Home » in English » Comments about our Editorial » The poetry of an image
|
| photo-poetry or photo-journalism? [message #708 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:28   |
|
11:16am Sep 27, 2002
The manipulation and combining of images to create "poetry" is certainly not a new concept. Jerry Uelsmann is the master of this in the darkroom. When you look at his images from the 60s to the present, they are so seamless that you really do begin to wonder where in the world he found something so unusual to photograph. But, reality quickly sets in and it's obvious that he works with multiple negatives, several enlargers, etc. to achieve something rather fantastic. The awe is both in the final image itself and the craftsmanship. I don't think anyone would argue that his work is not art at the highest level.
The rub with Pedro's image for some people would be, I think, that it's documentary in nature and as such, maybe it shouldn't be manipulated. This feeling probably goes back to the days when documentary photography was used almost entirely for journalistic purposes. I believe that if the intent is solely artistic, then manipulate away. However, if the intent is to document life in another culture, then maybe we need to be careful about how we alter reality. In the example presented by Pedro, reality is not altered to the extent that it would change our perceptions of life for that particular street scene. But, would it be okay to use it for journalistic purposes? I think it's probably a close call. And then, where do we draw the line?
Take care,
Peter Singhofen
|
|
|
| ZoneZero editorial "The poetry of an image" [message #709 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:31 |
|
08:19pm Sep 29, 2002
Dear Pedro Meyer,
re: ZoneZero editorial "The poetry of an image"
The word poetry is used to describe a certain magic found in a painting, a photograph, a sculpture, a person's beauty, the gait of a horse, and even justice. A moment that is sliced from time, whether decisive or not, may have poetic force. One part of this power, if it is there, must be attributed to the gods or, put another way, the stream of actuality perceived by our consciousness. This points to a collusion between the photographer and life, which I think is part of the magic inherent in this type of image.
There is poetry in the image you have presented, but it seems to me that it should not be described as a photograph but rather as a painting - a photo realistic painting. Why do I say this? - because the elements in the final image were brought together in your mind first, just as the painter sees the image in his head and uses his hand to record his vision onto canvas. Collage may be more precise, photo collage, where much like contemporary popular music, the elements are sampled from a library, and brought together as a new original whole. This synthesized product can also contain magic, just as yours does.
What I find troubling about your image is the use of the frame lines. These have traditionally been used to denote a full frame photograph and allude to one moment pulled from the river of time. I realize that your artistic intention in using them may be to comment on truth and fiction, but regardless, I feel that through the use of frame lines this new kind of image is masquerading as the old kind. That said, I'm not sure how you could distinguish between these two. It seems to be one of the interesting problems facing photographers after the digital revolution.
In no way do I see either the "decisive moment" image or the "photo collage" image as superior to one another, but they do seem to be different and should be appreciated accordingly. If there is to be any progress in this debate I believe we need to acknowledge, explore and celebrate these differences.
In closing I would like to express my appreciation for ZoneZero. I have spent many hours enjoying the galleries and the ideas and images presented there.
Sincerely,
David Campion
|
|
|
| some additional questions [message #710 is a reply to message #708 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:32 |
 Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
10:20pm Oct 1, 2002
Peter,
Let me attempt to make the issue a bit more problematic, with regard to what we have called "documentary" photography. Maybe in order to find some better answers, we should pose the questions differently. For instance, what are the specifics of what we insist on calling "documentary" ? I assume it would have to do somehow with factual evidence of some sort. But then we would have to throw out black and white photography as not good enough for such factual evidence, as "reality" is usually not to be found in such a presentation. And for that matter, even color has big problems in meeting such specs. And of course we can go on with all sorts of variables and we discover all of a sudden that our so called factual evidence, was nothing more than a convention agreed upon as to how things ought to look under certain conditions. Obviously lighting, and lenses used, etc. all contribute with their own some times considerable field of distortion. But we have been there and explored these topics and seem to be making little progress in coming up with definitions that are satisfactory.
I would suggest something entirely different. Let us for the sake of the argument, assume that in fact "documentary" work was a convenient description up to now, which seems to be headed for some serious rethinking.
What happens if documentary work under the predefined notions we collectively have attributed to it, never really existed? Yes we called it that, but maybe it was never possible for it to live up to the responsibility that we demanded of it. Or said better, in another way, maybe it was all that and something else at the same time, namely a subjective interpretation.
If three photographers are sent on assignment to the exact same location and with the same request to come up with documentation of the same event, and if documentary work would be as factual as we have alleged it to be, it stands to reason that all three would have come up with identical images. Facts are facts.
But we know that is not the case, so what does that leave us with? subjectivity using factual references, that's what. SO what is so different from someone using the computer to express subjective interpretations, using factual references.
I would venture to say that real problems reside some place else. For instance in the example provided, I used my own work. Not someone else's. That is of no small importance and is usually not discussed. I am using several frames of my own making, and deliberately taken, and then folded into a third reality, with all of them having a very strong factual reference. I would not have a problem suggesting this to be a documentary image. As far as I can see, there is nothing there that wouldn't fall into such a category, if an argument would be raised about such a label. The only real problem is one of tradition, and the hesitation to expand our notions of the different genres.
But getting back to the use of materials, I think there is a huge difference if I use my own work than if I just mix and match out of context other peoples images. Maybe the use of the tools are the same but the outcome is certainly determined by the intention. Then we enter into copyright issues and the likes, which become a whole different ball game unto themselves.
Maybe the images that I am taking could be made equivalent to the notes that a journalist takes on his or her pad or tape recorder. The editing comes after that is accomplished. No one questions the validity of such factual reporting just because they edit the materials that they have collected. What is the difference between such work and that of a photographer who has been provided today with tools as he never had before ?
I believe that the more useful discussions might be centered not around the limits of what to do or not do on the computer in order to make a statement, but which images are "allowed" to be used in the context of a documentary satement.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Hi David! [message #711 is a reply to message #709 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:32 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
10:42pm Oct 1, 2002
I would like to touch upon some of the interesting issues raised by you. The first one being one of definitions. I think that this period in the history of photography will surely be one of grappling and coining definitions for all that we are doing and have done. It appears that until we can actually name something adequately, we are undergoing a process of recognition of what it is that we are either doing or using. This process can take decades. For instance let us take you, what should we call you at this time? a viewer? is that all you do over the internet ? obviously not. TV has viewers, but the internet what does it have? you are not a reader, although you also read, and you listen, yet you are not a listener, as does the radio.
Take ZoneZero for instance, we have Galleries which are an arhitectural metaphor, and then upon entering them you go to from page to page, a metaphor derived from books. So how did we move from a three dimensional space such as a Gallery to that of the book, in such a seamless manner? No one has ever questioned the inconsistency of these conventions.
So maybe the issues that you are raising should be discussed in terms of definitions and in doing so you have to be very much aware of conventions that are nothing more than that.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| NO ONE UNDERSTANDS [message #712 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:36 |
|
09:02am Oct 2, 2002
I remember seeing Pedro's work of about twenty-five years ago, and thinking that the work was very strong and skillful. This was when he was a film photographer. Now, he takes digital images and does paste and cut. Good, strong, meaningfull images don't get stronger or better with manipulation as an afterthought, although BORING IMAGES can be made to look more interesting. If Pedro promises to go back to film,
I'll send him my Contax rangefinder and a roll of film so that he can get started producing good, strong, straight documentary work that's not boring.
|
|
|
| who do I have to thank ? [message #713 is a reply to message #712 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:37 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
05:50pm Oct 2, 2002
It is curious how people who come up with critical commentary quite often don't have the confidence in themselves to actually use their own name rather than hide behind a pseudonym. So "gelabanet" who ever you are, here are a few thoughts for you to consider.
If you like one body of work over another that is a matter of preferences and over which I will not have a debate, I respect your opinions as I hope you will do that with mine or others.
There is however a condescending tone to your offer of the camera and film that I find less than useful.
If at any time you are interested in some serious discussions about what appear to be your mishaprehensions with regard to digital photography and decide to use your actual name to back up what you are writing, then I might consider responding in kind. Until that happens though, you better keep your Contax, as clearly you need it more than I.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Re: some additional questions [message #714 is a reply to message #710 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:39 |
|
08:33am Oct 3, 2002
Pedro,
As always, you bring up many interesting questions to ponder. There are two things in particular in your response to my original comments that caught my attention. The first is the analogy of the journalist preparing a story from previously gathered research. Although journalists are supposed to be objective, it is human nature to have personal feelings and opinions, especially on emotionally charged issues. I don't like to generalize, but I'm sure that the investigation behind a lot of reporting is often slanted in one direction based on preconceived ideas or feelings. And, even if the reporter does a thorough job investigating and writing a piece, editors and publishers can still have their way with it, possibly slanting or worse, sensationalizing things intentionally to sway public opinion or simply to sell more newspapers, magazines, books, etc. I don't think I would be wrong in saying that wars have been started this way. Can not the same thing happen with digital photography?
The second comment you made which really resonates is that "the outcome is certainly determined by intention." Although you were referring to images belonging to one or more people being manipulated by others, it seems to me that we can manipulate our own images in malicious ways if that was our intent. We now have the ability to very easily create images on the computer that transcend time and place, meaning we can move totally unrelated things such as people and places and time into an almost fourth dimension, but simultaneously make them appear as if they belong together. This, I think, is quite different than the journalist who prepares an article from notes taken during his investigative work on a particular piece.
In addition to "which images are "allowed" to be used in the context of documentary photography", I think motive and intent are equally important issues. If the intent is to deceive the viewer, then clearly it would be problematic. Perhaps there should be a code of ethics developed in this regard.
Take care,
Peter Singhofen
|
|
|
| Digital needs to grow up [message #715 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:41 |
Gelabert, Edgar
Messages: 14
Registered: April 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
10:19am Oct 3, 2002
Pedro:
In my previous msg, my 'name' is really my e-mail address. For some reason the ampersand did not come out. The last paragraph is a mistake since it really does not accomplish anything.
I still believe that good images do not become better with any manipulation that comes as an after thought. Too many image makers using digital are just playing games and producing boring images that will never see the light of day. World wide image polution is a reality. Even today, the strongest and most creative images I have seen come out of Mexico are by Bravo, Garduno and a few others who still use film and a darkroom. By the way, if photography is going to be compared to another medium, it should be compared to drawing since this is what a lens does. Perhaps digital is too young a medium and needs time to grow up.
Regards, Ed Gelabert, Bronx, NY
|
|
|
| In response to Peter and Ed [message #716 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:44 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
09:16pm Oct 3, 2002
First let me thank Ed for having joined us now with his full name, I like to know when I am speaking or writing to someone who it is, even though we have never met personally, as is often the case over the internet. But somehow it provides for a more civil environment, something that always helps in moving a discussion towards a more productive arena, when the person introduces him or herself with an identity.
Maybe I am old fashioned in that, I just believe it works better. So thank you.
Let me also add that in these forums the important issue is to discuss the topics not win a debate, for in doing so, one would hope that we at some point arrive at a better understanding of what it is that is either going on, or that we are doing. In that sense the concluding remark of Ed's last commentary maybe where we should start.
Indeed we are very "young", although I have been working on digital photography for the past 15 years, the truth is that digital cameras worth using are only about 4 years old, and they are improving by the hour, almost.
They are coming down in price and increasing in quality so much that today one can comfortably abandon film and not think twice about it, save for all the digital benefits that accrue. But that is probably a topic for some other day.
I think we all stand to experience new insights about the world of photography as we move into the digital world. This is in relation to the last paragraph by Peter. I find that those who want to manipulate with ill intentions in mind, are not going to stop at some code of ethics put together by some individual or association. Best example of this is all that has happened recently on Wall Street. The collusion between CEO's /CFO's/ bankers/brokers/accountants/ etc. to manipulate stocks, balance sheets, and so on, wasn't because the people did not have a clue that some of this might be actually wrong, but because they took their chances. For a long time many got away, many of which we probably do not know about. I assure you that the Enron shenanigans pale in comparison to what you might do with an image in PhotoShop.
When I made reference to working with your own image, I was thinking in terms of the motivations that a photographer has when making an image. I know what I have done with almost every single picture out of more than one million negatives or slides. I can recall most of the incidents, and the intentions, and therefore can stay true to these, when using a picture many years after having taken it. But what I can not do, is to know what the motivations were from a single picture that you might have taken,unless you tell me. The picture does not tell us that by themselves. It might tell us what the subject depicted might be, but not the failed or achieved intentions of the photographer.
So if I just pick your pictures and use them and insert them into my images, I am using "arms and legs", as so many parts from an inventory, if you know what I mean. The other picture is just a source of raw materials. My pictures as a resource, become a source like the writer does who picks up his old notebook years hence, to write a novel, for instance. They become parts of his or her personal experience.
