the past and history,this is what the digital guys says and predicts ,though not without an apposition from the analogue guys and lovers,the cause is a very simple one,it is the chips and computers that will dominate every aspect of life whether here in our earth or outside earth's borders,this does not mean that the analogue photography will became extinct, No,it will stay exactly as the Betamax and VHS video systems,as the cathode tube TV,as the tape recorder,and as all the American I guess remember that eight tracks sound players in their cars in the not far past.This is a reminder for all of us to very well realised fact that THE STANDARDS (WHATEVER THEY ARE ) OF PHOTOGRAPHY HAVE BEEN LAID AND WRITTEN BY ANALOGUE PHOTOGRAPHERS TILL NOW.

And for this standards to continue ,IMHO we need just to put a definitions and limits to the DEGREE OF MANIPULATION for a digital image to be considered as a photo by definition equal in its standards to an image that came from a dark room.

This is not directed to a particular person in this thread,but from what I have read in all of the above comments,I found that there should be a well known borders,clear definitions,and there should a red line that in the case if it was crossed the definition of photo that we are all agree about it,will not be applicable on it.

I hope I will here from you,it is not called Photo.net for haphazard.

I still don't know Jeremy, if fact a camera has nothing to do with what can considered a photograph and it doesn't seem there is any support out there that limits the amount of work done to a photograph after it is made.
The pretty standard definition around the web is:

With all my searching around, I really couldn't find any suggestion that what we do to that image once it is recorded affects the photographic nature or classification of the image. Of course, some will use terms like mixed media and some will suggest that their own work falls into the additional category of digital art, but that still doesn't change the underlying photographic nature of the image.

Even painting on a piece of trasparent material which is then scanned (or printed in the darkroom) is still a photograph, by definition. (example: Aberaldo Morrell's work here: http://www.abelardomorell.net/photography/clicheverres_01/clicheverres_01.html )

Certainly, if an image loses all of its photographic qualities, by it being covered by paint or other media, it raises certain issues, but there are also examples of "photographs" that are in fact of this nature--a gray area to me to be sure--not hand coloring, but using the photograph as the outline for the painting. This person does just this, http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/bresma.html, and yet the work is still consider to be photography by the experts.

Then, much of the most important work in photography today is highly manipulated imagery--Gursky, Wall, Struth, Crewdson etc.

So, again, we sort of end up maybe just spitting in the wind because there is no support for what you suggest and I don't see any benefit or even purpose to following that track. (and hey, I was raised by an engineer and an accountant and raised over 1/2 billion as a corporate finance guy before turning to my passion of photography full time, so I understand the two mindsets!)

Carrying this a little further, I think the issue as others have touched upon as well is terminology. We haven't gotten to the point where we can define different photographs differently. That was my intent below with the verbiage.

An example would be comparing a sculpture to a bas relief to a painting. All is art. All can be of the same subject. But we know what we mean by each of these terms. A sculpter wouldn't be upset by a painter calling his two dimensional piocture art because he knows that it isn't sculpture or worse yet the feller who does the bas relief. That's not a sculpture but it's also not a painting.

We have to get to the point where we have terms that define a photograph let's say a picture that limits it's modificatipon to contrast and colors and sharpness, but no more. And one who adds objects that weren't in the original as something else, lets say photoart. Then, each group would clearly understand who's calling what, what. No one will step on other's toes and feel there's cheating going on. We just don't have the terminology yet.

This same subject was discussed at length last week. The problem with terminology is that there is a continuous and perhaps unbroken line regarding manipulation from a photograph "straight" from a film camera (where even there the image may not really be what the eye sees due to lens selection, shutter speed, film selection, and aperture selection) to a digital image that may have started in a camera but owes 95% of its existence to a computer. At the far end of the spectrum it's really more computer art than photographic art. I think we'll probably arrive at a consensus as to where to draw the line when the Democrats and Republicans all link arms and sing Kumbaya in joyful harmony.

couldn't have said it better myself..............

Jeremy, in my world of photography or art I consider rules and definitions as limitations and restrictions. As far as not adding or subtracting elements from a photo, that would make most double exposures not photography.

Steven, it is almost never easy to re-conceptualize something. Definitional work in science is often very traumatic. But the scientist understands that clarity of meaning is very important. This is why they put up with the difficulties they face in the definitional process. I imagine you are right that photographers would never put up with such difficulties. I think there are 2 reasons: a) they don't fully understand the importance of clarity of meaning in their activities and b) they WANT ambiguity and shifting meaning.

Ray gives us a perfect example of point "b". Ray thinks that clear definition limits his artistic creativity. For this reason, he is MOTIVATED to avoid clarity of meaning. All of this is fine for Ray but it disallows him from engaging in a serious discussion about what photography is. Now, we can all say we don't care and don't want to discuss the issue, but it's funny how often we keep coming back to it. We keep coming back to it because it matters. Traditionalists want to respect the art, skill and knowledge of traditional photography and so are motivated not to change the existing definition. Modernists want to develop so they are more motivated to redefine photography. In the definitional debate, the traditionalists and modernists would probably clash and some give and take would likely be required. But to engage in a serious, coherent debate in the first place it is necessary to understand why clarity of meaning is important and be motivated to achieve a clear definition.

