I
I find the practice of child abuse or sexual harassment to be a lot more
pervasive and responsible for social ills, than any of the much maligned
new technologies. I don't believe that one can embrace anything without
a critical eye, but having said that, it's also in our best interest to
delve beyond the facile commentary based on other simplistic interpretations,
to the point where in some intellectual and artistic circles it's almost
considered as a badge of honor to be ignorant of what technologies have
to offer, let alone actually use them.
I know we have strayed a bit from our course, but then I
hear quite often many of these arguments against
technologies which makes me consider that these issues are
better addressed at the outset, rather than have them
linger on in the background without being discussed.
Should you agree with some of my premises this leaves a bit
more room to immerse ourselves in the issues pertaining to
the world of photography without being distracted or
dismissed for "our sleepy stupidity or our dangerously
naive enthusiasm", as that critic on the Internet would have
it. Even though his observations where not addressed to
anyone in particular, I consider that at the very least
they deserve to be rebutted.
Given that the topic I suggested I would speak about is the
"renaissance of photography", we can't overlook the fact
that we find ourselves amidst a total revolution the likes
of which have not been seen since the onset of the
industrial revolution. Photography is but a tiny part of
this recent technological sea change, and the
transformations are not only in the tools we might decide
to use, but in how we as people will eventually respond to
some of the issues brought about by such changes. One of
the fundamental topics deals with our perceptions of the
world as seen through the looking glass of photography.
Let us concentrate for a moment on one of the hottest
issues around, and which keeps so many minds in fierce
debate and at odds with each other. I'm talking about the
"representation of reality", issues such as THE TRUTH in
photography (whatever that means for each one of you). It
has puzzled me time and time again, why this item of
"veracity" should be such a hot topic, when in fact the
issue of reality and its representation is such an old
one, which precedes photography by literally, centuries.
I am reminded by Maurice Tuchman (Senior Curator Emeritus
at the LA County Museum of Art) that crucial chapters of
the story of art history have suggested that art's highest
achievement is, in literal effect, duplicity: the
counterfeit of the appearance of the natural world.
According to legend there was this competition between two
rival Greek painters Zeuxis and Parrhasisus; Zeuxis painted
such realistic grapes that the birds flocked to peck at
them. Confident he had demonstrated his superior artistic
skill, Zeuxis demanded that Parrhasisus unveil his
painting, so that the comparison could be made.
Triumphantly, Parrhasisus revealed that the curtain
covering his painting was in fact the painting
itself Zeuxis himself had been deceived.
I think it's time for us to revisit our collective notion
of what a photograph actually deals with. It's my
impression we have been pecking at photographic images for
the last one hundred and fifty years, much like the birds
did with the grapes in Zeuxis painting, trusting we were
dealing with reality itself. Only now with a heightened
awareness brought on by the notions of what digital
photography can accomplish, are we beginning to discover
what photography was all along: the very act of deception.
Parrhasisus has won once again. The black and white "Moon
rise over Hernández" by Ansel Adams, was just that, the
photograph itself, and not the landscape.
|