Ed tells me he does not like what I do these days, and that is OK, that is an aesthetic choice, over one could have a cup of coffee, but not much more. I am not going to defend myself, as that I think that is beside the point.. What is important, however, is that the reasons expressed for or against are based on issues that are real, and not just misunderstandings borne out of bad information.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| two words [message #717 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:48 |
|
04:27pm Oct 6, 2002
There is a reason why the literary world uses the term non-fiction instead of truth. Implicit in the term is the assumption that the writer’s opinion may color the work even if the basic facts are indisputable. Writers who claim to have witnessed a fact, but have not, risk losing credibility, their jobs and lots of money. I’d say a non-manipulated photograph is non-fiction, a take on the truth, something that happened before the photographer’s lens but was shaped by his or her sensibilities. Arguments could be made over what constitutes manipulation but perhaps the problem is one of declaration or presentation. If the facts of an image don’t matter, then anything goes: it is art and that is that. If they do then the manipulation should somehow be declared. So perhaps referring to Pedro Meyer’s image as a “documentary” image is the problem. In manipulating it he may have created a documentary-style image but it is no longer a document of a particular event. Does this add or subtract from its artistic merit? Not one bit.
Also just a little peevishness about the term, “boring”. First of all, I would think that boredom has to do with time spent in an unsatisfying way. Since a picture is something one can take in whole and immediately decide whether it is worth a further examination, how can it be boring? A performance can be boring, so can a work of literature as you slog through it hoping to be rewarded. The impression I get when I see the term used is of a superficial reading of a work of visual art, which when voiced is disrespectful of the art and the artist. With so many images to see it is natural to make snap judgments but, because such unconsidered opinions can be wrong, it is wise to keep them to ourselves lest we seem shallow. The term is a fuzzy substitute for clearer criticism, which may actually be of use the artist. If you have to put a fine point on your opinion, you may be forced to evaluate why you arrived at it. This would mean examining your reaction and having a dialogue with the art, which takes time and may be--boring.
|
|
|
| A few questions for Michael [message #718 is a reply to message #717 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:49 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
05:56pm Oct 7, 2002
In the image I have presented in the editorial, and having access as you have to the two images from which it is derived. Where do you draw the line, or how do you draw a line, better said, between the one image that is edited to the two that are not ? Why or when does it stop being a documentary picture and become a "documentary style" image ?
Both pictures are done by me, the so called altered image, is if anything a synthesis of the two. If you will, it is a displacement of time, if that really mattered in the context of this particular picture.
I would like to argue that the image is in fact documentary, only that it forms part of a new interpretation of what falls under this notion of documentary. I find we need to reasses these definitions in the light of how photography is being transformed. I understand this is not a very welcome task, but it needs to be discussed anyway. If for no better reason than to make sure we are not dismissing something for lack of looking under the covers to find out what really is going on.
Going back to the altered picture, if you observe it is a sum of two moments that were there as facts. So a third one which subsumes the two, should still bear the notions of being a witness, being there, etc. should it not? and if no, then please explain to us why not. Maybe that could lead us out of the laberynth.
However, if you find you can agree with me, then we should also elaborate further on these same issues explaining why, as the topic seems to require quite a bit of rethinking on the part of all of us.
Paul Valery wrote in the introduction to an essay by Walter Benjamin, THE WORK OF ART IN THE AGE OF MECHANICAL REPRODUCTION, the following, and I give you this quote from 1935, for it's shear timeliness:
In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power. For the last twenty years neither matter nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Photodocument and photomontage [message #719 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:52 |
|
10:28pm Oct 7, 2002
Dear Pedro Meyer,
In your latest entry "A few questions for Michael", you start your argument with the notion that your photoshop assemblage is indeed a document according to a new interpretation that is not yet formulated.
In front of me I have an obituary of photo and video-journalist Roddy Scott printed in today's Globe and Mail. Mr. Scott died on Sept. 26 in Chechnya. He went to Chechnya because he believed that the international press had not given this forgotten war enough attention. He was killed by a bullet that pierced the lens of his Nikon. Mr. Scott believed that there were three simple steps to good journalism: Witness an event, work out what was happening and then report it in a balanced and accurate way. I don't think that there is much need for new interpretation of documentary photography beyond this delivered by Roddy Scott and others like him. I don't know about you going for raw material to Chechnya but I certainly would have difficulties imagining Roddy Scott assembling his pictures in photoshop.
At the end of your entry you quote Paul Valery on the impact of mechanical reproduction on the technique of the arts. Why this quote? Do you suggest that mechanical reproduction of an image makes it somehow more a document?
Photomontage is a photomontage no matter scissors or photoshop or printing press. Perhaps it is a documentation of an artistic process or artist's relationship with the reality or his penetration of the nature of time and space. Isn't that enough? Why not to leave documentary photography for the people who are prepared to die for a chance to tell the story as they believe is truth.
Christopher Grabowski
|
|
|
| The poetry of an image [message #720 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 18:55 |
|
02:00am Oct 8, 2002
To be honest with you Mr Meyer, I am not the type of person who constantly tries to decipher photos. If I see a photo, I don't really ponder about why certain objects were placed in the photo or why a person was placed in a certain position. I just see the picture for what it is.
After I started reading your work, I have actually started analysing pictures quite well. My analysis of course, is not as in-depth as yours. Take the picture on the first page of the editorial (http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre02/october.html), for example, I would have certainly noticed the "repetition of the elements in pairs" (Pedro Meyer, Poetry of an image: 2) but I would have never seen the picture as being poetic.
After reading your editorial on "The poetry of an image", I totally agreed with your justification as to why you said photography is like poetry and I actually understood your photograph much better. I strongly believe that an "image does not come together on its own, you must make it happen"
(Pedro Meyer, Poetry of an image: 3) because, Mr Meyer, you could have waited the whole day but you mite not have been able to capture a photograph that was better than the digitally altered photo.
I would like to conclude by saying that your work on manipulations of photographs is excellent and I look forward to reading more of your editorials.
|
|
|
| Where else can photographers go? Art and poetry is their new home. [message #721 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 19:08 |
|
06:57am Oct 8, 2002
Reponse to Pedro Meyer's October 2002 Editorial, "The poetry of an image"
Photography is not longer considered a reliable and accurate method of recording history. It has been seen as trustworthy and truthful for most of its more than 150 year existence, but alas, no longer.
Photographs are too open to manipulation today, especially since the digital revolution and even more so since the personal computing revolutions. These two revolutions have made it possible not only for images to be dramatically manipulated and their possible meanings vastly changed, but also for images to be created completely from scratch. Photographers are no longer required to cover events; images can be created from account and descriptions instead. Of course, this is taking things to the point of the ridiculous, but it is certainly possible, and has been done before in the world of the media.
Ultimately, what it boils down to as far as I am concerned is that the credibility of images as accurate records has been so thoroughly destroyed that if images and photographers are not allowed to move into the realm of poetry and art in general, then where exactly do they go. If Meyer is able to create an image and liken features of the image to conventions in poetry, I am in firm agreement that the image is most certainly visual poetry just that it does not necessarily constitute any words.
Creativity and the arts are by their very nature, subject to no boundaries; likewise Meyer should not be restricted in his attempts to create photographic/visual/image-based poetry.
|
|
|
| Poetry, Ensay, Drama [message #722 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 19:09 |
|
11:03am Oct 8, 2002
Photography as representation, images as documents... uh?... Art is a way of being somehow in the middle of multiple discourse. The issue about poetry is about how we understand poetry. After modernism, forms and patrons has been changing, and as audience, we experience many different shapes and titles to read. What we read here is an image that "has been" manipulated, but functionally, it's is not relevant for what the image is telling... Texts change, values change, ecosystems change... we keep moving.
Wish you all a great time,
Regards,
Juanjo Herrera
|
|
|
| poetry of the moment [message #723 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 19:15 |
|
10:03am Oct 9, 2002
As a fine art photographer, and classical flutist, I think that there is something unique about the real thing. It is perfectly valid to manipulate images, but I think this works best in a conceptual setting, where the idea is paramount. I think that when a scene from life is manipulated, it loses it`s poetic expression, for the poetry lies in the fact that certain elements come together coincidentally to give form and content it`s perfection. Technique can not compete with reality, and since there are endless scenes to be seen in everyday life in which one only needs to be there, and report, it is always possible to catch the poetic image without manipulation. One must only see it. There is nothing like a live music performance, with all it`s imperfections and humanness. A studio recording can surpass the live performance in technical brillance, but will never be as moving as the live performance. We need to remain close to the world outside in this modern age, and although I believe in all art forms, I also solidly support the wonders of straight photography.
|
|
|
| the poetic moment [message #724 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 19:17 |
|
10:09am Oct 9, 2002
As a fine art photographer and classical flutist, I would like to try to go back to the origin of the poetic element. In digitally creating a picture, which moves one, i can imagine doing this with something which originates in a c onceptual way. however, i think that when one captures a scene in the real world, the poetry lies in the coincidence of certain factors coming together to make composition, and content perfect. Once the factors are manipulated , the poetry is lost, because it is found in the reality only. I have been lucky in finding numerous situations in which everyday scenes become poetic, not so much due to my technique, but rather to the luck of having been there at the right time, and seeing it. there are so many poetic scenes in real life, that if one looks, one need only record them in their perfection. As in music, there is nothing like a live performance, wit all it`t imperfections and human expression. A Cd recording, which has been manipulated in the studio is usually more brillant, but it can never touch the heart in the same way. dayle ann clavin
|
|
|
| in response to Christopher. [message #725 is a reply to message #719 ] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 19:20 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
05:28pm Oct 9, 2002
Let us separate several issues here. As I see them. The first and foremost is the death of a human being, Roddy Scott, the video-journalist. Who did what he thought was important to do, and in the process either took undue risks or was plain and simple unlucky that day.
For me, the part about the bullet that pierced his Nikon, is a bit of melodrama that is uncalled for. The romantic notion of the photo-journalist killed in action in pursuit of his pictures, could also be turned on it's head, as the recklessness of someone who did not measure danger in it's full dimension or as stated, luck ran out!
There are always two or more ways of how things can be presented. Suffice it to say that no picture - in my estimation- is worth the life of a human being. Sorry! I do not buy into the notion of the photo journalist other than a professional who has to be clear about the risks he or she takes, in pursuit of telling a story with images. Getting killed in the process does unfortunately not make for better images.
I have had in my life time, my fair share of "accidents" and of "close calls" in pursuit of images, yet never in my wildest dreams did I consider that such references had anything to do with the photographic merit of the images I made.
Anecdotal "war stories" are just that, an anecdote. It does not make any image better on account of such references. I don't associate bravery either with someone taking undue risks, in the pursuit of an image. Myself included. Sometimes adrenaline makes one take on what under normal circumstances one would not have done, with a more rational behavior. That is just being foolish and one needs to be clear that this happens. I know, I have lived it.
My total symphaty for Rodney and in particular his family, for their irreparable loss. I personally would have preferred that he not make that last picture, any picture, than to have to mourn his loss on account of it. But my feeling of solidarity would be no different had he perished in a plane accident on his way to work, or if he had had cancer.
Remember that a photographer is not a fireman. The fireman has to jump into the action, there are no alternatives. The photographer has the option of being in the action, but also to choose from where he makes his pictures. No one benefits from a story never concluded or told, because the photographer perished in the process.
I once, according to him, saved a colleagues life, when I pulled him back, from entering into a life threatening situation, where he could have had his head shot off, for not waiting out the moment until it was clear that the danger had subsided. The image he was going to get, he got just the same, only a bit later. However, to add insult to injury his publication never even ran the story he covered that day.
We also need to be pragmatists, better to have a live photographer, than one image too many, in so far as loosing someone attempting to cover a story.
As far as I am concerned, the anecdotal evidence of how a photograph was obtained, remains being nothing more than that, an anecdote. If the picture was shot after walking ten days in the mountains, does not alter that I can still distinguish between a good or a poor image. How he or she got there is in that respect irrelevant. But that goes the same regardless if the picture was done digitally or not. What counts is THE image.
I personally am rather fed up with the portrayal of news-gatherers becoming the news themselves. Driven by television mainly, the photo-journalist or interviewer in the face of "danger" being presented for its melodramatic value, which goes over very well with a television audience. During the recent war in Afghanistan, the reports sometimes were more on the dangers incurred by the journalists than on the lives lost due to stray bombs falling in the wrong places and killing civilians.
But back to the anecdotes, when I share today how a picture was made by me, it is because at this moment in time, the process is relevant to our ongoing digital discussions, not because I invest the picture with a particular merit on account of it's construction. That is also just anecdotal. The picture, the story, as I see it, has to stand on it's own qualities.
I recall giving a key note speech, and talking about how hidden video cameras installed for security measures would in time be so ubiquitous that they would deliver a good number of the images that in the past were covered by photographers at great risk to themselves, and added that for the public the story is what counted, not how the image was taken. The next day, as if to prove my point, on the front page of one of the main newspapers in Mexico City. La Jornada, for the first time ever, we had images made by such a video camera depicting a bank robbery in full action.
Let us stay well away from the temptation of making heroes out of photojournalists. They might be, but for other reasons, certainly not for having taken that extra picture. What is more, there are not few cases, of photographers who prefered to record a picture than to help someone who needed attention, confronted with the two choices they opted to make the image. How heroic was that?
