Photography’s Eternal Identity Struggle
This blog post was written by photographer and friend Jim Goldstein. Jim is a great photographer and pioneer of social networking. Our blog post exchange today touches on a subject discussed in an essay titled “This Photo Is Lying to You” by Rob Haggart in Outside Magazine. After a brief exchange via email we decided to share our views on the subject with you, our readers, in the hope of generating a healthy debate within the photography community. Enjoy! We look forward to your comment.
~
Not too long ago one of the central philosophical battles surrounding photography was whether it could be considered art. (See N.Y. Times critic discusses photography as an art form) As renowned artists began to have their prints sold at prices reserved for fine art paintings it became clear that photography was indeed art. Oddly while most art lovers knew photography was art, it was only the validation of the art market that seemed to put the official stamp on it. The “art” debate has been on going for over a century and still continues today. What’s surprising is that antithesis to this debate has surfaced with the advent of digital photo editing.
In a recent article by Rob Haggart, titled “This Photo Is Lying to You” in Outside magazine this argument was laid to bare focusing on “integrity” and “trustworthiness” of photography while downplaying the art of photography. The argument made was quite blunt:
“No matter how forthright one is about alterations, fake photos cause collateral damage. They devalue the work of photographers with the skills and patience to capture awing images in real time. Even worse, modern photo manipulation is seriously screwing up our concept of reality and our willingness to believe what we see in magazines like Outside.”
While I respect Rob and his opinion I can’t help but feel there is an unnecessary pitting of photo genres against each other and an unrealistic expectation of omitting any artistic interpretation to photographs. There most certainly is a time and a place for every type of photographic work. In fact I think there is ample argument that photography, even documentaryphotography , is richer due to artistic interpretation. Documentary photographers have long manipulated their work by capturing or converting images to black & white, adjusting depth of field (in camera or on a computer), dragging the shutter with an off camera flash, dodging and burning (in the dark room or on a computer) and the list goes on. Should every genre of photography be held to the editing and artistic license standards of documentary photography? Do you really think that photography or your ability to create engaging awe inspiring photographs is hampered because of digital editing? After all manipulation of photographs has been an on going practice in the dark room since photography came into existence. One need only look at the amazing work of Jerry N. Uelsmann’s to see how far one can go to manipulate a film photograph in the dark room to create photo art.
Digital editing is an easy villain. It’s new, it’s much easier than other historical editing techniques and it is now readily available to everyone. Given the long history of photo editing and alteration, is the concern raised by Rob Haggart truly about the integrity of photography or the complexity digital creation adds to the already difficult task of photo editing? I doubt Rob is advocating labeling photos that are digitally altered as recently was proposed in France (France May Put Warning Labels on Airbrushed Photos) and its certainly with in reason to expect that every photo editor will determine the standards published photos will be held to for each publication.
Artistic vision and even photo manipulation has a time and a place. Photography would be a much more boring medium with out it. Visual artists should avoid falling prey to the call to omit artistic vision or artistic interpretation made easier through digital editing techniques. Art of all forms including photography is about impact. Art that impacts its viewers eliciting emotion, awe, and even action is the pinnacle of artistic success. If a moment, a scene, or an interpretation resonates with someone then a connection has been made; a connection not just between subject and viewer, but between photographer and viewer. As a visual artist isn’t that what we all strive for? Capturing something we feel is profound, meaningful, beautiful or even ugly that inspires and even connects us to others is why we share our art. In fact it is these very principles that laid the foundation to the success of Ansel Adams who manipulated his prints in the dark room and whose work was an instrumental influence to the modern environmentalist movement. (see A Visit to Ansel Adams Home detailing his darkroom techniques and showing the before and after to one of his most famous photos).
It is a mistake to separate art and photography or limit the two. Creativity knows no bounds. While editors may want to operate in a world of limitation, Creatives cannot. Exploring, seeing, and experimenting are pillars to the creative experience. Art is subjective, as is reality. Let editors worry about standards and leave photographers to not just seeing, but creating art. The resulting work will find a home where it is deemed acceptable for publication. Artists should never pre-empt their creative vision or process due to subjective and ever changing norms. Let your photography lead the way and let editors focus on norms and trends that follow.
~
If you enjoyed this, be sure to read my entry on Jim’s blog: “Art and Prejudice“.
Category: Rants and Raves
[...] If you enjoyed this be sure to read my writing on Guy’s blog: Photography’s Eternal Identity Struggle [...]
I couldn’t agree more Jim – this is an old and rather boring issue for me in the sense that we all must be held accountable for our integrity. In my years selling my photography, I have never had a buying customer ask me if I manipulated the image or what software I used – they simply like my artistic interpretation. Those who ask the technical questions are either more interested in the process than the result, which is perfectly fine, but usually never results in a sale. Documentary and journalistic photography does have a responsibility to the veracity of the image, but beyond that, all of the greats from the beginning have “interpreted” their images, and I see no reason why we should stop now when the tools are better than ever – even if they are more accessible.
There must be some reason that people keep bringing up these arguments. Does their biases stem from some form of insecurity? Why else would people feel so threatened as to try and label and classify, and rope everyone into the same tiny little boring mold.
