How much editing is justified?

[Pieter12]

But sometimes I pre-edit my pre-visualization posthaste and not push the shutter button... .

And the would be editing, too.

 

[Vaughn]

And the would be editing, too.

My successful images have around 75% (totally guessing) of their editing done before I expose the film, though not 75% of the work. Unsuccessful images are edited out 100% except I can't throw negatives away, so they stay around to haunt me.

 

[koraks]

"The funk is in the holes."

I like that one; that's a nice parallel!
I understand what you say about control vs. intentionality, although that already starts shifting the sands. Whether your criteria is about one or the other - either could be the case. But they're different things!

I personally still consider the image by @cliveh a proper photograph, with clear immediacy (!)

There's two issues here I'd like to highlight before making a point which I think is crucial to understanding my reflection on @cliveh's earlier statement.

The first is that you speak of a 'proper photograph'. The adjective 'proper' implies a normative judgement. I have no problem with that; you can think of anything being better or lesser than something else if you please. But I do want to signal that this kind of normative-hierarchical thinking easily creeps into the line of reasoning without being acknowledged. Let's at least acknowledge it. It's interesting and can inform further discussion. Just putting it there and pretending like it doesn't exist, doesn't get us very far.

Then there's the 'clear immediacy'. I think that word group is inherently problematic. If one were to pick apart my earlier argument and also the statement of @cliveh about 'immediacy' being a relevant criterion, I think the inescapable step would be to discuss what that term means. It's not clearly defined. It's fuzzy and probably highly subjective. Hence, speaking of 'clear immediacy' brings to mind the saying 'clear as mud'. We'd have to sift the mud first. I suspect that immediacy means something else to you than it does to me.

This is one of the definitions that I can scrape off of the internet (apparently Wikipedia) for 'immediacy':

the quality of being immediate or the direct experience of an event without any intervening medium. It can also relate to how we perceive time and reality, emphasizing a sense of urgency or importance in the present moment.

So 'direct experience', 'without intervening medium', 'perception of time and reality', 'urgency or importance in the present moment.
Let's have a look at those elements:
Direct experience: well, inherently not. It's a photograph. So that one's out.
Intervening medium: that one is very dominant in the presentation in the way the tonal relationships are twisted by the medium. We're looking as much at the medium as at the original scene.
Perception of time and reality: reality is visible in shape, but the same could be said for my colorful photograph/image (it just happens to be a very abstract shape - it's still real). Then again, the color is constructed artificially and most certainly not real. This affects the overall impression the image makes. Time is perhaps a little more forgiving here - referring back to @cliveh's mention of the transient nature of the light, and the dominant role it plays in this image, there's a kind of time-specificity in the image.
Urgency or importance of the present moment: it's not the present moment, of course. There's that. Importance is probably subjective and could be tied to being familiar with the person and the moment depicted, but I'd refer to an image that expresses something I would associate with activities such as reflection, pondering or perhaps daydreaming as the opposite of 'urgent'.
Would I attribute a high degree of 'immediacy' to this image? I guess not. It doesn't add up. But...perhaps the 'immediacy' of a photograph is inherently limited if we critically look at this definition. We can compromise, of course, and argue that immediacy is not a binary quality. It can be attributed to an extent. Still, I would state that this photograph has a limited immediacy, and that more importantly the choice in editing (sabattier) has reduced its degree of immediacy significantly. That's of course subjective. You may disagree. But at least, given the above unraveling of the fuzzy subject, we can make the disagreement more concrete than a blunt 'yay or nay'.

Now for the one point I'd like to stress: in the above, I try to (1) make any normative judgement explicit and (2) make it more tangible by unraveling one of the fickle concepts involved. This makes it possible to reason about things that evidently still have a clear emotional and subjective dimension. This will always be there, but I think that in some cases, even emotional and subjective matters can follow some sort of logic. I find that interesting, because this logic may not always answer to the kind of mathematical logic that the term strictly refers to. What I spotted in @cliveh's statement about editing affecting immediacy in photographs is a logic that seems clear enough to me - but at the same time, I'm confronted with a recent example published by the same person that in my view goes against that same logic. I don't deny that both can exist next to each other: Clive can have this conviction, and at the same time he may not always act on it. I find that interesting and I wanted to highlight the discrepancy. Apparently, the normative frameworks we build for ourselves, and present to others, are not as strict or robust as suggested by the way they're positioned.

