Thoughts Part I
Granada, Spain Veronica Hansen
My thoughts have been chewing on me a lot lately. One of those thoughts has been of my personal style of photography: why I do what I do, and how I define that ’style.’ It’s been roughly 4 years since photography and I became an item. And from the outset, my Faustian love for photoshop marred my success as a “straight photojournalism” student. I’ve since spent many perfectly good facebooking hours pondering the same question: where and how does the threshold for photo manipulation fall?
After sardonically scoffing, the history nerd in me immediately and jumps to the first ‘manipulated’ photo composites, way back in the good ol’ Henry Peach Robinson days, when light quality was irrelevant and the more rigidly cut out the people, the better. From the beginning, everyone had their viewpoint crafted and logic Kant-ily reasoned. Henry P. Robsinson was hacking up bodies left and right – composing images to elucidate emotional response. Peter Henry Emerson was down for manipulation, but only if there was an immediate and previsualized double exposure, where the sky could later be added in for dramatic effect but the ‘truth’ of the image preserved. And don’t worry, there were of course the first photo-puritans, invoking the Cotton Mather spirit to condemn any image that wasn’t an exact replica of the negative (or positive – wink, wink – collodion fans!) I believe, however, the first significant case of actual ‘content’ manipulation came from Roger Fenton’s Crimean War photographs, where mysteriously missing canon balls are still being debated by the most boring people on Earth.
Fading away Henry P. Robinson
Peter Henry Emerson
'Shadow of the Valley of Death,' Roger Fenton
And so, as history often does, repeat. repeat. repeat. New technology, first darkroom advances and now the digital craft invasion, have obviously amplified the magnitude and perfection of said manipulation. Not to mention, the lack of honest reporting by opportunistic photojournalists (read: Iraq, Saddam statue protest).
For now, I’ll leave you with this: is there a threshold for photo-manipulation, be it before the shutter closes or after, that defines the label of the photograph? In other words, how do the aesthetic, technical, and moral aspects of photography determine how we differentiate between opposing worlds of art, journalism, commercial, and personal photography? And furthermore, are these labels necessary?
OFF to Cadiz for Carnaval!
Well first of all, that Grenada picture is incredible! Second, am I the only one who thinks it’s hilarious that people are debating missing balls? Yes, I am 12.
Comment by Ryan on 2010/02/19 at 11:16 am
1) I want your last three Granada pictures on a trenchcoat that I can open to display them side-by-side. Also it’ll be a fashionable aide in my flashing. But srsly, I love the squarish frames on them, and the coloring of the last two and b/w always.
2) Love the photography jokes.
3) That window in the Henry Peach Robinson photo reminds me of rear projection in old Hollywood, which I personally love. Of course, there’s a difference between that and it being artistically great, but I’ll never tire of that kind of nostalgic art production.
4) That’s a question I’ve been curious about your thoughts in for a while. And obviously it varies from piece to piece. But I don’t see why a photo’s manipulation after its initial imprint necessarily detracts from its truth, especially since I’d say the artist is most responsible for the truth, not the subject. I’m very auteurist that way. For instance, you frame a shot, find an angle, manipulate the lighting and other aspects before clicking. Ultimately, these are all tools for the artist to express her statement. If you’re aiming for docurealism, I’d suggest the more you manipulate an image into something the eye doesn’t/couldn’t/didn’t see, the more it threatens the expression of the art.
I suppose there is a point at which a photo stops being a photo and starts being a collage or mixed media or something Joesph Cornell-like. But like you hinted, I’m not sure the label matters.
Then again, those are sort of tenets of my purist worldview, where the only things that exist are the artist and the art. When you bring in journalism and commerce, you have to reevaluate. Just adding money to the equation alters it. Now, were I a newspaper magnate, the only thing I’d expect is for a photographer to reasonably defend the accuracy of their published photo, while the caption or feature writing should be as clear as possible.
Oh, this goes without saying, but if the subject is a black man you dislike, darken the skin a bit.
Comment by Brandon on 2010/02/19 at 10:53 pm
Ryan goes to Harvard Law everybody.
Comment by admin on 2010/03/02 at 2:59 pm