It can be argued, but not successfully. This is really a strange statement. It sounds like you are saying complexity equals art. The artist with ink, brush and paper produces inferior work to an artist using a drawing program?
It can be argued, but not successfully. This is really a strange statement. It sounds like you are saying complexity equals art. The artist with ink, brush and paper produces inferior work to an artist using a drawing program?...While an image heavily modified via computer manipulation is arguably less factual than a piece of processed photographic film, it can also be argued as a work of art it is superior because the artist did not force their vision to be constrained by an artificial limitation of raw material. ...
Just because you don't structurally alter the scene as constructed by you at the time of exposure doesn't mean you don't manipulate it and that it is somehow "true". It may be a factual reproduction of the scene you encountered, but it is still your interpretation of the scene you encountered. Google Street View is closer to photographic truth than any single still photo because it has no depictional intent - and even then, it is a far from accurate representation.
'truths' in a photograph -- hmmm, I'd say truths are in the photographer and viewers. The photograph is merely a conduit -- if garbage goes in one end, garbage comes out the other,
Somewhat surprised to read this discussion. The F/64 ships sailed long ago and nobody is looking back as far as I know. Indeed, F/64 was very short lived, and most of its adherents quit in disgust, including AA himself. Indeed, I have yet to hear a definition of "art" here. It used to be what's pretty, or what's decorative or even "beautiful." More recently, it's been said that "art is the idea."
maybe ?A definition of truth could be would the photo be accepted in a court of law as evidence? Would the NY Times accept the photo as an undistorted depiction of an actual event?
Quite often what walks away, comes back in form. To me F64 was just a jab at pictorialists at the time when things were not moving anywhere, so I think it is historically an important period in photography. But, I have to say, going through the f64 "biography" left me disappointed, as I felt like reading about a bunch who did not have all that much interesting to say, nor could they truly make their argument stand. In summary, f64 was ... allow lens to resolve and process to capability of the sensitive material, be free with all the rest in the process.Somewhat surprised to read this discussion. The F/64 ships sailed long ago and nobody is looking back as far as I know. Indeed, F/64 was very short lived, and most of its adherents quit in disgust, including AA himself. Indeed, I have yet to hear a definition of "art" here. It used to be what's pretty, or what's decorative or even "beautiful." More recently, it's been said that "art is the idea."
Just because you don't structurally alter the scene as constructed by you at the time of exposure doesn't mean you don't manipulate it and that it is somehow "true". It may be a factual reproduction of the scene you encountered, but it is still your interpretation of the scene you encountered. Google Street View is closer to photographic truth than any single still photo because it has no depictional intent - and even then, it is a far from accurate representation.
Clever mistyping of words like Photoshop does not an intellectual argument make. While an image heavily modified via computer manipulation is arguably less factual than a piece of processed photographic film, it can also be argued as a work of art it is superior because the artist did not force their vision to be constrained by an artificial limitation of raw material. As with any media, there are good artists and there are bad artists, and the sheer relative volume of bad artists tends to drown out the good ones and give the medium a colored reputation. I don't know if Maggie Taylor still calls herself a photographer, but she uses photographic imagery and composites her selected components using digital tools because it allows her to achieve her vision. Her ex-husband Jerry Uelsmann heavily manipulates his images using wet darkroom techniques and multiple enlargers to produce purely analog flights of fantasy. Henry Peach Robinson was doing photomontage and manipulated images in 1855. I don't think you want to accuse him of not being a photographer...
In most cases, photographs are considered demonstrative evidence, not direct evidence. Much like diagrams prepared for court.A definition of truth could be would the photo be accepted in a court of law as evidence? Would the NY Times accept the photo as an undistorted depiction of an actual event?
What if it is just outside the frame, and hinted at by everything in the frame?If the lens did not catch it, it is manipulation. That is a really clearly defined criteria.
But we run into this every time someone mentions art or 'truths'...and there is always a lengthy discussion that never concludes with anything close to consensus. Art Photo or just photo...does the tag make a difference to the topic in question...IMO, no. Big T or little t...its elementary my dear Watson...and after pages of discussion we still do not agree and we talk past each other no matter.Until we agree on a definition of "truth", either in the photograph, the photographer, or the viewer, we are not going get anywhere with the discussion. We are just talking past one another.