My criticism of what @cliveh said is not about whether or not I find immediacy a relevant criterion. I'm interested in the inconsistency between what he says and what he does, which suggests that what he really thinks or feels is a lot more nuanced (and therefore more interesting) than he lets on. There's breathing room in the nuance he refuses to talk about, leaving just the anoxic environment of some blunt, axiomatic statements.

All this analysis is a bit beyond me, I just press the shutter.

It's a pity, though. There's a conceptual richness underlying what we do. When all the shop talk about stop baths and whatnot has been addressed, that's the base layer that remains so fascinating.

 

[oneeyedpainter]

We can compromise, of course, and argue that immediacy is not a binary quality. It can be attributed to an extent.

Thanks @koraks

I agree on the point above. Again, to contribute to your initial question in post #1: the image by @cliveh above still has some degree of immediacy. Your abstract image you posted above, has very little immediacy left in it, if any. Perhaps that was intentional, But that is not relevant to me. I guess this is the conundrum for me: if editing ends up destroying "too much" of what is left of immediacy when the shutter has closed, then the image stops feeling like a photograph, to me. For me, heavy-editing destroys immediacy, and I note this fact. This is not good or bad per se: I am just relaying my feelings with respect to heavy editing, which is what you asked about

Just to clarify: I personally do not particularly like either image, but that is mainly a matter of taste, and is not necessarily or directly related to the amount of immediacy that remains in those images. What is contained in either image after the editing has made its part, is not to my taste, in either case. I cannot say if I would have liked the "originals" or any intermediate steps better, because the photographers made the decision to present those versions to me.

OneEyedPainter

 

[koraks]

One thing is whether we like or dislike an image, regardless of who made it or why. Another matter is what we like or dislike to do with our own images. For me, these are different things, but I notice that for some, they blend into each other. Whether they like an image is informed by how the maker approached the process. I can understand that tendency, but I think it's more productive to separate these matters. More productive - and more fun. Btw, I'm not saying that's you @oneeyedpainter. Also, I'm fine with your not liking that photo of mine; I don't mind. I do like it, but for now mostly as a point from which to explore further. Perhaps if I'm a little further down that path I won't like that image anymore. I don't know; time will tell.

 

[oneeyedpainter]

Whether they like an image is informed by how the maker approached the process. I can understand that tendency, but I think it's more productive to separate these matters

I have tried hard to separate those two aspects in all of my comments, and I hope that has come across clearly

However, I think that among photographers there is a tendency to like stuff that "looks like a photograph". That is, again, a subjective matter, but perhaps it has much to do with your initial question, which us what picked my interest.

Perhaps editing becomes "too heavy" or "goes too far" for a person when it contributes to push an image far from what they believe a photograph should/could look like. There is lots and lots of culture and language and mannerism in that, of course.

In the end, "our" feelings are not entirely and uniquely "ours"....

OneEyedPainter

 

[tcolgate]

If it's for you own use, or for generic aesthetic art, do whatever you want to your own photos. I don't think there's much lower in the world of online photography debate than judging people for cropping their own pictures.

 

[chuckroast]

I like that one; that's a nice parallel!
I understand what you say about control vs. intentionality, although that already starts shifting the sands. Whether your criteria is about one or the other - either could be the case. But they're different things!

Yes, they are different things but both are required for the making of art. The artist must be intending to make the art and the process must be intentionally under their control. Even if there are unintended outcomes, the artist's intentional work makes it art.

Note that this has nothing to do with whether the art is "good" or not. It also has nothing to do whether anyone else likes it or not. These factors may affect the longevity or commercial viability of a particular artifact, but art is first, foremost, and always for the artist.

I presume to make art, but what I never do I worry very deeply about how it will be received by others. I seek to make art that satisfies me. Sometimes I do, more often I fail. If, along the way, my work is regarded well by others, that makes me happy, but it's not part of my artistic calculus (intentionality). I hasten to add that I have this luxury because I do not require the commerce of art to keep food on the table.

 

[wiltw]

I definitely like this.
I can really frustrate my wife some times.
I'll be at a scene that has potential, I'll move around and check several slightly different views and check several slightly different options with respect to depth of field and exposure and optimum plane of focus and camera position and, and, and - and decide that nothing works exactly the way I want it to, lower the camera, and walk away without releasing the shutter.
My exasperated wife calls it futzing .