I’d suggest anyone who has issues with digital photography, and especially any manipulation or processing that occurs in the digital darkroom to study the history of photography. Start by reading The Linked Ring by Margaret F. Harker. You’ll soon realize the issues and arguments (and the way images are manipulated today) are the same as what occurred in the late 1800′s early 1900′s.
Great post.
Thanks for the comments Robert and Roberta. I do think these arguments come up time and time again more so because it’s easy… much easier than going out to create something new. People often get caught up in camps of thought as well which doesn’t help. If you’re used to operating one way and others are pursuing another path its easy to criticize than explore and learn why others are trying something new. As an editor Rob clearly sees this argument in a particular light, but as a former editor his comments reflect a more personal bias. Where his views fall out only he can answer. Photographers on the other hand should not get dragged into such debates… creating new art is far more rewarding and has a more tangible end point.
Thanks for the book recommendation Roberta!
Hey Jim,
I think there’s more to the subject than Rob’s article, and the follow up conversations have included -simply because of time and space, of course. Context, of course, is everything, and Rob’s article seemed to me to be reasonably clearly discussing editorial usage – and I can’t understand how anyone might feel some journalistic quality is not inherent (or at least is implicit) in that context.
I can’t agree at all with the closing sentiment >em>“Let editors worry about standards and leave photographers to not just seeing, but creating art” – do you honestly think it’s that simple? Absolve photographers of any responsibility and leave it up to the editors? I think this is a part of the whole problem – as the creators of art, we have not just a reason, but indeed a duty, to be somewhat responsible in its presentation. Would you re-submit to an editor who butchered your work in the printing of it? Of course not! Would you feel somewhat cheated? Of course. I’d submit that we have the same responsibility to viewers of our work as we might feel towards ourselves and the art itself.
Cheers
Carl
Carl, I agree completely about editorial use but that’s not what’s being discussed here. If you read the Outside article you’ll see that the author set out to make an example of a photographer who expressly states his images are modified and do not reflect real scenes. This is not an editorial photographer and his images were never meant for editorial use.
Artists are responsible for their art. Their choice of tools, in my mind, has no bearing on the value or validity of their work. The “amount” of realism used or implied is entirely up to the artist. Photographers, painters, creative writers, etc. should all have the exact same uninhibited range of motion in expressing their vision, thoughts, and inspiration.
Guy
I believe the question keeps coming up because there is still a quite a rift between the intent of the artist and the programmed assumption of the viewer. Not all viewers immediately think creativity when seeing something that is extraordinary.
Hey Guy,
“PHOTOGRAPHER ED FREEMAN is working on a book about surfing” .. to me, that is editorial, to some degree. I guess I feel photography is probably ALWAYS editorial to some degree.
I’ve never questioned the choice of tools. I use, albeit poorly, photoshop like everyone else, even have a digital camera. What one does with those tools is up to the artist. How they present that work is, I believe, important.
I’ll raise you one on the quote:
“A witty saying proves nothing” -Voltaire.
Cheers
Carl
In absolute terms no photograph is “Truth” or reality. It reduces 4 dimensions, the 3 dimensions of space plus time, to only two. In addition it takes the chosen subject out of its larger context by drawing a frame around it and leaving out everything the photographer chooses not to include. The “truthfulness” of a photograph is not a matter of whether anything was done to it, whether a polarizing filter on the camera or a digital manipulation. Rather it is a matter of degree. Even where the photographer intends to show you something as it was at a particular moment in time and avoids any manipulation it is not “true” simply because cameras don’t see the way humans do. Even the selection of the particular moment to shoot the photo is an interpretation of a subject that exists in time before and after that moment. One should be honest about the manner of one’s photographic interpretations but to argue that dodging, burning, increasing saturation or any other form of manipulation is detrimental is a failure to recognize the essence of photography as an expressive medium.
[...] November 2, 2009: “Photography’s Eternal Identity Struggle” by Jim Goldstein, gues… [...]
To simply answer your question Carl. Yes it is that simple.
Editors are in charge of setting the standards for their publication. Artists are not.
Editors are in charge of finding, vetting and publishing work fit for their publication. Artists are not.
Artists are responsible for reading submission guidelines.
Artists are responsible for being educated on what is acceptable editing for various genres of photography.
Artists are responsible for acting ethically to properly represent and label their work.
As Guy noted in his reply. All the examples pointed to in Rob’s article are of photographers who were forthcoming in properly labeling their work for what it was. I fail to see how that is the fault of the photographer.
In regard to proper etiquette I do believe that labeling and identifying the type of work produced is important and in some genres of photography ethically required.
In regard to creativity why confine yourself to existing norms? If you want to create art why limit yourself because magazines or contests won’t publish/accept it? Was everyone eager to publish a Pollack or Picasso as soon as it dried? Not likely. Most artists defy convention and are later recognized for their out of the box thinking. I stand by my concluding statement. Create what you want and when you want. Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t do something. If they won’t publish it that’s their decision, but don’t misinterpret my statement that artists have free license to ignore submission guidelines. My point is that submission guidelines like most norms in the visual arts arena are constantly in flux and quite subjective. If you’re constantly operating in these boundaries you’re missing out on a large & important piece of the creative landscape.