I agree that we need not go around and around again about a definition of "art". However, someone used the term "art photo", and it would be helpful to know what he meant by the term, and how an "art photo" as oppose to any other kind of photo, relates to "truth".
Choices...manipulation. A matter of personal definition, really. A photographer manipulates the lens, determining what it will catch. But this is one of the rare times I can say I do no dodging, burning or cropping, and people seem to agree that I manipulate the image.If the lens did not catch it, it is manipulation. That is a really clearly defined criteria.
But we run into this every time someone mentions art or 'truths'...and there is always a lengthy discussion that never concludes with anything close to consensus. Art Photo or just photo...does the tag make a difference to the topic in question...IMO, no. Big T or little t...its elementary my dear Watson...and after pages of discussion we still do not agree and we talk past each other no matter.
People make judgment calls on many things including truth. The NY Times editor will reject a photo that doesn't appear truthful. Many papers won't accept anything but unedited jpegs from their photographers. Any editing for let's say exposure or cropping will be done in their editorial offices to prevent finagling.maybe ?
but IDK using non panchromatic film can distort an actual event. the "problem" is that truth doesn't exist, we are all looking at our own 1% of reality and deciphering it through our own experiences and flawed perceptions of said so called reality to make sense of what we are looking at. if you need me I'll be visualizing whirled peas.
True, but the photographer is rarely called to give evidence, unless the photographer was the only one who can testify about the scene.Photographs are submitted all the time in trials. The court questions the photographer what editing he;s done and how the photo was taken to determine if the photograph can be legally used in a trial. If there's an appearance of trickery or even an innocent change that would change its meaning, it will be rejected from being used as testimony. People aren't stupid. They can judge what's real and what isn't. To argue a BW photo cannot depict reality is a false argument. It's more real than a color photo where the sky has been replaced from a photo from another country or the murder weapon has been cloned out.
I just read "Art photos" as most photos except journalistic photography -- and I don't worry about the "Art" part...it is like a red herring. Unneeded distraction of the issue...which seems to be; when does image manipulation begin? With image selection, with getting the image onto film, or with printing the image, or with getting someone to buy it?Getting back to the idea that "the ART is the idea," which no one wants to talk about, I don't think "ART" has anything to do with "truth" or "manipulation." Think of Duchamp and his urinal or Picasso's Cubism. Beyond that, think of Atget's overriding sensibility.
There is a lot of truth, and a lot of truths, in a lot of photographs - some more than others.
But photographs aren't truth.
What if it is just outside the frame, and hinted at by everything in the frame?
That too is manipulation, but there is no deception involved.
Matt, questioning the photographer is to determine what if any changes he made to the photograph. He also is a witness to prove where the photographs came from. He's a witness to the truth of the photo, who took it and and when where it was taken. Of course he can;t testify as to what happened during the crime because he wasn't there. He only testifies about the photos.True, but the photographer is rarely called to give evidence, unless the photographer was the only one who can testify about the scene.
Save some statutory exceptions, photographs are not used as direct evidence. They are used to assist witnesses who do give direct evidence.
Like charts and diagrams.
I defer to your expertise. Maybe I've watched too many Perry Mason's. But let's not lose my point. Today with so many video cameras around, there are constant movies recorded showing "criminals" on or near crime scenes. I have to believe that if they're used as evidence to show the criminal at the scene, someone has to testify as to where the video came from to "prove" it's accuracy. Someone has to be a witness to that fact and how it was processed to assure the jury the defendant wasn't cloned into the scene by a crooked cop. There's a word for that where the prosecution shows the "trail?" the evidence took to prove its accuracy as evidence.Alan - how many trials have you appeared in Court on, or prepared evidence for?
I've been involved in a sufficient number as counsel, and made use of enough photographic evidence in court to have a reasonably informed opinion on this. It can be incredibly useful, but unless you have a person to testify about what a photograph depicts, it is in-admissable. Testimony about how the photograph was prepared won't help.
If a question comes up about a particular piece of demonstrative evidence - such as a photograph - then the photographer may be called as a witness. Mostly though photographs only illustrate things, they don't prove things, so their creator isn't necessary in court.
Photographs are by their nature corroborative or demonstrative evidence. There are very few circumstances for which they supply direct evidence.
The camera is almost never there when the incident at issue happens. And when it is (traffic cameras, etc.) there has to be statutory provisions before the photos are allowed in as evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?