I recall one day I decided to go on hike Pacific coastal mountains with a not-very-lightweight large format monorail and tripod sized to suit. It was accompanied by a bag full of lenses and film magazines adding to the burden. After hiking with it for a couple of hours, and a number of abortive efforts to set up and compose, I put it all back in the trunk of my car to return home, not one darkslide pulled to expose any film. Futzing. Yet content with my efforts, knowing I had not found satisfying-enough compositions to exspend any film...a far cry from the aim-and-always-shoot-multiple-shots digital 135 format shooter one so often encounters. When I travel with my wife, I do not often futz, but put my camera to my eye only with the intention of capturing an image befpre walking onward.

 

[koraks]

The artist must be intending to make the art and the process must be intentionally under their control.

If you replace "must" with "can", then I agree. Taken as it's formulated, literally, I think it flies in the face of how much art comes into being. There's a lot of mucking about especially in the 'fuzzy front-end' of the artistic process, that constitutes a search for intentionality and direction. And the degree of control by artists of the process involved is really very variable. Some like to be in that position (and manage it), quite a few don't. Artists are a rather motley crew, it seems to me. They appear to defy generalizations. Perhaps, if anything, that's their most defining characteristic. That, and being overall utterly allergic to anyone saying the word 'must' in their vicinity. Tends to freak them out pretty badly, much of the time.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Until someone views a picture and it's is affected mentally or emotionally, it's not art, only a photo. Self gratification isn't sex. It takes two to Tango.

 

[chuckroast]

If you replace "must" with "can", then I agree. Taken as it's formulated, literally, I think it flies in the face of how much art comes into being. There's a lot of mucking about especially in the 'fuzzy front-end' of the artistic process, that constitutes a search for intentionality and direction. And the degree of control by artists of the process involved is really very variable. Some like to be in that position (and manage it), quite a few don't. Artists are a rather motley crew, it seems to me. They appear to defy generalizations. Perhaps, if anything, that's their most defining characteristic. That, and being overall utterly allergic to anyone saying the word 'must' in their vicinity. Tends to freak them out pretty badly, much of the time.

Yes, but even in that mucking about there is some intention and some control of process. Certainly, there is a range of intention and control, but at the core it must be present in some degree.

For example, some people consider Jackson Pollock's paintings to be little more than shower curtain designs. But even if that's true, his apparently random paint splatters had intention behind them and his control as he splattered his way to a new "shower curtain".

Compare this to Aunt Tillie who snags a phenomenal shot of a Zermat sunset with her point-and-shoot or cell phone. Is it art? Probably not, even though its aesthetically pleasant. She wasn't intending to make a work of art and may- or may not have controlled the whole process of creating the artifact.

Mostly, none of this matters much so long as you like what you've done.

What does matter is when the critics, the arterati, and blathering academics show up. In well upholstered sentences, they tell us we can never really understand art until we filter it through the pieties of postmodernism and deconstructionism. This is to account for the gender, sociopolitical climate, and coffee stains of the original artist's work. It's nonsense and it's destructive to art, beauty, and knowledge. (Again, I recommend "The Rape of the Masters" by Kimball)

 

[Vaughn]

If it's for you own use, or for generic aesthetic art, do whatever you want to your own photos. I don't think there's much lower in the world of online photography debate than judging people for cropping their own pictures.

Or judging for not cropping their pictures. Or judged for not being 'intentional' (can an artist be intentionally unintentional? or is that just Zenning it?!)) Just read Korak's post...even the characterization of artists as a motley crew is a bit of a formulation...I am sure there are artists that are not motley, who are quite logical and down-to-earth...somewhere...

That's my opinion, anyway...dang it...one can't be zenning it and holding opinions at the same time ...it's against the zen rules...I need to work on that.

Alan..if someone is transformed by the work, it is art -- and that includes the transformation of the artist themselves. But I do like your definition...it makes kids' drawings put on the fridge officially Art, as it is safe to say many parents can be moved emotionally by what their kids create.

 

[chuckroast]

Until someone views a picture and it's is affected mentally or emotionally, it's not art, only a photo. Self gratification isn't sex. It takes two to Tango.

An artist consumes their own art and is affected - for better or worse - "mentally and emotionally". Someone has viewed the picture - the artist.

Artists working for other people are doing so in the name of Commerce, Propaganda, Journalism, Pornography, Praise, or Fame. But that's not art.

 

[BrianShaw]

Artists working for other people are doing so in the name of Commerce, Propaganda, Journalism, Pornography, Praise, or Fame. But that's not art.

Yet sometimes there are artistic aspects of the resulting products...

