This article is about as honest a story of how digital images are manipulated for artistic impact that I've encountered. I found myself getting increasingly uncomfortable, though, as I looked at the descriptions of the photographer's images.
How do you feel about what he is saying?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/artistic_license.shtml
WOW! I HAVE A NUMBER OF "FEELINGS" ABOUT THE ARTICLE. .I ALSO HAD A NUMBER OF "THOUGHTS" ABOUT IT. FIRST, I AM CURSED BY BEING ENMESHED FOR SO LONG IN THE ACADEMIC TRADITION. I GET VERY COGNITIVE WHEN I READ MATERIAL LIKE THIS -- I BECOME CRITICAL: FOR EXAMPLE, HE THROWS AROUND "REALITY" WITH ABANDON, LIKE HE HAS A GOOD IDEA OF WHAT IT IS OTHER THAN JUST A WORD. DOES IT HAVE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REFERENT? THEN, THERE IS THE STUFF ABOUT " WHAT YOU DO IN ART IS CONTROLLED BY YOU AND NOT OUTSIDE FORCES. I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS GETTING AT, BUT HE APPARENTLY DISREGARDS THE FORCES OF CULTURE AND SUBCULTURE WHICH PROVIDE THE RELATIVE CRITERIA FOR "RIGHT AND WRONG"? AND SO ON. THE CURSE!
ReplyDeleteHOW DID I FEEL ABOUT THE ARTICLE? WELL, TO ME, IT IS SOMETHING I HAVE READ IN MANY FORMS, MANY TIMES WITH MANY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS.AS AN ARTIST, I AM NO LONGER TITILLATED BY SUCH OPINIONS. I AM TITILLATED BY WORK, BY ARTISTIC PRODUCTION, BY PERSONAL SUCCESS AND FAILURE,BY THE WORK OF OTHERS, PARTICULARLY BY THE WORK OF OTHERS. HIS WORK IS NICE. LOUIS NIDORF
I basically agree with the guy that people should be able to whatever they want artistically, including manipulate images to their hearts and shutter's content. Now I personally find goosed up saturation a bit abhorrent, sometimes requiring a quick trip to the dentist it gets so syrupy sweet. But as they say in the biz, there is an ass for every saddle and nobody needs to apologize to anybody. Buy Thomas Kincade for all I care.
ReplyDeletePhotography has been illusory since the first image was fixed. The modern era in photography tended to place a big emphasis on photography's ability to create an accurate representation of a scene and straight photographers ruled the day mostly. That didn't eliminate the plasticity of photography or eliminate the hundreds of ways of manipulating images. The debate over manipulation is endless and I don't think there is any resolution out there beyond uncovering those who claim their images are not retouched but who actually do significant but subtle manipulations.
ReplyDeleteI have a love of the large film negative contacted printed in palladium and or platinum. It is one approach that is quite difficult but in no way impossible to manipulate. From the really significant challenges that come with working with a giant camera to the great care needed in preparing printing emulsions that will match the negative (harder than it looks) I have learned that the person who does only classical straight photography is at a tremendous disadvantage against modern digital methods.
So I do both manipulated and straight images and I manipulate with abandon if the esthetics of the image point toward retouching. Robert points out that heavy manipulation leaves tell tales that can become an issue and undermine the picture. Lately I have been leaving the tell tales in the image, since there is wide fluency in manipulating digital images with great sophistication I take a perverse joy in letting my manipulated images LOOK manipulated.
Different strokes for different folks.
At the end of the day the only thing that matters is the response of the viewer.