Quite possibly the most heroic action taken by a photographer was not an image made but it's absence whilst helping someone out of danger. Give that some thoughts as well.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Technology and Poetry, and Music, and Art, and... [message #749 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 17:59 |
|
12:40pm Oct 10, 2002
The anonymous emailer who complains to Pedro Meyer that by manipulating the two original images to come up with a new one, all poetry and magic has been lost, misses a key point. I illustrate it by reference. A friend of mine is a classical guitarist, yet he was obsessed with Bach's Goldberg variations...for the keyboard. Undaunted, he commissioned the creation of 2 guitars that would allow him the range of a typical piano. Then, he spent a long time creating a transcription. Then he spent countless hours practicing before spending even more hours recording the various parts alternating between his two guitars. After years of labor, he had completed the recording. As one listens, the sense of wonder at the beauty of the music is what strikes one first. Is the beauty of what we hear diminished by reading the liner notes where the process is described? Not for me. Not at all! The artist works with the tools at his/her disposal, and to turn our backs on the new tools and the new ways of working they provide is utter silliness.
|
|
|
| Is new terminology in order? [message #751 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 18:02 |
|
07:06am Oct 11, 2002
Pedro,
Your comments regarding photojournalists putting themselves in peril are well stated. I'm not 100% certain but I would guess that most photojournalists, at least in the United States, are working with digital cameras. Without trying to sound melodramatic, a bullet can pierce the lens of a digital camera as easily as the lens of a conventional camera.
I'd like to get back to the subject of "when or how we draw the line" relative to digital manipulation. This was my original question in comment #1 and later reiterated by Pedro in comment #12 ("a few questions for Michael"). I think there is in general an unsettling feeling when people see an image that looks quite real but later discover that it is the product of two or more other images. People probably feel tricked or deceived and perhaps that an unwritten trust has been broken. It seems to me that if we are up front (almost in a matter of fact sense) about the manipulation without trying to defend it, the viewer would be more receptive to studying the final image for the ideas and feelings being conveyed by the artist. In conventional photography we routinely identify the technique used to create the image (e.g., silver gelatin print, hand colored, etc.). Why then not use new brief descriptions to accompany digital images? I don't claim to be an expert in developing new terminology, but perhaps something as simple as "digital composite" for images that are created from more than one original image. This way the deception factor would be immediately defused and we could all then get on with the pure enjoyment of looking at and studying the image, trying to understand the message of the artist.
Peter Singhofen
|
|
|
| About deception [message #753 is a reply to message #751 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 18:05 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
12:21pm Oct 11, 2002
Peter,
I am sure you will agree that deception is entirely a subjective issue in relation to your own perceived expectations.
For instances if you go to see a movie, does it matter to you that almost every frame in that film is the product of some visual deception, to use your term ?
Probably not. Now let us ask why? In my estimation it is because you know that films do that, they are the product of artifice. Incredible talents I might add, go into the production of those images.
Now back to still photography. We are only starting to realize now, that the long heralded representation of reality, was never really that. It has been an artifice as well, albeit a well hidden truth, in the name of so called "truth". And that is what is causing so many ripples and so much commotion. It's almost like going into a childrens school and announcing that SantaClause does not exist.
My son (7) who lost his tooth yesterday, got some money from the "tooth fairy" last night, he then went to school with the letter that the tooth fairy left for him together with some money, to prove to his school mates that indeed the tooth fairy is there and he has the factual evidence to prove it. His ten dollars and the letter. Does that make the tooth fairy exist?
The issues of factual representation through photography are about as correct as my sons conviction that the tooth fairy came to see him. He is absolutely convinced, that his perception is based on reality. And the truth is, that he does have some factual evidence. Now the day will come, when I will have to let him in on the background of his facts, and he will discover that there was no tooth fairy all along, and I can envisage that he ain't going to be very pleased with my comments.
We are with photography, more or less, in such a stage. The collective delusion that we we had evidential representation is being slowly eroded as we enter the digital age. Does that mean that photography can not be used at all as evidence of something ? of course not. But it will have to be conditioned to a number of situations, much as we do today with the written word. No one in their right mind, trusts words just because someone has written them out. You have to get corroboration from other sources as well.
That is what is going to happen to photography. It will no longer be trusted as a medium unto itself. Think of how ridiculous it has become that photography became it's own corroboration. You believe something because it is a photograph. "I (namely photography) am a witness to myself". A photograph is factual because it is a photograph".
As I see it, we do not need to define photography more than it is at present, it's not an issue of definitions, as much as one of expectations. I have been declaring how I make the pictures because I find it essential at this time in history. It's a strategy geared to eliminate or reduce the issue of trust. People trust me, because I am telling them what is going on. I have no need to deceive anyone either. And the audience is getting the message: maybe we should look at pictures differently. And that is what I find important.
Your concluding remarks tells me we are going in the right direction, we should simply get on with looking at images, only now with heightened awareness of what pictures can and will deliver.
Up to now, we photographers were seen, more or less, as some sort of intermediaries between reality and the viewer. Out there we had reality, in the middle was the photograph, with which we got to see the Pyramids of Egypt, and now there is a viewer thinking Hmm! what was the photographer trying to show me, not, this is how it is out there.
All of a sudden we are starting to gain visibility as never before. The public at large is getting to be more image savvy, and they are starting to see that there is indeed a lot of trust that had been misplaced, in terms of the photograph.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Photodocument and photomontage part II [message #754 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 18:09 |
|
03:36pm Oct 11, 2002
Dear Peter,
I could not agree more with you that we should separate the issues here. However, since you picked up a few more issues during our short debate I feel that they deserve a comment of mine as well.
Firstly, you stated that: “a photographer is not a fireman. The fireman has to jump into the action, there are no alternatives. The photographer has the option of being in the action, but also to choose from where he makes his pictures”.
As you remember one of the features defining documentary photography that I pointed to was that the reporter has to witness the event. Witnessing events in the war-zone carries risks that perhaps can be reduced but not entirely avoided. It is exactly like being a fireman. Photo-reporters like firemen take calculated professional risks and unfortunately sometimes they die in the line of duty.
You devoted good part of your entry to bashing photojournalists: “I personally am rather fed up with the portrayal of news-gatherers becoming the news themselves. Driven by television mainly, the photo-journalist or interviewer in the face of "danger" being presented for its melodramatic value, which goes over very well with a television audience”.
Your anger, I think is justified. However, It should be perhaps directed more towards the general shift by the mass media news outlets from straight reporting to entertainment and consensus manufacturing. Ironically, I consider your approach to documentary photography a part of the same trend, which by the way is opposed by most of accomplished photojournalists.
You stated: “I have had in my life time, my fair share of "accidents" and of "close calls" in pursuit of images, yet never in my wildest dreams did I consider that such references had anything to do with the photographic merit of the images I made.
Anecdotal "war stories" are just that, an anecdote. It does not make any image better on account of such references”.
And a few paragraphs later you rephrased it: “As far as I am concerned, the anecdotal evidence of how a photograph was obtained, remains being nothing more than that, an anecdote. If the picture was shot after walking ten days in the mountains, does not alter that I can still distinguish between a good or a poor image. How he or she got there is in that respect irrelevant. But that goes the same regardless if the picture was done digitally or not. What counts is THE image”.
I applied the above directives to the picture of Kim Puc, a naked girl running away from the napalm bombed village that was taken in Vietnam by Nick Ut.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/718106.stm
After separating all melodramatic and anecdotal issues from the photograph it become clear that Ut’s picture do not measure up to your digitally composed document. The boy in the left is slightly out of focus, the soldiers in the background are wrongly placed, and the whole composition is lousy.
Apparently, following your path I arrived to some kind of paradox. I will use one more quotation from your response in an attempt to solve it.
"But back to the anecdotes, when I share today how a picture was made by me, it is because at this moment in time, the process is relevant to our ongoing digital discussions, not because I invest the picture with a particular merit on account of it's construction. That is also just anecdotal. The picture, the story, as I see it, has to stand on it's own qualities".
The nature of the story, I think is the key. As long as you insist on your picture’s documentary nature the true narrative of it becomes relevant. There is no escape of the conclusion that the narrative of this particular picture was artificially created by digital manipulation. In fact, I think, it occupies the same domain as Elsie Wright’s photographs of fairies that fooled Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and were at the root of the similar debate in the British press of the period. Perhaps you are reviving an old debate that has been resolved already. The fact that manipulation of your picture was digital and not physical counts for little.
As you said: “There are always two or more ways of how things can be presented”. That’s right, a story can be told in many different ways; but also a story can be invented in many different ways. No offense intended here, but these are two different things and mixing them makes a lousy storytelling.
Christopher Grabowski
|
|
|
| back to story telling, and then some... [message #756 is a reply to message #754 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 18:12 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
07:27pm Oct 11, 2002
Dear Christopher,
I find it splendid that we can have this dialogue, and nurture this topic which is so dear to all of us, while sitting in different parts of the world, each following his or her own schedule, and still meeting someplace in time and space. Who would have though just ten years ago that any of this was a real possibility, unless you had some very sophisiticated equipment and were very afluent. So look how far we have come and in what short period of time.
This I bring up, because like all else with the digital world. We are on the threshold of discovering so many aspects of digital photography, and which create all sorts of problems in figuring them out completely. Hence so many discussions about things which in fact are quite obvious, if we spend some time looking at them in depth.
Christopher, I would prefer to stay away from debating about the definition of what makes a photo-journalist, because the term is too loaded with conflict, and in the end we still would not have come closer in our search for some ground over which we can agree. At least let us try and see what comes out of this.
For arguments sake, let us consider that we are all story tellers. Some tell a story with a few pictures, other in one image. The number of these depends entirely on the final presentation of the inteded story telling effort.
You make all sorts of statements based on tradition, which is quite understandable, after all, why not? Let me clarify which ones I am refering to. For instance your assertion of having to be a witness as a precondition for having the image have merit. I hope I understood you correctly and I am not putting words in your mouth. So if I understood you well, the physical presence of a photographer determines the value of an image.
If you had the opportunity to see an exhibition of photographs of the events of Bloody Sunday in Ireland 30 years ago, one of the most photographed of it's kind. You would soon come to the conclusion that a lot of pictures were made, but by far the numbers did not represent necessarily that they told the story adequately as individuals. No one, really got the whole story, yet they all were witnesses to something. They were at best partial realities. Some were better images than others, of course, but you could not extract one and say this one represents the entirety of the story.
However we have Guernica, a painting, by Picasso, who was not there as a witness, and in one image, he did make a statement that has rung through out the ages. Why? Am I being wrong in comparing a painting to photographs? Not if what we are searching for is the intention of communicating with others.
Of course we still don't have a comparable digital image to Guernicas painting, for that the medium is much too young. But rest assured it will happen in due time.
I have nothing against photo-journalism, as you hinted at in your previous commentary, that is not an accurate statement. I am against, and I want to be quite clear, to avoid misunderstanding, against stereotyping this professional endeavor with cliches that have rained down in recent times, at an accelerated rate, with the arrival of digital technology. There have been a very intense defensive attitudes, and most of the time based on fear about what the digital world, more than actual knowledge.
I am quite clear that defensive nature stems from the technological changes brought about by the digital world, which if not well understood create inevitable anxiety levels about the real or perceived threats that loom about for the profession. Under those circumstances it is inevitable that we end up with vehement defensiveness rahter than illustrated exploration of issues.
So for me it is nothing new that from the world of photojournalism, we would hear a strong rebuke with some of the issues we are raising. For me however what has been most interesting to observe, is that the number of photo-journalists who have ended up working with digital technology has become exponential. And all the statements over the past decade that I had to hear about NEVER becoming part of these digital transformations, has fallen on the way side, with untold number of dear colleagues who ended up doing precisely what they said they would never do. All I can tell you is that time is on my side of the argument, not theirs.
You wrote: " The nature of the story, I think is the key. As long as you insist on your picture's documentary nature the true narrative of it becomes relevant. There is no escape of the conclusion that the narrative of this particular picture was artificially created by digital manipulation."
I sustain and will defend, quite vehemently I might add, that just because my picture was constructed with digital technology it does not take anything away, either from it's veracity, it's documentary nature, or from any of the other labels you might wish to use, related to credibility. Your knowledge of what constitutes, what you call, an artificially created image, is probably what separates us.
I don't know how much experience you have in this field of digital photography, I don't know what you bring to the discussion is so far as references on which to base your comments, so it is difficult for me to evaluate from what vantage point you are coming from. So the discussion is a bit lopsided in so far as you know where I come from, but I do not have the benefit of such a reference as to how you arrive at your opinions. THis is quite relevant, because our proximity to the factual issues determines to a great degree the outcome of the perception. Here I will use one of your own metaphors. Have you been a witness to the digital production of an image?
How much time have you devoted to making such images?
Are your present day observations based on what you imagine things to be or as a participant who is closely involved ? I suspect that your comments are not those of one who is actually very inmersed in such digital productions, but rather someone who is interested in photograrphy, of course, and is trying to come to terms with the transformations brought about by digital technology. All of that is quite legitimate, and is after all the reasons for having such exchanges on a forum, where lots of people get to read them, who might find themselves in similar positions. In no way am I dismissive of someone who might not have the experience, however, having said that, I believe you will agree with me, that we need to contextualize what determines our comments.
I will leave the commentary here, in the hope that this will continue until we get to a common ground.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
|
Away from the issues and then some… [message #760 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 18:24 |
|
02:19am Oct 13, 2002
Dear Peter,
A while ago in the early stage of this discussion on “redefining documentary” you wrote: “I would like to see my specific ideas challenged, more than that the fact that I have expressed them”. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to other participants in this debate.
I do not quite understand what the two last paragraphs of your response have to do with the merit of my arguments. Instead of responding to my arguments you question my competency assuming my lack of experience in the field.