Alan is an example of a person that could engage in the definitional process. If the majority of photographers were like him, there is a chance we could get somewhere with the manipulation discussion. But alas, as Steven points out, we are likely to spend the rest of our lives wandering around in a fog of confusion about manipulation caused by an improper understanding of how meaning works and an intransigent attitude towards developing our lexicon of concepts in the visual arts.

There is nothing dangerous or sinister about being clear when we speak (unless we are a politician, marketer or poet). There is nothing dangerous or worrisome about developing our concepts to speak more clearly about what we are doing in the visual arts. What does it hurt to develop new concepts that distinguish various forms of the visual arts clearly? Thanks everyone for your comments. It's coffee time. JJ

Ray House

If I am not mistaken, I understand from your words that the double exposures is not related to photography. Don't get angry if I say that the fact is quite the opposite. But I must point out that I mean " double exposures techniques " in traditional photography ( with films ). This is because of getting a very good picture require a lot of experience and professionalism.
- The first difficulty is certainly the exact exposure for each individual click.
- The second difficulty is the selection of different lenses in terms of focal length so that you can achieved the suitable sizes from different subjects in a different distance.
- The third difficulty is how to achieve good composition from different sense situation.

http://www.weatherscapes.com/techniques.php?cat=miscellaneous&page=doubleexp

"All of this is fine for Ray but it disallows him from engaging in a serious discussion about what photography is." --Jeremy

What if it just disallows him from engaging in a scientific discussion about what photography is. Effective and compelling photographic discussions tend to be more descriptive than analytical and more metaphorical and poetic than literal and logical. Photographic discussions, in some ways, can be kind of like photographs.

It may also depend on the kind of photograph being discussed. The truth is that a lot of photographs are more like science, often motivated by the photographer having obtained the latest gear. They are snaps that show what stunning clarity that gear is capable of capturing. Science and definition may be important in those cases.

Other types of photos may warrant different verbal or written approaches. Definitions are only as good as their context allows.

Jeremy, I see we have graduated from being artists vs scientists to traditionalists vs modernists. Not sure this makes sense to me. In fact, not really the point I am looking to make, but traditionalists are generally behind the need to reclassify things--some sort of protectionism to their own limited definition/view of things.

But here is the point, it is only in these sorts of forums where there seems to be any issue and in these forums are generally the amateur. As I said earlier, the experts don't seem to have this issue. Take painting or print departments in museums. They deal easily with a major category and then the subcategories within them. When it serves the purpose, they will discuss these sub sets, watercolor, acrylic. oil or intaglio, monotype, woodcut etc and then at other times, the sub sets are not as important.

In photography, it is the same way. Whether an image is manipulated heavily or not, it is generally discussed as a photograph and then, as it is relevant, the subclasses might come into play and even the mechanical means of how the image was produced might be further discussed or highlighted. The medium isn't being reclassified or redefined, it just has certain subsets that are easily discussed and dealt with in the literature under the moniker, photography.

As I said before, I don't find any need to redefine photography, it is pretty clearly defined in all the related texts and it is just those out there trying to limit that meaning that seem to have the issue, let's give it a rest and focus on what is important, the image.

Perhaps this is so, John, although the word "reclassify" immediately makes me think of revisionists rather than traditionalists. The history of the Cold War comes to mind (Stephen Ambrose v. John Spanier and Henry Kissinger, etc.). I can't think of a single example in the arts at the moment. Sorry.

--Lannie

Lannie, not really sure of your point, the spirit of what I was saying is that since I find no support for what Jeremy proposes in the industry in this regard, but rather acceptance as photography, it seems a need to reclassify to me while maybe for the traditionalist, in my meaning here, it seems to be a need to eliminate or isolate.

John, I'm glad you raised the last point about industry practice. I was going to let it drop but this provides a nice opportunity to clarify something about how we coherently determine the nature of photography.

The reason I use science as an example is that it is a practice (in some cases) in which definitions of concepts are arrived at it in a coherent manner (Fred, the point is not to describe a scientific method of determining word meaning but rather to describe a coherent one). There are many practices in which definitions of concepts are highly confused, ambiguous, unclear and incoherent. Art is one of these practices. In fact, in the photography industry it is often useful NOT to define clearly or coherently. For a number of reasons, it may make selling a piece of art much easier if we are free to talk about it in misleading ways. This is why the politician and art salesperson love ambiguity and unclarity of meaning. They can and do use this ambiguity to manipulate opinions and behavior. This unclarity may be artistically helpful as Fred suggests but it will make it impossible to answer the question whether it is ok to nail a dead rat on a painting of a photograph of a piece of cheese and call it photography.

So, just because the industry appears not to have a problem, it does not mean that there is not a problem. In my experience, the industry is very happy to sweep under the rug any requirement to be clear. In this regard, John's approach is consistent with industry practice.

In my series of posts, I have tried to illuminate why we have problems on Photo.net with the issue of how much manipulation is appropriate in photography. The problem rests with the definition of photography itself.

Now I have to go and get my brush, rat-trap and hammer....I'm off on a photo trip. Best, JJ