 

[djdister]

Artists working for other people are doing so in the name of Commerce, Propaganda, Journalism, Pornography, Praise, or Fame. But that's not art.

I think you just covered the Robert Mapplethorpe bingo card...

 

[chuckroast]

Yet sometimes there are artistic aspects of the resulting products...

Sure, there are artistic aesthetics possible with each of these, but the in each example, the purpose is no longer is to produce art for its own sake but something for other people.

As an aside, it is my (unprovable) opinion that this is why so much contemporary "art", especially music, has become simpler and simpler (dumber) since the dawn of the mass media era. It's clearly lost complexity and sophistication, on the whole, as the goal has become to feed it to a shorter and shorter consumer attention span. It's the junk food of art. Even something as simple as a Madrigal or bar room tune from 500 years ago exhibits far more musical complexity and depth than the overwhelming majority of contemporary pop music.

But what do I know, I am arts snob

 

[tcolgate]

I think you just covered the Robert Mapplethorpe bingo card...

and Caravaggio.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sure, there are artistic aesthetics possible with each of these, but the in each example, the purpose is no longer is to produce art for its own sake but something for other people.

I'm not convinced that this criteria is valid as a definition for art. Artists have produced art on commission for a very long time.

But what do I know, I am arts snob

Yep...

 

[chuckroast]

and Caravaggio.

That's right. Artists do not have to make only art. They can produce other things with their skills.

It's also worth noting that, postmodernism notwithstanding, something originally crafted as, say, political or social commentary, over time may come to stand on its own as pure art. Why? Because the sociopolitical context of its creation no longer applies and we see it as a pure arts product in our time. I stipulate that the line between "when is it art" and "when is it propaganda" is a pretty fine one.

This is similarly true for great music. Bach wrote "For the glory of God" but today even atheists perform and love his music.

 

[chuckroast]

I'm not convinced that this criteria is valid as a definition for art. Artists have produced art on commission for a very long time.

Yes, but that was artistic methods in the service of commerce and making a living. It's hard to make the case that they would have done the same work had they not been paid for it.

Ansel Adams and Edward Weston both did commercial work to make ends meet, but that stuff is mostly unremarkable and certainly not considered art or even all that important.

As another example, I consider Yosuf Karsh's portraits among the greatest I've ever seen. The technique is breathtaking and his grasp of his subjects worthy of the greatest master painters. It's still not art.

Yep...

Hey, at least I admit it

 

[BrianShaw]

Ansel Adams

Even Ansel Adams' "art photography" became commercial. His intent was to sell to make a living. Perhaps not a great example. Why else do you think he "edited" his printing of his classic images over the years... it was as much to increase sales as it was to "explore his artistic vision".

And, yes... his commerical work was quite mundane. Same with Edward Curtis. I've not knowingly seen Weston's commercial work but trust you that it is mundane as well. Although... Curtis and his his son-in-law, Mag, produced some exceptionally artistic portraits on commission...

 

[Vaughn]

...
As an aside, it is my (unprovable) opinion that this is why so much contemporary "art", especially music, has become simpler and simpler (dumber) since the dawn of the mass media era. ...

My unproven opinion...I think the survival factor is coming into play here. Art that has come to us from the past is the art that has survived the test of time...the junk has fallen aside and been forgotten, We live in the present -- our junk has yet to be filtered out by time.

Yes, but that was artistic methods in the service of commerce and making a living. It's hard to make the case that they would have done the same work had they not been paid for it.

Almost all the classical fine art that we measure present day work against was all done on commission -- usually for the Church, civil leaders, or the rich. Perhaps one had a patron that supported one's work.

 

[MattKing]

As another example, I consider Yosuf Karsh's portraits among the greatest I've ever seen. The technique is breathtaking and his grasp of his subjects worthy of the greatest master painters. It's still not art.

On the latter point, we fundamentally disagreee.
Of course, I look at art as a continuum. I look at creations, and judge how much art is in them.
The purpose for which they were made is relatively irrelevant. For that reason, things like hand tools and software coding can be imbued with art too.

 

[tcolgate]

Almost all the classical fine art that we measure present day work against was all done on commission -- usually for the Church, civil leaders, or the rich. Perhaps one had a patron that supported one's work.

Norman Rockwell and N C Wyeth created images for advertising that are almost the definitive look of their time and had a huge cultural impact. It's silly to not consider that work art.
Don't get me started on cartoonists.waterson, Schulz, Chuck Jones, Maurice Noble? I'm fighting anyone that says Duck Dodgers isn't art.