As a matter of fact, I use Photoshop professionally since 1991. During the 4 years when I was intensively involved in advertising photography I spent almost 2000 hours on the “digital production of an image”.
If it is really so relevant for the purpose of this discussion to know my background, just type my name in the search engine. If you add another key word like photography or photojournalism you will score 7 to 10 out of the first 20 at Yahoo.
You wrote: “I am quite clear that defensive nature stems from the technological changes brought about by the digital world, which if not well understood create inevitable anxiety levels about the real or perceived threats that loom about for the profession. Under those circumstances it is inevitable that we end up with vehement defensiveness rahter than illustrated exploration of issues”.
This is utter nonsense. Digital technology is not and never was a threat to photojournalism. If anything, digital technology empowered photojournalists by enhancing their ability to communicate and to transfer images instantly from any point on the globe. I have yet to meet a photojournalist who believes that digital is a treat to his or her profession.
In the next paragraph you actually imply with the strait face that more and more photojournalists restore to digital manipulation of their pictures. To say that it is a nonsense it’s not really adequate so I will just leave it at that.
A few paragraphs earlier you rephrased my words: “For instance your assertion of having to be a witness as a precondition for having the image have merit. I hope I understood you correctly and I am not putting words in your mouth. So if I understood you well, the physical presence of a photographer determines the value of an image”.
No, you do not understand me correctly. I said that documentary photographer(or journalist) has to witness an event. Concerning the event that you claim you documented with your picture—you did not witness it because this event never happened. You witnessed two other events and then you merged them together. Your picture is not a document of an event. The pixels in your image are not indexical representation of the reality at any given point in time and space.
Some of the David Hockney’s composite images of hundreds of polaroids are documents even if they do not look like one because every pixel or grain of silver there is in relation to certain point in time and space. Your picture looks like a document but is not one because you cannot link it to an existing event. It is as simple as that.
Reading the past discussions on this subject on your site I learned that at least half a dozen participants expressed similar opinions, although their wording was different than mine. I also noticed that at that point in the debate you always sidetracked the issue and usually restored to the argument that could be described as, “my Photoshop is bigger than yours”—as you did in the response to my entry.
If it's true what you wrote that you "hope that this will continue until we get to a common ground", than the similar arguments should not reappear in your entries with the persistence of a computer virus. On the other hand, there may not be a common ground.
Christopher Grabowski
|
|
|
| some more thoughts [message #765 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 18:40 |
|
03:07pm Oct 15, 2002
Yesterday, I was flipping through a book about gunfighters of the Wild West. The book started with a series of paintings by Charles Russell; one of them showed men on horseback, guns blaring, cards and whiskey strewn on the ground, all caught in a decisive moment of death and action. The painting was rendered in a palette similar to the rich hues of Kodachrome. Turning the page, I came to a static B&W studio portrait of three cattle rustlers, cockily displaying their guns. Their eyes had been reworked by hand and pen, presumably to correct the blur caused by blinking during the long exposure. Next came photographs of a landscape of Tombstone 1879, a cock fight early 1880s, a saloon 1879, cowboys on payday, and even a shaky non-decisive moment photo taken mid gun battle. The photographs held my attention, my eyes went from corner to corner, from foreground to background, certain in the knowledge that outside of some deliberate attempt to mislead me, I was looking at what had been there, in that time, when the photo was taken. The paintings, on the other hand, rendered with more poetic finesse, perhaps speak to a greater emotional truth about that period, although I suspect they were refracted through an overly romantic filter. Placed next to the photographs, it is obvious that, in terms of evidence, the paintings are a step (if not two or three) removed from the optical facts that were recorded onto film.
Picasso's painting Guernica has been brought into the discussion since I last wrote. It is interesting to note that we all know this painting because the veracity of the camera was employed to document the original, and the image is now embedded in our collective psyche; owing much to what Walter Benjamin said in his essay about the importance of a work of art in the mechanical age depending on how many times it is reproduced. This master piece is a statement about the insanity and cruelty of war, but it is only the title that supplies any documentary knowledge, and it could be changed to New York or Afghanistan, Beirut or Belfast, and the power of the image would not decline. In looking at Picasso's work or that of any other master, one often wonders what the master looked like, and it is the straight photograph that quenches this thirst. In Picasso's case, one could take the many photographs made of him and, using PhotoShop, create a cubist digital composite. The result could be a powerful statement, but it would lack direct reference to actuality. It is for this reason that we carry around photographs and not paintings of our loved ones in our wallets.
At this point, let me state that it makes no difference to me whether the photograph was recorded by film or digital sensor. What matters, from the documentary point of view, is whether the information trapped in the camera has been changed by using the computer or the darkroom. Let's not split hairs by concerning ourselves with the ability to manipulate photographs in-camera through techniques of masking and double exposure; or get bogged down on the common practice of emphasizing certain areas of the image using burning and dodging (whether done in the darkroom or in the computer). Most importantly, let us not lose sight of the fact that aesthetic or poetic power can be found in any type of image.
In the interests of transparency, I must reveal that working as a documentary photographer I am a stakeholder in this discussion. I have, to some extent, judged the quality of my work by how much poetic force I can put into an image while at the same time witnessing reality. It is the poetry in a straight photograph that allows it to move beyond the documentary truth to talk about larger universal truths. It is this tension between actuality and poetry that has allowed the masters of this genre to be great story tellers.
In the attached photographs, I think I have been able to comment on motherhood, sexuality, patriarchy, progress, development and desire. It is easy to see that the elements of the images could have been brought together from other primary sources, but from my point of view it is precisely because they weren't that the images maintain an edge of factuality. Manipulating and collaging an image takes away its authenticity as a document, even as it might improve the aesthetics and the ability of the image to speak to the spirit of the experience.
Much has been said about growing distrust of the media among the general public as the knowledge of how simple it is to manipulate an image using software such as PhotoShop becomes widely known. I think this distrust of the media stems more from people realising how media manipulates public opinion by the amount of time and space that is devoted to an issue, and depending on how it serves the purposes of the owners, just outright ignoring a story. Take war for example. All we see now are sanitized images of our guys going about their duties, the carnage has been removed.
The wise viewer will always temper what they see with a knowledge of the author and an understanding of the political position of the forum in which the image appears. In your case, Pedro, you have never hidden the fact that you have manipulated the image and in most cases it is obvious that you have. Your results are often spectacular and a pleasure to contemplate, but when compared to a straight photograph they do not posses that ineffable quality, that direct link to actuality, that is present in a documentary image. Perhaps what we are comparing is apples with oranges.
This brings us to the point about definitions, which are tricky. When describing myself as a documentary photographer, one curator advised me to call myself a "photo based artist." This seems contrived. The terms I have found most compelling in the discussion are "fiction", "non-fiction" "digital composite" and "photo montage". I would like "photograph" to be used in describing an unmanipulated image produced with a came...
This brings us to the point about definitions, which are tricky. When describing myself as a documentary photographer, one curator advised me to call myself a "photo based artist." This seems contrived. The terms I have found most compelling in the discussion are "fiction", "non-fiction" "digital composite" and "photo montage". I would like "photograph" to be used in describing an unmanipulated image produced with a camera, of course this is probably asking too much. Documentary photograph or non-fiction photograph would do.
I would like to say how much I am enjoying this discussion; the length of time over which it is taking place is allowing us all to carefully think about our responses, something which we've lost in the hectic pace of the modern world. I feel like this conversation is helping to provide clarity in a discourse that has clouded photography for some time.
(I've attached the two images, referred to in the previous email, and hope they appear below. Hmm, I've just posted this and they haven't shown up yet, Pedro, maybe you can let me know what to do.)
- David
|
|
|
| Hi David! [message #768 is a reply to message #765 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 18:51 |
|
02:56am Oct 17, 2002
I am glad that David Campion rejoined this quorum and politely elevated the debate back to a non-personal, professional level. We both live in Vancouver and know each other, which of course in no way modifies our opinions on documentary photography and photojournalism. Using this occasion I’d like to tell David that I impatiently await his book on Himba to appear in print, as I expect it to become a significant voice in the broader debate defining documentary photography.
Concerning the issues discussed here over the last week, I’d like to correct some apparent misunderstandings. Like David, I never criticized Peter for using digital technology. For me it is a marginal point. It basically boils down to the question of sufficient resolution of digital cameras. Since we are long time past the point where digital and analog images could be distinguished in print, for most photojournalists such a debate is pointless.
When I said that Peter’s image was a result of digital manipulation, I merely stated the fact. Digital was not a factor when I did not recognize it as a document, but manipulation was very much a factor.
I would say that documentary character of an image is determined mainly by two of its features: how truly the image represents the physical reality of an event, and how truly it reflects the narrative of an event.
As for the representation of physical reality in Peter’s image—he admits—it’s a composite.
As for its narrative component—I would say that its documentary character is questionable, since the event never actually took place.
At this point I would like to emphasize that I do not question Peter image’s esthetic, composition, its artistic, poetic and educational values, or any other values safe for its validity as a document.
To have his way Peter would need indeed to seriously redefine documentary photography, and that may not be a simple task.
I‘ve recently read a review on Shelby Lee Adams’s documentary photography of rural Kentucky. Documentary character of Adams’s work of the last 30 years seems to be beyond question, yet there is a growing number of photography critics who question it. A. D. Coleman says: “if this is S. L. Adams’s Southern Gothic poetry of Appalachia, that’s one thing. If this is really documentation of Appalachia, then that’s something else altogether.”
As I stated in some other place, things are becoming really intriguing for a photojournalist (or documentary photographer) when one reaches boundaries of his/her consensus and has to challenge his/her own standpoint in order to recognize the true narrative of an event. I believe that as for today there lays the frontier of documentary photography.
In the context of the above one would wonder why an accomplished and respected photographer would risk marginalizing his own work by insisting on it being something that it clearly is not.
Christopher
|
|
|
| poetry of image [message #770 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 18:57 |
|
03:44am Oct 18, 2002
poetry of image
I think that the indivigual who became upset with you, has an affinity for the gratification derived from performance that he feels was not properly earned, inthat he associates matching time with unerversal events (out of his control) with a controled enviroment,two different things and should not be compared in the same sphere...digital vs analoge / music vs midi/ film vs dv.
|
|
|
| on the issues of what documentary really is [message #775 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 19:05 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
12:20am Oct 19, 2002 PST (#30 of 68)
I see that in a world where we find that priest have lied, and so have all too many politicians, accountants, top executives on wall street, doctors, teachers, lawyers, you name it, There is a strong urgency to hold on to the so called "veracity" of the photographic image. The same newspapers and publications that have countless transgressions in the area of telling the truth, on the other hand make all sorts of efforts to "uphold" the image as a beacon of truth. The hypocrisy in all of this is for everyone to see.
The facts are that the image has never been a truthful representation of reality. Just ask any of those rabid defenders of the truthfulness in images, to show you an example, and more often than not, they will bring up a black and white picture. Well the last time I checked there was no reality I could find that matched such b&w representations, anywhere. Had they come up with a color image, one would have had the same problem, as with color, the issues of veracity are just as unrealistic.
So when I hear those good intentioned efforts to relate the photograph to some "traces or vestiges" of the original light, that deposited it's aura of reality onto, it used to be sensitive emulsions, now I guess it is a sensor, as proof of anything. I find the discussion becomes close to debating transubstantiation.
I will try to give some examples related to these traces of reality. I have shown in a previous editorial that you can take the pixels of an image that comes straight out of the camera, as it was taken, and then just shove those some traces of "reality" around, and you can seriously alter the image. It is not necessary to bring in parts of several pictures ( some call this, cut and paste, which it's not, but for the sake of making myself understood I leave it at that right now) in making transformations of the picture.
So for those fans of the "traces of reality", I have just altered the image, with those same identical unaltered pixels, the only change introduced (now possible only by way of digital technology) was one of place. Their coordinates are different. It would be like someone discussing that scrambled eggs no longer where eggs, because they are scrambled.
Now for another test, take an image an alter it digitally. Then show it to a few people, assuming it is well done, they will consider that this is an image that is "real". Now tell those same people, that you altered it, and how you did it, and 9 out 10 times they will discuss issues about the veracity of the picture in general, about truth and documentary issues. Strange isn't it? That only upon being told the truth, do they go on about such issues. Why would that be? as I see it, because they feel they have been "fooled". But why would they even consider that? because the historical nature of the photograph is that it is a document, even though in a factual sense, that never was the case. And slowly, to our good fortune, that is making headway in the popular notion that people have of the photograph.
The notion about documentary photographs, being anything other than an interpretation of reality, is being understood by increasinly more people. That serves us well on many fronts. Foremost the silly notions being sustained by not few people, that documentary work are like xerox copies of reality, should be replaced by more sophisticated thinking in relation to what it really is and what it can live up to. Not live the life of a myth such as the "tooth fairy".
OK, I can already hear the comments, such as: what about the images of the concentration camps, are those not documents of the Holocaust? Sure they were images taken and to which we/I give credibility, but I also gave credibility to the images in Shindlers list, and those are made up images,in a movie.
What I never will know is what else there was there that I did not get to see? what I will never know is what was going on to the left or right of the picture? What I will never know is what was behind the photographer. What I will never know is all that the photographer was not able to show me due to his own inhibitions, or censorship by someone. What I will never know is the scale of what I am being shown as horror, in other words, I can not see in those images but a small, very small, part of the events that took place. So for someone to come to me, with the pretension that a photograph is the representation of reality of what was going on in a concentration camp, is shear blasphemy.
