We now come to the disadvantages of this attribute: for it happens, by a singular fatality, that upon it hangs the chief reproach to photographic reproductions as works of Art. The fact is, that it is too truthful. It insists upon giving us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Now, we want, in Art, the first and last of these conditions, but we can dispense very well with the middle term. Doubtless, it is truly the province of Art to improve upon nature, by control and arrangement, as it is to copy her closely in all that we do imitate; and, therefore, we say boldly, that by the non-possession of these privileges, photography pays a heavy compensation to Art, and must for ever remain under an immense disadvantage in this respect.
Francis Frith, in Newhall 1980, p. 117
I can't seem to open the link, so not sure what the quote is really all about.
"Improve upon nature by control and arrangement"............wow, that's heavy. It appears to me to mean that photography simply can only "record" nature and present the viewer with only what is factual and literal about nature, whereas the painter or other type of artist is more free to present nature the way they see it or that they have the ability to take the viewer in so many more directions. And therefore we pay a price because we are relegated to a mere recording device. If anything I just said is even remotely close to the actual meaning of that quote, then I would have to say, no, I don't agree with that premise. Sounds like a "pictorialism" vs. "straight photography" argument to me. But I'm probably way off base, IDK.
Using the McCurry example I think he understands his subject matter, he combines elements that "belong" to the same subject matter, say India, but that might not normally cross paths, like a particularly photogenic person being in a particularly photogenic setting. The art, the act of improving upon nature, IMO is in combining the all elements required into a single frame.
...Also, thinking of airbrushing on magazine covers - is this 'improving upon nature, through control and arrangement'? It's a dangerous word.
One of the big drivers of soft focus photography was that through improvements in technology, resolution had gotten "too good". The lines and imperfections in a sitter's face had become a real problem for portraitists, just as they are today. Soft focus helped keep studios in business because, as sexist as this may sound, women don't generally buy portraits that make them look fully their age or portray their children with a bunch of zits. Right or wrong, Portraitists ignore social norms at their own commercial peril.
If the cover were a photo realistic illustration would you have the same objection?
Why?
https://www.google.com/search?q=photorealistic+drawing
I believe all photographers that are any good, manipulate the subject, otherwise they are just taking snapshots. This is where the "make a photograph, rather than take a photograph" comes from.
Even simple things like cropping, lens choice, depth of field etc manipulate a scene. After that burning and dodging take it farther. Controlling all the elements in a photograph is manipulation and the creative photographer is in charge of all of it.
People don't hire portrait photographers for reality. Never have and never will.
Besides what is reality?
We've strayed into the difficult area of context. The statement we're discussing is specifically about photography as art, so I shouldn't have mentioned magazines really.
However...
You wouldn't see a photo-realistic drawing on the cover of anything but an arts magazine, because ultimately, the viewer needs 'the big reveal' (that it's a drawing) for the image to have its full effect.
With the cover of a fashion magazine, the viewer needs to believe the photo presents a flawless reality for the image to have its full effect.
In the context of style and fashion magazines, the 'control and arrangement' of the images seeks to literally 'improve' the subject - which dangerously alters our expectations of reality.
In the context of an art gallery, we would be conscious of these images as 'alternative truths', which seek to alter the way we perceive reality.
I understand the writer wanted to keep it pithy, but for me, it would make better sense written as; 'to influence our perception of nature, by control and arrangement'.
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?