Art X Photography

<p>

<p>Fred: 'I think "art" at its best is often founded on "artificial." You have hit the nail on the head here Fred. I agree with this statement and therefore make the comment that I can forgive the artist who manipulates an image for creative and artistic reasons (but not the one who photographs the misery of others just because it makes for a great photo and doesn't necessarily care one way or the other what happens to them). I'm as guilty of manipulating an image and making a situation seem more ominous as you and the next person. I try to express something beyond the immediately seen in the real world, something with meaning to me (1st and foremost) and hopefully something that the viewer will enjoy as well. Fred, you ask whether these are deceptions or truths of what you are feeling? My answer is that they are truths you want to express as long as you create them from your "mind's eye" perception and are expressions of what you are feeling . I think there is manipulation and then there's manipulation. The 1st is easily recognisable by most viewers as artistic expression (the intent isn't to deceive but to express the photographer's feelings and thoughts), while the second has, what I think, a more sinister intent of deceiving the viewer. As you said "intent is the key for me" too. If, at a certain point in my life, I come to the realisation that certain injustices in the world can no longer be ignored (as if any really can!) and I have the means to bring them to the forefront (that is, they are not geographically challenging), then I will photograph them as a way of expressing my feelings towards those injustices (one topic I hope to photograph is the socio-economic tragedies our indigenous communities here in Australia have faced, continue to face, and I suspect, will continue to face for some time to come)</p>

 

 

 

<p>The photographer who's doing their job for commercial reasons can also be forgiven and yes the viewer does share some of the responsibility.</p>

 

<p>Don asks the question, "Looking at the photo, how would you know?" (if the photographer subscribed to the emotions they try to stir in others) The answer is you don't and probably never will. The tragedy is that most deceptions go uncovered both in photography as in every other aspect of life. But to paraphrase Pnina the 'ethics approach has to be first between the artist and himself'. As I mentioned earlier 'The "lie" that I cannot forgive is that of a photographer who purposely points their lens to capture an image that may stir emotions in viewers to which they do not subscribe to themselves.' and not the photographer who's job it is to make a product seem commercially appealing or the one who manipulates an image to make the unseen, seen</p>

 

 

 

<p>I see no contradiction in artistic manipulation to make the unreal seem real. It may even be a necessary evil. I've always claimed that, for me, the deceit the photographer makes first and foremost to his/her self and then to the rest of us is the reference I make to "lies" (in answering Fred's original question of my distinction between 'lies' and 'truths')</p>

</p>

<p>Before I answer that, let me make a quick footnote that the distinctions made here are for my own purposes, to help me categorise and identify photos. I do acknowledge that my distinctions can apply on many and various levels and intertwine with each other.</p>

<p>That said, I see "right" and "wrong" as a<strong> technica</strong> l (although some technical aspects can also present truthful and deceitful images such as use of cropping and lens perspective) aspect of photography i.e. exposure settings, tones, clarity etc... In this sense I can forgive the photographer for just about anything and attribute "right" to their technical expertise and "wrong" to mistakes in camera settings or abilities.</p>

<p>What I see as "truth" and "lies" is the purposeful use of the lens and post production manipulation to deceive the viewer. This is more of an <strong>ethical</strong> interpretation of right and wrong I guess. When a photographer captures an image that omits or manipulates certain aspects of a scene or subject (examples of this are frequent in fashion photography where human models, clothes or food are portrayed in 'perfect' presentations and in so doing sell an illusion that women need to be a certain look or that fast food isn't really as greasy but rather fresh and healthy) in an attempt to show us an aesthetically pleasing image, I interpret this as "lies". Btw look through any real estate magazine or advertisement and you'll see many more examples of lens perspective helping to create these illusions. Post production work (and therefore a level of technical expertise) exacerbates this lie. To an extent I can forgive the photographer for this as well, since they are often hired to create images designed to sell a product. </p>

<p>The "lie" that I cannot forgive is that of a photographer who purposly points their lens to capture an image that may stir emotions in viewers to which they do not subscribe to themselves. Capturing the misery of the homeless or desolate because it may make for a great image rather than because they want to bring to the forefront the injustices of the world are immediate examples I can think of here. Let me clarify my point here. The 'lie' is not in the image presented, but in the <strong>perception</strong> the photographer wants the viewer to have of <strong>them</strong> . This is the distinction of whats "wrong" and what's a "lie" for me.</p>

<p>But I also see examples of truthful photography in the images of photojournalists in PN. Documenting events, as they happen, is the "truth" I refer to. Sometimes placing themselves in harms way to take the images they do because they have a passion for the subject-matter they are conveying. I also see it in the portraiture presented in PN. All those faces telling a story of a life lived. That to me is "truth" through a lens.</p>

<p>I'm glad you clarified what the 'unseen' refers to Arthur. I agree it isn't just about something "new" that has yet to be seen, but also what has yet to be realised, whether through the lens (at that moment) or through the eye of the photographer (be they an artist or a graphic documenter in post production work). As Starvy has posed the question, I would suggest that the "unseen" 'CAN be found in the mundane and previously seen, so long as it is presented in a new light through this medium'. Like John K, I too photograph because I hope to make some significant images, stemming from my hunger to capture something special. That unseen hunger is a manifestation of the time and place I am (at that specific time) in my mind, my life, and my questioning of the world around me. It's not necessarily based on trying to photograph something new but rather photograph something that will help feed that hunger even if it means photographing the mundane (in a previous forum posting I make the point that for me true and ethical photography is about capturing something with meaning to the photographer above and beyond the aesthetic appeal it may have to the viewer. I guess that to me is the unseen). It may mean capturing the same scene and subject 6 months from now, yet capturing it from a different perspective and manipulating it in a different way. It shines new light to existing scenes and subjects or subject matter. Like Anders H, what interests me is creating something new by shooting something known rather than something unique (like a "5 legged pig"). It is very much a question of philosophy expressed through the lens. Pnina makes a very good point : "It is a journey, an unending one, It is a quest with many stations on the road, I don't think a real artist will ever arrive to the last one". Even the photojournalist and documentary photographer take this unending journey, not just the artistic one, and for the reasons that Martin S points out: 'that its about the moment' and not necessarily the end result (although I'm sure photojournalists and documentary photographers alike may question me here). What eventually makes the unseen, seen, is in fact the "trip that occurs in the mind of an artist" (as Arthur points out). It is the subjective approach to which we present our version of the world to our audience. There is no right or wrong, just truths and lies</p>