What is needed is a degree of humbleness that our precious little photographs, are but merely a statement, never to be confused or mistaken for anything even close to reality. Documentary, as proof that I was there? like if that mattered.
And in closing let me just remind Christopher, who I think brought this up, that the image that I present in the editorial, and which is composed of the two images I show there, are based inevitably on traces of light that my camera captured while I was present there. That I decided to scramble the information, does not make the traces of reality be any different in their origin, ergo, their documentary nature would remain, using the parameters that you have chosen for yourself. There is factual evidence to that effect. Maybe that would give you pause for rethinking some of the issues raised.
By the way, when you write, for the sake of clarity, and to stay within the realm of the documentary, my name is Pedro and then there is a Peter, who is also participating in these discussions, it is sometimes confusing who you are addressing your observations to, nothing to say that we all like our names not to be changed. My parents used to kid around, saying, it took a lot of effort on our part to choose that name, don't let anyone change it. OK?
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| LET'S STOP BEATING A DEAD HORSE [message #776 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 19:08 |
Gelabert, Edgar
Messages: 14
Registered: April 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
08:13pm Oct 19, 2002
Pedro states that our precious little photographs should never be confused or mistaken for anything even close to reality. This was the position taken by the elite post-modernist minds during the past fifteen years or so, until they realized that their position was not only silly but naive to the extreme.
A prime example is the catastrophic event of 9/11, 2001. It was photographed by thousands of people with plastic, pinhole, digital, film, view and video cameras. The photographers were of all genders, young and old, professional and amateur. These images have been seen all over the world and NEVER has anyone taken the position that these images do not reflect the reality of what occured or the veracity and horror of the event.
On the contrary, museum curators, photography critics, and other post-modernist academics now say that their position is changing with regard to the reality question of documentary photographs.
This does not mean that a picture can't lie, but to take the position that no documentary image can ever reflect the veracity and reality of a moment in time is stretching credulity and common sense to an extreme.
Regards,
Ed Gelabert
|
|
|
| A question for Ed [message #779 is a reply to message #776 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 19:12 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
10:59pm Oct 19, 2002
I think that your "prime example" is precisely that, a great example of how in order to tell the complete story what was needed were no less than the entire array of resources you so appropriatly reference, and then some.
I doubt that any serious photographer would assume that "a" picture of his or her, told us the entire story of this event. I would venture to say it is not even a reasonable request to demand of a photograph, any photograph. It simply is beyond the scope of it's possibilities.
My question to you would be, why burden photography with this demand and not simply understand the very limitations of our medium, we love so dearly. Why do we have to insist that it perform a chore for which it is not well suited.
Isn't photography just wonderful as a medium whithout having to shoulder a responsibility which it can never deliver ? Why can't we simply accept those things it allows us to do very well, and forget this tedious and unfortunate impluse to force it ( photography) to perform what it will never be able to do.
I cordially invite you to send us for publication in this very forum, an image you choose, that you imagine satisfies those aspects of telling the entire story with absolute veracity. It will surely be very illuminating to see such an example. Please remember we are not trying to challenge you, we are merely trying to explore together with you and other viewers, if we can arrive at conclusions that provide us with good answers.
The purpose of this forum is to share our common interests and to explore together what must be some very challenging moments in this short history of photography. The more people participate the richer will be our collective "wisdom" if you can call it that. At least it is worth a try, and see what happens.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| on the issues of what documentary really is [message #780 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 19:14 |
|
03:20pm Oct 20, 2002
Dear Pedro,
With your latest criticism of hypocrisy and corruption in the print media as well as description of documentary photography as pathetic myth and tooth fairy, I think, this time you really pinned it down.
I keep wondering though, why you insist on associating with such a despicable bunch of losers by calling your picture a document?
Your argument that the “real” is what 9 of 10 people believe in—is also a fine one. I am sure that Galileo, Copernicus, and particularly Giordano Bruno would cheer you for your sophisticated methodology if only they had access to the Internet.
On a lighter note, I’d like to tell you that I recently communicated with the parents of the fellow depicted on the right side of your image. They explained to me that it took a lot of effort on their part to assure that he always comes back home after lunch, particular way at particular time. They wouldn’t like anyone to change it. As a matter of fact he has a restrain order in relation to the fellow depicted on the left side. Their family could become a subject of social ostracism and perhaps a devastating lawsuit if they are seen together.
Thank you for a lively debate,
Christopher
|
|
|
| LET'S NOT BEAT A HORSE TO DEATH, NO. 2 [message #781 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 19:15 |
Gelabert, Edgar
Messages: 14
Registered: April 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
10:55am Oct 21, 2002 PST
Dear Pedro:
Although I appreciate your invitation to send you a picture that tells an entire story with absolute veracity, I am totally confused as to what generates this request. You and I both know ( and so does the world ), that no single image is capable of story telling. Nowhere in my statement do I declare that a single image ( or a hundred images ) are capable of telling a COMPLETE story. It does not require any special knowledge or training to know this, it just takes common sense.
A picture need not tell a story. A story is a sequential thing in time, while a still photograph is a simultaneous thing in space, with no beginning, middle or end. Good pictures seldom illustrate ideas. Pictures are visual experiences, complete and sufficient. They don't say anything; they show things.
A single documentary image, is a tiny fragment of reality that can point to a truth in such a way that one is left speechless. This is where the power of photography lies. If you need stories, you can go read a book or see a movie.
Regards, Ed Gelabert
|
|
|
| RE: Ed's Comments [message #782 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 19:16 |
|
12:15pm Oct 21, 2002
Folks,
First, I have enjoyed the dialog thus far although I must say it seems a little too personal at times, but I suppose that's to be expected. Second, I respectfully have to take issue with Ed's comments. In particular, he said to Pedro:
"You and I both know ( and so does the world ), that no single image is capable of story telling."
A single photograph can indeed tell a story, sometimes quite powerfully. Would it be a complete story? I don't think so nor do I think any article, book, movie, etc. could ever tell a complete story.
Ed continues:
"A picture need not tell a story."
True, I agree, but I like stories and when photographs tell a story, it's all the more interesting.
"Good pictures seldom illustrate ideas. Pictures are visual experiences, complete and sufficient. They don't say anything; they show things."
I don't know Ed, maybe what you're trying to say here is that pretty or cute pictures seldom illustrate ideas. I think serious photography is all about ideas and feelings. That to me is the whole point. And as far as them not saying anything, I couldn't disagree more.
The question I have with regards to all of this is can we use digital photography to improve on the way we communicate and convey our ideas and feelings with an image or images? Can we become better story tellers with the new tools at our disposal? I for one am not ready to discount any of the ideas Pedro has presented. I think we owe it to ourselves not to shackle or imprison our minds with antiquated notions.
Cheers,
Peter Singhofen
|
|
|
| My comments addressing this paragraph Ed: [message #783 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 19:18 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
03:35pm Oct 22, 2002
"This does not mean that a picture can't lie, but to take the position that no documentary image can ever reflect the veracity and reality of a moment in time is stretching credulity and common sense to an extreme." are the following.
What for you was "veracity and reality of a moment" was for me" telling a story" in ways that were the "full or complete" story. After all every moment is in and of itself also a story.
However, when you write: "A single documentary image, is a tiny fragment of reality that can point to a truth in such a way that one is left speechless. This is where the power of photography lies. If you need stories, you can go read a book or see a movie" .
I don't know about the speechlessness of it, I think being informed and inspired is already a big enough challenge.
However, if you as a photographer abdicate from telling stories, that is your personal choice, something which I believe the majority of photographers would not want to emulate. What is more, I have never heard a photographer, other than now yourself, suggest that they are not interested in telling a story through their work. Sometimes they want to do it with the equivalent of short stories or others with entire volumes, but telling stories they certainly want.
Now touching upon the last question that Peter mentiones above, "can we use digital photography to improve on the way we communicate and convey our ideas and feelings with an image or images?" I would venture to answer this with a resounding yes.
You have to go no further than looking at what happened to painting upon the arrival of acrylic paints, which dried faster. Just that element by itself altered the content of painting. Now for digital photography the tools that are available today are for photographers, an exponential factor compared to just drying faster for painters.
Plus I would add, we need to redefine the contours of what we include under the umbrella of digital photography. Just as cinema does not exclude sound from it's self definition, we should do the same, and include sound with still photography as well as with animation. In other words, digital photography is not just traditional photography without chemicals. It is something much larger.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| World Press Photo [message #784 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 19:19 |
|
05:50pm Oct 22, 2002
Dear Folks,
This time I would like to departure from my usual skeptical tone to bring to this quorum a voice that I believe will help us to add another layer to our understanding of the nature of documentary photography in the context of broader social issues.
Brookfields Properties, who own BCE Place in Toronto is trying to remove the recently opened World Press Photo exhibition in the building. The reason has to do with the nature of the images and concerns about them effecting trade and commerce in BCE Place. i.e. pictures of events in the real world, as recorded by the world's best photojournalists are bad for business. Following is the open letter of Canadian photojournalist Peter Sibbald.
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:36 PM
Subject: Corporate Shut Down of World Press
Photography Exhibition
Dear Franca Bellisario ( fbellisario@brookfieldproperties.com ),
It has come to my attention this evening that Brookfield's CEO
intends to rule on the removal of the World Press Photo Exhibition
from the lobby of BCE Place, Toronto, tomorrow morning. In other
years one has had to travel abroad to view this very important annual
contribution to my profession and our world's history, so it was a
pleasure to finally be able to attend the opening of the exhibition
launched by The Ambassador of the Netherlands to Canada last week. I
began to wonder if perhaps after all, Toronto was finally beginning
to open its eyes, to grow up and earn its previously boasted
description: "world class". Evidently, from the corporate turbulence
surrounding the exhibition these past days, this is hardly the case.
As Brookfield's events co-ordinator, this must be a very difficult
time for you, and I do not wish to heap more trouble on you
personally, but rather to support you in a bid to keep this
exhibition open.
There has been suggestion in conversations flying around this evening
that the international media will gleefully seize on this debacle to
make Toronto and Canada the laughing stock of that other world of the
truly worldly, and it is true, this probably will happen. And this
would be a terrible shame for it shall also tarnish, by association,
all those photographers such as myself who are of this place.
However international ridicule should hardly be the reason for
cancelling any plans to prematurely dismantle a public exhibition. I
recognize and respect that the building is a private building, and
that as such it's owners should be entitled to both control their
space and maintain certain obligations to their tenants. However, the
nature of this exhibition is hardly unknown or unexpected, for every
year it displays the most poignant photographs of the darkest acts
and most horrific events in then-recent human history, often
alongside, I must point out, some of the most startling images of
human dignity and beauty. So in undertaking to show this work --
Brookfield undertook a responsibility to civil society beyond that of
merely placating its own tenants: to Torontonians, to the Canadian
public and both the photographers and the subjects of those images,
who opened up their lives for all the world to see and learn from,
people who in many cases may not have survived the events they were
photographed amidst. The import of such photos is to remind us all of
the essential nature of what it is to be human, the consequences of
failng to be so and the chaos such behaviours spawn, of the fragile
beauty of human life in the face of social breakdown, environmental
degradation, or natural disaster, and the terrible impact these
events have on peace, security, freedom, democracy, and dare I say it
--for it is so important to Brookfield's tenants-- commerce.
If Toronto claims to be a world class city, it must be worldly, and
to be that it must among other things show itself -- by the actions
of its citizens, both private and corporate-- to be willing to face
the realities of the world beyond, let alone the realities in the
backgrounds of many of it's own citizens. Canada has an official
policy that seeks to bring more than 40,000 refugees per annum and
the majority of those people settle in Toronto. That 50% or more of
Toronto's population come from places far from King and Bay Streets
--places outside Canada that are home to the horrors commonly
displayed in World Press photos-- makes this a pivotal cultural event
for the city.
I would ask you to ask your CEO, what kind of corporate citizens can
your company or its tenants pretend to be if you cannot face up to
such realities. Even the Prime Minister of Canada recently
acknowledged that such willful blindness is precisely what makes us
of the western world share responsibility for the tragedy of
September 11, 2001, the photographs of which are apparently so
offensive to your tenants; a sad irony indeed. Those are wrenching,
awful pictures to be sure, but they are the truth, and people --good
and valiant human beings-- died trying to bring those truths back to
us so that we might learn, never forget and never repeat the mistakes
that led to those and similar tragedies.
Brookfield should fulfill its trust to the people of Toronto, and to
Canadians, to the Ambassador of The Netherlands, and to the
photographers and subjects of those photographs. The exhibition
should remain in place for its scheduled duration, or this disgrace
shall likely have been the first, and very last opportunity that is
afforded the Canadian public to share in the privilege, awful though
it may be, of publicly witnessing through photographs such raw and
essential humanity. Should Brookfield decide to dismantle this
exhibition prematurely, all I can say is SHAME on Brookfield, SHAME
on it's clients & SHAME on us all for not resisting such small
thinking with more stridency.
