rdeloe
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Where does the photography end, and editing take over? | |
Some people use cameras to make photographs they consider to be a relatively literal interpretation of something in the world. They are trying to capture a moment in time, in a particular place, and they're trying to represent it according to their artistic or professional judgement. I think these are "photographs". Other people use photographic images as raw materials for creating what I call "photoart". Jerry Uelsmann is an example of a visual artist who created images by combining digital negatives. John Paul Caponigro also creates photoart, but using digital techniques.
For me, it's about intent. If you're combining images or adding things to images, but you're presenting the result as a literal "photograph", then you've crossed an ethical line. Not that long ago Steve McCurry was embroiled in a controversy over where this line was in his work. Here's an interesting take on his work, with before-and-after pictures: https://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched-steve-mccurry-print-leads-photoshop-scandal/
The line between photographs and photoart is usually clear (especially if the artist is transparent about what he or she is presenting). However, the line between acceptable and unacceptable manipulation of an image is far from clear. Importantly, "acceptability" is a contextual and ethical question, not an artistic one. We need to be free to express ourselves artistically through photographs, and sometimes this means manipulating what the camera recorded (on film, or with a digital sensor). And this is an ages-old question by the way.
I used to be a film photographer and I did my own printing (black and white). I promise you that many black and white photographers and printers heavily manipulated the negative (at the exposure and development stages, and after development), and the print (through exposure, dodging, burning, etc.)
* Have a look at this story about the iconic Kent State Massacre photograph and the missing pole: http://petapixel.com/2012/08/29/the-kent-state-massacre-photo-and-the-case-of-the-missing-pole/ It's a case of removing distracting things from a negative through scratching them off!
* I also like the example of how Ansel Adams' interpretation of Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico changed over the years. The sky above the town became progressively darker -- and less like the actual scene -- with each iteration. This is all fair game: Adams was exploring his artistic vision, and that vision changed over the decades. http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/grant/ansel-adams-moonrise-hernandez-8-31-11.asp
As others have said, it's complicated. In my own work, I just try to be clear about my intent. I'm not a photojournalist. I make fine art black and white prints. They reflect my interpretation of the scene; they're not meant to be a literal photographic record for forensic purposes.
|