Sincerely,
Peter Sibbald
Photographer
|
|
|
| THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG [message #785 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 19:21 |
Gelabert, Edgar
Messages: 14
Registered: April 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
02:56pm Oct 23, 2002
Pedro and Peter:
I never thought that my saying that a single, static image cannot possibly tell a story, could start such controversy. As you know, If you have to explain what an image is all about, or give any information as to what is going on, the image is not telling a story.
This topic has really reached a dead end; it's like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg. Also, the idea behind an image is not something you talk about, it lies in the image.
Regards,
Ed Gelabert
|
|
| |
| Re: LET'S NOT BEAT A HORSE TO DEATH, NO. 2 [message #791 is a reply to message #781 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 01:16 |
|
|
About absolute veracity. There is something here of objectivity and subjectivity. Santiago Genovés is an anthropologist who was a crewmember in Ra I and Ra II (a reed raft crossing of the Atlantic Ocean) and I remember very well sometime in the late 60s when he said, "No nos debemos olvidar que la objectividad es un invento del hombre." En English, he said in relation into our attempts at achieving absolute objectivity that, "Objectivity is an invention of man."
|
|
|
| dead end? [message #792 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 11:14 |
doifel videla
Messages: 29
Registered: April 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
09:02am Oct 24, 2002
Before all of you read it, I will ask you to excuse my poor English. But as I see there is much more agitation here than in the Spanish side of this debate I would like to say a few words.
It seems to me that the conversation here has been centered on the truth of a photograph. As long as I know, a photograph is a document produced by an optical device, coupled with a shutter: the camera. In this regard there is a truth: the Optical one and the timing. No document will ever replace the reality in any way, (on the form of text, photograph, cinema, etc.) because that?s just impossible. But each instrument we have invented is able to perform some tasks. The camera for instance is intended to be able to register an ocular vision of a portion of the reality, in same way we do with our eyes, in a certain amount of time. These are the particularities of the camera, no more than that. The rest is absolute subjective and each person would approach the photographic document from a different point of view considering his or her education, culture, gender, age, profession, etc. It?s up to us to find the human truth in it, because the photo is just a map.
So, when we alter that record, with another instrument like the scissors, the pen or the computer, we are adding another kind of information, which is not part of the photographic process. The result will be a mixed media or ?in other cases: a corrupted photographic document.
In this regard, it seems to me that we take for granted that a photograph has a documentary value when it has not been corrupted in his capability to record an ocular event in a given time. In the case the record is digital, the possibilities to corrupt the photographic document are infinite and not only with other optical based documents but with data originated from digital graphic, sounds (since the computer we can visualize music and produce images (think iTunes)) and any kind of programming. The digital realm is so open and so big that it can not only simulate the photography, but also any other media we know.
So, for me, a photograph that has been corrupted, like the example given by Pedro, has no value as photographic document, but can be an appealing image, from the realm of the Digital Imaging.
One cannot do scrambled eggs with an egg that was already eaten.
Doifel
|
|
|
| big problem with your argument Doifel! [message #793 is a reply to message #792 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 11:16 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
11:44pm Oct 24, 2002
The problem with your statement is actually very simple. You are making an assumption that you will have a hard time proving. Let me elaborate.
You state: "The camera for instance is intended to be able to register an ocular vision of a portion of the reality, in same way we do with our eyes, in a certain amount of time", now what about a wide angle, or a telephoto lens? can you actually tell me with a straight face, that we see that way? Because, I don't.
I cordially invite you to go to my editorial # 20 of January 2000, and take a look at the image I posted there done with a wide angle first and then with the corrected distortion done with the aid of the computer, then please tell me which one is closer to how you see. I would be surprised if you insist that the optical one is akin to your eyesight.
Your description of the "corrupted" vision, simply can not be upheld Doifel. Sorry!
My problem with these arguments always comes back to the same. The notion that what happens in front of the camera, from the lens onward, is sort of "pure" and viriginal, and any alterations introduced after the camera shutter has set the image, is to be suspect. Considered, as you describe it "corrupted", that's already a pretty loaded word if you ask me.
I give you a perfectly good example, in the image mentioned above, but have done many such images, where I return the perspective to the correct angle, AFTER the picture was made. [ akin to what you would do with a bellows camera, after all ].
Look Doifel, at my age, I have sitting around me here next to my laptop, four different pairs of eyeglasses, some are for seeing far, some medium distance (ergo- the screen on the computer), some for reading a book, and then a pair that was a trifocal and which I can never use because it distorts the hell out what ever is in front of me. So when you suggest "the same way we do with our eyes", reflecting back upon the camera lens, you have not even started to factor in any of the hundreds of variables that are related to such a statement.
But please take your argument into any other direction, and let us see where it can lead us to. For instance another very interesting consideration is what happens when you leave open the shutter for a long period of time. Is what you record as an image in any way related to how you see? of course not.
Is what you register in front of the lens, with the aid of a flash unit, anything close to what you actually can see? of course not.
I look forward to your further comments.
Best regards
Pedro
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Not even for your eyes [message #794 is a reply to message #793 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 11:20 |
doifel videla
Messages: 29
Registered: April 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
04:17am Oct 25, 2002
Dear Pedro,
Thank for your answers. But I don?t think they really are such. Let me explain why.
1) I hesitate when I wrote ?in the same way we do with our eyes?; because I knew it wasn?t accurate. I should have said, ?using an optical lens, like we do with our eyes?. Of course we can change camera lenses and we can also look, with our eyes, trough a telescope or a microscope or optical glasses as you just said. Anybody understands that we can use different optics with cameras. This is not the point. The point is: the camera is an optical device; in the same way our eyes are optical devices too.
2) I used the term ?corrupt? not in order to offend you or say that you are a corrupt person doing such photographs. And sorry, I never used the term ?corrupted vision? neither. I used the term ?corrupt? because this is the term one use in computer language when a file has been invaded by a foreign element or has lost its original properties. Should I have said, ?corrupted file? instead of ?corrupted photographs? since your negatives had become a file. But in order to not get obsessed with this word I can change it to: ?altered?, if you prefer.
3) Maybe we have become too romantic when we talk about photography. The photographic document is just a kind of optical map done in a given time. I?m not saying in a short or a long time (or with a normal or other lens). Just in an amount of time, and you know that?s the truth. I know perfectly that Sugimoto has done photographs that took a year to do, but a year is a measure of time too. And in the case of the flash, a short or very short period of time also matches the sentence ?in a given time?.
4) You should accept that is not an accident that photographs are used everywhere and for reason: in ID cards, horse racing, cartography, bank security, military surveillance etc. Big cities are plenty of cameras at every corner street in order to ?see? what the people are doing, and those are just sequences of unedited photographs, without text, music, words or mixed to others photographs. The photographic document is just that: a perfect neutral mapping of some optically organized light (visible light or other) recorded in a given time and producing a proof named the negative, slide or electronic record. The negative (or slide), for instance, has been the perfect document for more than 150 years.
5) The vanishing of the negative and the replacement by a ?digital file? does a matter, because the negative (or slide) is in fact unique and therefore could not be reproduced without altering the original information (in spite of what W. Benjamin said). So I think is the very nature of the negative that has given the photography the weight it has in the documentary world; more than the political correctness of the photographers, that changes as the time goes.
6) On the other hand, the digital image is the very first image that can be reproduced exactly the same, giving birth to a completely new concept, where the original doesn?t exist anymore. Each new version can be taken as an original or we can say, each of them is a kind of work in progress.
7) So, I think that the documentary photography is very challenged by the vanishing of the negative, the ultimately attach to a solid reality that you cannot alter without leaving traces (at least theoretic).
 In the case of the image you propose us, it alter the time- space concept considered in documentary photography, because it exhibit something nobody could have ever witnessed neither with his eyes nor with a camera (not even you). That?s why I cannot call this a photograph, but a Digital Imaging creation. A product of the imagination, which must, for the sake of all the photographers and the history of this media, remain in this new category and not be compared or mixed with the documentary photography.
Cordially,
Doifel
|
|
|
| Are we still drawing with light? [message #795 is a reply to message #794 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 11:24 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
10:56pm Oct 26, 2002
Doifel,
I appreciate the further precision to your words, far from being a stickler for details, I believe at this point in time when we are attempting to understand what it is that we are doing. A thoughtful use of the words chosen will help us all out of this woods of ideas. So your clarifications are indeed helfpul and welcome.
Let me start with your example of the various forms of documents, from the ID to the horse finish line. I fully agree with the examples given, they represent what I have always sustained, that today one should consider the photograph with the same general understanding we confer to words.
Namely, we can write with them, contracts, declarations of war, or poetry. They all use words,only in different ways. However, no one would give credence to such words in a contract just because they are words, such as we do with photographs only because they are photographs. Even innocent ID's sometimes do not look anything like the bearer, even though it's a photograph (you should see my IDs) so photographs indeed can be less than truthful documents .
I tend to differ with your statement that a negative or slide is unique and can not be reproduced, I have done it, I even made negatives from digital files and they look for everyone and the world, quite convincing as to their implied "filmic" origin.
Maybe if you subject it to the strictest forensic laboratories some variances could be found, but that I don't think is the issue. In general terms, the possibility for making negatives that are of considerable quality using digital files, is a given. I would not hold my arguments to this rationale, because I believe you can no take it very far.
A big difference, if I understand correctly, is what you and I call photography. With you and I in this case not only speaking for ourselves, but for a others who harbor similar questions. Then there is also the issue of what constitutes a documentary image.
Let me explain my insistence for using the term of photography and documentary in those instances which you believe ought to be called something else.
My first reason is that anytime anyone is willing to accept "digital photography" as long as it is called something else, I detect behind that a degree of condesending arguments that I simply find unacceptable.
Furthermore, when someone is willing to "accept ", the digital image, as long as it is called something else, seems as the easy way out for not having a solid understanding for this new format. In other words, it's like saying, let's not work hard at exploring the issues because we can call it something else.
Yes we are reliving the days when Ingres and his painter pals, Flandrin, Fleury and Puvis de Chavannes declared war on photography, while a more enlightened soul such as the artist Delacroix became as a painter a founding member of Society of Heliography (as it was called at first). The argument against photography was that it was not art. Your argument is that digital images maybe art but is not photography. Same story over again, only in reverse.
And then you question the documentary nature of some of the images, for being neither photographic or documentary. I happened to come across yesterday some very interesting news, just to add a bit more confusion into the debate, maybe that way we will make some headway at the end.
I quote here the British Journal of Photography:
"See-through 'film' breakthrough
The first image captured by a prototype camera is being heralded as one of the most important breakthroughs of the new century.
The 'terahertz' camera can penetrate through materials such as clothes,
skins and walls without using X-rays, and has the potential to
revolutionise medical diagnosis and security systems. The camera detects ultra-high frequency energy waves emitted by all objects, known as
terahertz, and turns them in to signals to produce an image. The first
success with the camera saw its developers at the Rutherford Appleton
Laboratory in Oxfordshire reveal the outline of a hand hidden under a
book. "
I would assume this would fit the demand for traces of reality, but would leave the issue of traces of light on a questionable basis, unless you accept that light is also energy, which it obviously is, Otherwise what are lasers? So we come back to the digital cameras, that obviously also work with light, much as do the screens we use when are using computers.
And lastly let me return to your observation: " because it exhibits something nobody could have ever witnessed neither with his eyes nor with a camera" and you seem to suggest that this impedes you from calling my picture a photogrpah, (by no means do I take this personally).
Quite possibly you overlooked the fact that the images I showed you (editorial) were seen both by the eye and the camera, and that the final image is nothing less than the sum of such moments. Now if you suggest that they become non-existent if added, then you might have to throw out a large portion of photographic history, as your transubstantiation is actually quite funny (1 +1 = 0) , save for the fact that we are dealing here with quite interesting stuff.
I hope others chime in as well, with their own thoughts and tribulations.
Cheers
Pedro
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Re: The poetry of an image [message #796 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 11:30 |
|
08:35am Oct 27, 2002
Dear Pedro,
I don't understand what you are arguing for. Why do you feel the need to call your work documentary? Nobody has said it is not art.
The type of recording devicice is irrelevant: Xray, terahertz, or Canon G2.
eggs-----------------------------scrambled eggs
actuality-------------------------scrambled actuality
Once the egg is cracked the journey begins - David
|
|
|
| The discource or the scrabble [message #797 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 11:39 |
|
12:10pm Oct 27, 2002
Dear Pedro,
You wrote:
“And then you question the documentary nature of some of the images, for being neither photographic or documentary. I happened to come across yesterday some very interesting news, just to add a bit more confusion into the debate, maybe that way we will make some headway at the end.
I quote here the British Journal of Photography: (…) The 'terahertz' camera can penetrate through materials such as clothes,
skins and walls without using X-rays, and has the potential to
revolutionise medical diagnosis and security systems.”
With your standards for a document it could be of course my liver replacing your kidney in the picture. Seriously, I doubt in any diagnostic potential of such image. I suspect that you indeed bring these issues into the debate solely to confuse it. That would mean lack of respect to other participants in this discourse.
You also wrote: “A thoughtful use of the words chosen will help us all out of this woods of ideas.”
And then you substituted words: convincing for truth; photography for document; and producing image for recording image. It not a fair game we are playing here, is it?
I also noticed that you have difficulties with telling the reportage from the commentary in the context of the media, or is it perhaps another attempt to add a bit of confusion into the debate.
Christopher
|
|
|
| Lost Meaning [message #801 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:09 |
|
12:39pm Oct 29, 2002
In creating your photograph on the computer, it is not the poetry of the image that is called into question, but its meaning and power. The image is no longer a document of reality, surely the quality that makes the majority of photographs fascinating to us. It becomes an illustration a testament to the talents of the technicians at Adobe rather than the 'photographer' who created it. To me both of the images at the bottom of the Editorial from which the composite was created are of far greater interest and significance because they are documents of a real moment in the street instead of a real moment at the keyboard.
As a street photographer myself, I am biased because the editing of time and the scene before me are the only tools I use. With these tools I very occasionally record moments similar to that in Pedros Composite, but my images are imbued with a meaning and significance unobtainable by a manipulated image.
|
|
|
| More Lost Meaning [message #803 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:11 |
|
01:48pm Oct 29, 2002
Firstly, let me apologise for having not caught up on the debate before posting my previous message, I am new to this forum and did not find the previous extended debate.
I walk the streets with my Leica many, many hours a week and sometimes make pictures of very unusual scenes, fights, accidents etc. Recently I photographed a thief fleeing from a man whose mobile phone he had just snatched, he can be seen leaping some steps with the business man chasing him on the far right of the image. Later this month the photograph will be used as evidence in court, it will be accepted by the judiciary as a document of fact in the conviction of an individual. It is in this wider world that the definitions of words like 'documentary' and the ability of pictures to represent a record of true events really matter.
|
|
|
| Digital Composition [message #805 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:16 |
|
01:37pm Oct 31, 2002
Reading through some of the comments regarding digital manipulation of images leaves me with the impression that too many people are stuck in some sort of time warp.
While I found your vertical image quite pleasing I was even more impressed with the composition after learning that your digital manipulation created this deliberate statement. Such efforts and techniques encompass any aspect of artistic expression no matter what the medium. If you were working on a canvas with pencil and oils you'd be drawing and erasing and painting and rubbing out and all the frustrating procedures that any artist goes through to create his or her desired result.
I have great painting of Sitting Bull under which are entirely different attempts considered failures by the artist. The title of this painting is "Snow Goose." And why? The artist, who's quite well known and in collections or museums all over the world, thought his Snow Goose sucked and simply painted Sitting Bull over it. Not only was he a great artist, he clearly had a fine sense of humor. And Sitting Bull didn't just happen, there's a hell of a lot of paint on that canvas!
The digital domain has given us all a fine collection of tools for creating images, works of art, or simply rearrare arrangingas we'd like to see it. So why not use twhat whatology has dropped in our laps. (Or laptops.)
TOM MOODY
|
|
| |
| maybe we could define documentary [message #808 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:20 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
06:13pm Nov 15, 2002
Although the editorial is about poetry, the drift has suddenly turned to documentary. Fine, there is no problem with that either, as the disussion is interesting on it's own merit.
Don speakes with a very authoritative voice about "the documentary", but he never bothers to define what in his estimation, a documentary picture should be. So before telling us what pictures are and which pictures are not documentary, it would be highly instructive to read the definition Don has of what such a discipline entails.
In passing let me just leave you with a few additional questions which you might want to address as well. Is an X ray picture a documentary image?
Is an MRI image a documentary picture? Is an infrared picture, documentary?
Are satellite images, documentary? Are colonoscopy images, documentary?
Best regards
Pedro
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| unluckily [message #811 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:30 |
|
10:27pm Nov 17, 2002 PST (#50 of 68)
unluckily, i feel that there is a defensive air at all times around these questions, as if they were very important. i see a very beautiful image created from two original photographs. i just wonder if there is a way to do the same only taking one photograph? feel there must be. and no one can deny the blessing of the decisive moment, if they've experienced it.
actually, i was disappointed when i discovered the photograph was a trick. the final product is nice, but ricky martin is nice too.
|
|
|
| The problem is .... [message #813 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:34 |
|
01:06pm Nov 18, 2002
The problem is with this image is how it was created. It is presented as a street documentary photograph. In fact, it is not. Given the nature and tradition to which this photo is referencing, the photographer should tell the viewer up front that it is a 'fiction,' a pleasing one, but a fiction none the less.
www.davidniles.com
|
|
| |
| We need to address fundamentals [message #817 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:39 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
12:05pm Nov 21, 2002
In reading over some of the more recent postings, I feel we need to bring the discussions back to some fundamental questions.
First of all we need to confront that we are being transformed as we write, by the digital era with all that is related to this, from the production of images to the distribution of the same.
In another era, we could not be having this conversation in the first place. We should not gloss over such basic issues too lightly.
Our friend who takes his Leica and does street photography, is following in the same tradition of something that has been done over and over for decades. If you are content in doing something like that, which is just a repetitive effort, so be it, but you will have to admit that we are not all stimulated by the same ideas. In enters, all that the digital world as to offer, as far as new ways of production, new concepts in relation to time and space, as can be expressed through new tools.
Many of the comments seem centered in doing the exact same efforts that were done in pre digital days, only now using some new tools. The problem with that is, where are your interests best presented?
If you have new tools, and the only thing that you can come up with is to follow the same path of what has already been done in the past, either because you are too comfortable doing what you are doing and do not see change as something that brings you satisfaction, then that is a personal existential approach, but has little to do with digital photography as such.
If you have new tools, one would hope you use these in new and untested ways to see what we can do with them. Furthermore, new tools also imply new conceptual thougts.
If you are too structured in your previous experiences to visualize what the new ideas have to offer us, then we can hardly expect to have some new developments in photography come from your personal efforts. Again, I repeat, this is a personal choice. And we have to be clear that there are people who hate and run away from the threats of CHANGE, and then those who embrace it, with great interest and hope.
I personally have little desire in seeing yet one more time something that has been done over and over for the past 50 years. However I am very open to the exploration of new and challenging ways. I have also experienced how some people decide to change given the space and time to do so, and the change suggests, one simple thing. BE OPEN TO NEW IDEAS.
The new ideas introduced by the image presented in this editorial, has to do with understanding photography in yet new ways, to which we have not been accustomed. There used to be a period in which the thought of digital photography taking over was questioned, this by all accounts has been an issue that is no longer in play. The facts speak for themselves. Digital photography is taking over at ever increasing speed, in all quarters.
We then have to make some very basic extrapolations and consider that we should be finding what these new tools offer us in new ways of expressing ourselves better.
I personally have no problem if someone likes one way of working over another. If you want to use film ( while it lasts) so be it. IF you want to go and make your images in one way or another, is for me personally irrelevant, as long as what you show me works. THE IMAGE.
I find it hilarious, when I read that someone liked the image I show as a composite, but then when they found out how it was made, it stops them cold in their tracks. Obviously the notion that it's the image that counts is not part of their way of understanding photography.
The fundamentalism behind such thoughts is more or less like this: "If you do not produce the image in the way I expect it to be done, your image does not work for me."
You can clearly see from such attitudes that if they were in charge and these were the prevailing winds, nothing would change, which to some degree is precisely what such practicioners actually desire.
Contrary to this, I would like to encourage the discussion around the notions of change, and how we can and should view these. Where we can be most constructive is if we can offer comments around such challenges, because at the center of all that has been discussed pro and against the image in the editorial, is the notion of change.
Some of you are clearly against change, others are for it. So where does that take us? Maybe we can offer some good arguments for change by exploring what we gain from this, other than change for the sake of change.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| 1/125 of second or twenty years? [message #819 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:40 |
|
10:24pm Nov 21, 2002
I still want to know why Mr. Meyer says he doesn't want to repeat what's been done for 50 years yet the final product he offers mimics a decisive moment photograph?
Anyway, I want to refute the notion that street photography is just a repetitive action: the idea of the decisive moment itself allows for no repetition, unless you have photoshop.
Perhaps Mr. Meyer wouldn't have had to wait twenty years to produce this image if his Zen would have been in tune.
And talk about speed!
|
|
|
| About repeating history [message #821 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:48 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
01:43am Nov 22, 2002
The question Orizae poses is quite legitimate. I will try to explain my point of view. If photography is to go down new roads we need to explore, therefore the first thing that needs to be settled is why should we do it in the first place.
If you are happy with what you have, the question answers itself, doesn't it?
If however you find that the images being produced tend to repeat themselves endlessly maybe you will be encouraged to find new directions. Now in the process of such explorations, these tend to grow organically. Let us assume as you say that the image I produced does not offer something different, then we would have to discuss this, and explore further, each time by trial and error going down new directions. Eventually we will find good answers. My explorations I offer not as THE solution but as ideas for further explorations. I am always an optimist, and believe that ideas are developed by a constant search for answers.
I never asserted that the image I produced was the answer at the end of the road. Instead I have stated over and over again, this is just the begining. And start we must somewhere. We need to ask ourselves questions, we need to be creative in not throwing out the baby with the dirty water. All these matters require a degree of trial and error that is hard to eliminate, unless you come up with the answer in a stroke of geniality. Maybe the image I showed you leads someone else to build upon that idea, and so forth, at some point we will have surely come up with all sorts of new solutions and ideas.
I am quite confident in my Zen which is in tune and knows there is not much of a problem with that, at least not for me. Because quite contrary to what some of the critics against using new technologies suggest, there is a considerable Zen encounter, even when working with any of the new digital tools. You are dead wrong, if you harbor the notion that only such a Zen encounter can take place running down a street trying to come up with a magic moment. Been there, done that, as well.
Something I find quite amusing, is that many of those who come up with the more strident negative attitudes towards digital explorations, have more often than not, not even explored those issues for themselves in front of a computer. They just assume that things are as they believe them to be, they speak like a priest does about marriage.
The interesting thing for me, is that I have yet to encounter anyone who has started to work with digital tools to some degree of mastery, who then decided that in fact he or she would prefer to go back and do things in the "old way". There must be some reason for this. There must also be some good reason why digital photography, notwithstanding all the naysayers, has only been growing in the number of those adopting the technologies.
Some ask me why I even bother to discuss these issues with those who do not think that the digital solutions are the road to follow. The only explanation I have for them, is that in discussing these topics, I think we all learn, and as I stated earlier, there is still a lot of ground that needs to be covered, and discussing the topics is a very functional way, of thinking ideas through. I have had not few people write to me, that after a lengthy process they finally "got it". I must say that I learn as much as anyone, when the need arises to discuss something from all sorts of diverse points of view.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| nothing new [message #823 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:50 |
|
11:30am Nov 22, 2002
Really Pedro, it's time to lose your mocking tone. It is only the method of production that has changed, not the product. When you started this discussion you were concerned that people recognize that your image had poetic merit, we all agree it has. We then moved onto its "documentary value" - here it has been established that it is not documentary as it has no indexical link to a point in time and space and is therefore fiction. Now you are caught up in trying to suggest the holy grail of photography is to be found in the computer.
The digital environment has not reinvented the wheel. The computer is not necessary in the making of a collage and you can record a decisive moment with a digital camera. You've made some good art but your sophist arguments are confusing the debate.
|
|
|
| document or poem? [message #825 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:53 |
|
04:37pm Nov 24, 2002
Pedro,
I have watched this discussion with interest for several weeks. I don’t think anyone had much of an argument with your editorial itself, but rather that you maintain that your composite/collage (or insert your preferred term here) image is a documentary photograph.
Indexical points in time, pixel content, poetry, perceptions, linear moments, and transformations aside; the event in your image never happened. You can make Superman leap over a tall building in a single bound in Photoshop, but it doesn’t make the image a documentary photograph.
Is you image art? Yes. If so, is it good art? As always, that is another point of debate. Can digital images (composites or not) be a form of visual poetry? Of course they can. Is digital the future of photography? No, it is the here and now. It is the present.
Is an image of something that never happened a documentary photograph? No.
Your image may be commentary, opinion, poetry, an equivalent and/or art, but it is not a documentary photograph.
Regards,
Peter A. Calvin
|
|
|
| Re: The poetry of an image [message #826 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:54 |
|
08:05pm Nov 24, 2002
I liked the bit about the sophist arguments.
|
|
|
| a test of manhood [message #829 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:55 |
|
08:20am Nov 25, 2002
There has been a lot of discussion about the "decisive moment" as if it's a test of manhood. Granted, it's a wonderful thing when it happens, but it makes me wonder if there is more interest in the hunt rather than in the image. I have no doubt in my mind that if Pedro wanted to set up a web site called "thedecisivemoment.com" he could and he could fill it with hundreds of his own images, more than most of us could ever hope to photograph in a lifetime. But, that's not what ZZ is about. Pedro has presented a new way of thinking about photography and rather than sit comfortably on his laurels, patting himself on the back for all of his past accomplishments, he's moving forward, pushing the envelop. That in and of itself deserves our respect.
There has also been a lot of discussion about a "documentary" photograph and what it is and is not. Many have gotten hung up on this and seem to be upset that Pedro is calling his image a documentary photograph. If you read his remarks carefully, I think rather than attempting to validate his composite image as a documentary photograph, he's actually questioning documentary photography period.
Pedro brought up x-rays and the like as documentary images. I think a better example is that multi-billion dollar digital camera orbiting 200 miles above earth called the Hubble Space Telescope. I saw a segment on (I think) 60 Minutes a few months ago about this scientific marvel. What's so fantastic about this is that the photons of light that are being captured and recorded by Hubble today actually happened millions of years ago. All of this information is reduced to a bunch of zeros and ones, similar to a digital camera. But, what happens next is rather interesting. The zeros and ones go to the scientists unaltered so they can do their astrophysics calculations and the like, but simultaneously they go to artists who then, God forbid, manipulate them (probably with PhotoShop) by adding false colors and sparkles and probably dropping stars and planets out that are distracting and who knows what else. In the end, we the public, receive doctored images based on the artists' interpretations of what space should look like. They create these fantastic images to promote the space program. They are, dare I say, "documents" of space, and are now the basis of millions of people's perception of what space looks like. Do any of us even for a moment question the validity of these "space documents"? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I for one feel a certain sense of pride that some of my tax dollars are going for something so wonderful as this rather than more bombs. My guess is that if we saw the raw images we would be bored to death.
Now then, how different is Pedro's composite image than this? Is it the human element that bothers us? Or is it the manhood test of the decisive moment that bothers us? Pedro has created an image that definitely works better than either of the two original images he started with and the final composite, after all, is "based on a true story". It is an image of Pedro's perception/interpretation of life on that Ecuadorian (I think) street. When he says it's as much a documentary photograph as any other, I think what he probably means is that it not a documentary photograph just as any other supposed "documentary photograph".
Pedro, thank you for allowing us all to think a little deeper. Keep it up and please, don't create "thedecisivemoment.com"!
Take care,
Peter Singhofen
|
|
|
| yeah, yeah.. blah, blah. [message #830 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:57 |
|
05:17pm Nov 25, 2002
what laurels? laurels has robert capa. the test of manhood goes more in that direction, if in any.
|
|
|
| back patting [message #833 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:58 |
|
10:31pm Nov 25, 2002
Peter Singhofen – “Based on a true story”- this is really embarrassing. Of course Pedro doesn’t need to pat himself on the back having you around. Too bad you don’t have anything substantial to add to the discussion.
Christopher Grabowski
|
|
|
| thinking about it... [message #835 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 13:00 |
|
05:29pm Nov 25, 2002
Well, you have totally convinced me! Pedro IS the Father of Digital Photography... Thank you Oh, Pedro for showing me the right way. Please take me in as one of your followers. To celebrate I'm gonna go drink 500 ml of Dektol, at 20° just the way I like it.
|
|
|
| Re: back patting [message #837 is a reply to message #833 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 13:03 |
|
02:22pm Nov 26, 2002
Christopher & Orizae,
I hope Orizae will ease up on the dektol, I heard it's addictive. Look guys, I apologize if it seemed like I was placing Pedro on a pedestal. He certainly doesn't need me to defend him nor does he need pats on the back from me. However, I do think he deserves a little respect, something that seems to be lacking at times in this forum. Let me try to add a little more substance to my last comment. Pedro said in comment #57:
"The two men walking definitely existed, by placing them in the same visual space, a change happened for sure, and the transformation from what has been a traditional notion of space and time has taken place. This is what we should be dealing with. The exploration of what these transformations actually represent for photography, no longer constrained by the same perceptions of the past."
Now instead of the two men, let's consider an image taken by the Hubble of light emitting from two distant stars, one 400 million light years away and the other 200 hundred million light years away. The image that we see shows the two stars together in the same visual space, but the difference in the "age" of the light that was recorded is 200 million years. So, what we see never actually occurred, at least not the way it appears. But our point of reference in both space and time have them placed together. Although astrophysicists are able to make sense out this mathematically, we common folk are left only with the visual images as photographic documents of deep space. If we go by all the definitions of documentary photography discussed in this forum, then no image of deep space should be considered documentary in nature because none of them actually occurred the way we see them. Add in all the other manipulations that are done along the way by the artists I mentioned in my last comment, and well, I think you get the picture.
When I said Pedro's image was based on a true story, I meant it in the way a movie can be based on a true story. That doesn't mean it occurred exactly the way we see the final film. But in Pedro's example, it is true that both men walked along that sidewalk and it might even be true that they passed each other at some other point in time. Pedro has taken artistic license in bringing them together in the same visual space. He has changed the point of reference and that's what this discussion is all about ... "what these transformations actually represent for photography". Instead of mother nature or happenstance forcing our point of reference, we now have the ability to set it.
Is this good or bad for photography? Who knows at this point. If you're of the old school, which it is obvious that you are Christopher, then this is all heresy and Pedro should be burned at the stake. But then again, the earth is no longer flat.
Take care,
Peter Singhofen
|
|
|
| Points of reference [message #839 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 13:04 |
|
12:23am Nov 27, 2002
Peter,
Your astrophysics argument is flawed but it is also so far removed from the core of this debate that it would be a waste of time to argue it.
Since the beginning of this discussion, your mentor Pedro and yourself, failed to respond even to a single, well-structured argument of those on the other side of the issue. Pedro routinely mocks other participants for their alleged lack of professionalism. From there he progressed to mocking documentary photographers and photojournalism in general. When it became obvious that you arguing with a number of professionals well acquainted with Photoshop and digital technology you changed your line and now you trying to paint us as a bunch of backward thinking bigots. Your arguments are either a mockery or come from outer space but with no understanding of physics involved.
As for your recent invention – “a document based on a true story” – I am sure you picked up the concept in the catalog of the Flat Earth Society.
You quoted Pedro saying:
“a change happened for sure, and the transformation from what has been a traditional notion of space and time has taken place.”
When and where exactly this fundamental and dramatic change in humanity’s perception of the reality took place? Is it the theory of relativity that you are talking about? If that’s the case, you are really behind in your readings.
Apparently there are a number of people concerned with photography who didn’t notice such a change in our everyday time and space perception. Did you ever consider that it might be a local space-time anomaly limited to your coffee table?
You stated:
“He (Pedro) has changed the point of reference and that's what this discussion is all about ... "what these transformations actually represent for photography". Instead of mother nature or happenstance forcing our point of reference, we now have the ability to set it.”
That’s bold, but in reality, Pedro is not able to present a coherent and structured argument that can withstand criticism. Therefore his point of reference weights exactly as anybody else’s – a member of Yeomani tribe, Mick Jagger or myself – no more no less. If he has, as you believe, changed the point of reference concerning documentary photography for the purpose of his argument, then I just have changed it back. Now you can come and change it back again and you can keep doing it until the switch brake off.
The tone of your last paragraph that I quoted, frighteningly resembles the tone of the totalitarian state propaganda associated with the monumental photographic compositions of Rodchenko and Lissitzky at the down of the genre of photomontage. Enthusiastically shaping propaganda for the Stalin’s regime, Lissitzki obviously shared the naïve utopianism also characterizing Walter Benjamin’s essay quoted earlier by Pedro. It’s much worst in case of Rodchenko who was an artist-in-residence on the White Sea Canal project also called the Stalin’s Canal. In the first year alone more than 100,000 of forced labor construction workers lost their lives due to inhuman conditions there. You will not find a trace of that holocaust in Rodchenko’s grandiose photomontages. Photomontage became a form of choice for totalitarian propaganda also in Nazi’s Germany and Fascist’s Italy. While preserving documentary appearances derived from its photographic material, the photomontage severs the images’ links to individual human experience. It is exactly why photomontage is no longer a document even if its individual fragments were one at the moment of their creation. Juxtaposition of fragments creates a false narrative. That particular feature of a photomontage Stalin’s propagandists found so useful for their purposes.
Photomontage as any other technique is a neutral medium that carries the meaning determined by the creator of the particular application. In our modern capitalist society photomontage has been very successfully adopted to accelerate consumption through sophisticated advertising. Every day, I am exposed to abundant examples of digital photomontage as skillfully or more skillfully done than Pedro’s street scene. While Pedro image’s poetic attributes are beyond my interest, as a document his image has precisely and exactly the same value as a Gap’s billboard.
In #55 Pedro wrote:
“Some ask me why I even bother to discuss these issues with those who do not think that the digital solutions are the road to follow.”
Frankly, Pedro, you shouldn’t repeat this argument again and again after at least four people explicitly told you that it is not the method of production they are questioning but the merit of your image as a document.
I think that you seriously overestimate the importance of your Photoshop technique. I know personally at least a dozen people who can digitally stitch two pictures in about 90 minutes as well or better than you. 10 years ago when you were among the few skilled in the Photoshop use your explorations were creative just by the fact alone that you moved into the new territory. Today this land is well mapped and even abused by commercial photographers. You resemble more and more King Lear wandering aimlessly and mourning your lost kingdom. I wish you well and hope that there is enough creativity left in you to move ahead and perhaps surprise us with an image rather than a sophist argument artificially attached to it.
Christopher
|
|
|
| End note [message #841 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 13:05 |
|
03:46pm Dec 9, 2002
Dear Folks,
The debate on this particular editorial has apparently reached a dead end. I must admit, we became a little personal in the late phase of the argument. Even if it was not I who introduced such an attitude, I was wrong to follow this path. All current participants and future readers, please accept my apologies for allowing the form to sometimes dominate the content of my commentaries.
Perhaps we overly exaggerated differences in our opinions in order to make ourselves clear. It is fairly obvious that Pedro can effectively undermine the ethos of documentary photography with his digital compositions, but it is also fairly clear that he can’t replace it with his works. I would like to think that in order to establish a new genre it is not necessary to undermine the old one. After all, it is pretty unlikely that collectors disillusioned about straight photography will shred their vintage prints of Cartier-Bresson and Hine.
We need to remember that communication as a science is still in its early stages. We will certainly see rapid developments in communications theory in the coming years, the same way we’ve witnessed lately the rapid development in the digitalization and transmission of data. In a short few years – I am sure – we will no longer be mistaking content for the mode of transmission. As humans, we can only perceive information in analog form anyway.
Cheers,
Christopher
|
|
|
| algunas preguntas sobre el trabajo de pedro meyer actualmente [message #845 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 13:12 |
|
10:28pm Apr 18, 2003
Don Pedro:
Mi nombre es Margarita Montealegre soy nicaraguense y estoy haciendo una maestria en Fotografia en los E.U. Yo lo conoci a usted hace muchisimas lunas. Estoy haciendo un esano sobre la fotografia digital y los trabajos recientes que usted ha realizado. Si ustd podria, me encantaria poder hacerle algunas preguntas referente a esto.
Muchisimas Gracias,
Margarita Montealegre
|
|
|
| A pissed poet pontificates [message #1118 is a reply to message #102 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 18:58 |
|
Henry Bateman - 06:02am Oct 1, 2002
The great beauty that lies within poetry is that it is a contrivance that that which is contrived cannot be seen. Unfortunately not the case with this photograph.
Your correspondent that berates you with fundamental principles only upholds an age old position, for is not the computer to photography what photography was to painting.
|
|
|
| David!! [message #1128 is a reply to message #823 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 19:20 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
pedromeyer - 03:05am Nov 24, 2002
Firstly I reject flat out the suggestion that I used a "mocking tone", simply out of respect for any one participating in these discussions I would refrain from such an approach.
Second, I was never "concerned", using your expression, that my image would or should be seen in one way or another, as I clearly explained earlier, this is a point of departure, and serves us well to discuss a topic which apparently has been of interest to a good number of participants.
And thirdly, I still sustain, nothwithstanding your objections, that the image clearly has an indexical reference to a point in time and space. The proof is in the images that I have submitted as a reference.
As I mentioned quite a few days ago. If you agree that the two initial images are indexical, and then the composite [ mind you this is not a collage, but let us leave that specific discussion for another day, a collage is quite a different kettle of fish] stops being one, you would then have to explain to us at which exact point does such an image loose it's indexical reference.
As I continue to see this, two images which have indexical links, with specific references to time and space, generate a third image derived from these, the same way that your genes are the composite of both your parents. You might look more than one of your two parents, but your pool of genes is precisely derived from them.
The same thing happens with a picture of this nature, when derived from two indexical images, you can not but have one that is derived pixel by pixel from such a genetic combination.
If you choose to ignore such considerations, that is obviously your prerogative, but it does not alter such a genetic reality by wishing it away.
You simply have to look at space and time in a different way than possibly you have done.
The linear representation of space and time, of a straight traditional image, is giving way to a more complex representation. You might wish to argue that the image is not "identical" to a specific linear moment, and of course you would be correct, but that still does not suggest that the new image is not also an indexical link or that the new representation was nonexistent.
It occurs to me that this notion of representation I am commenting on might be illustrated by a sound and an eco, with the eco and the original sound in a delayed effect, still being the sound. The two men walking definitly existed, by placing them in the same visual space, a change happened for sure, and the transformation from what has been a traditional notion of space and time has taken place. This is what we should be dealing with. The exploration of what these transformations actually represent for photography, no longer constrained by the same perceptions of the past.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Similar problem [message #1134 is a reply to message #1128 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 19:35 |
|
Boris Budinas - 01:18am Nov 25, 2002
Dear Pedro!
Yesterday I came across the similar problem ? for design purpose of a magazine page I had to flip a photograph horizontally. For evidence purpose it is not allowable, but for design one ? I think yes. Documentary photograph is not only for documentary evidence in a court, may be you can better catch a moment of real life, somehow modifying the moment (as realist art did). I wrote previously about famous photograph by Robert Doisneau ? The Kiss (it appeared to be staged photograph), it is just about that.
I wish you all the best
Boris Budinas
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Nov 22 01:06:00 EST 2009
|
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
The poetry of an image
