"Use what talents you possess; The woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." William Blake
I have to admit, this is a bit of a vehicle photo, meaning I am more inclined to post this so as to be able to accompany it with a bit of writing than because I am just in the mood to post a nice photo.
I recently read this
article from Newsweek and as such journalism ought to do it got me to thinking. Now it is hard to know for sure the author's intent in writing this article, but regardless of what it was, ultimately I have to disagree with the argument he has presented. Is photography dead? Hardly. Has it lost its soul? Hardly. Is it evolving from what it once was? Of course.
Well he does a decent job of addressing the first question, photography, in terms of photographs taken is at an all time high. More photographs get snapped every single day than at any point in its history. But Mr. Plagens goes on to postulate that this incredible rise in popularity is saturating photography, diluting what photographic art is. And it is not just the rise in popularity but the advancement of technology and the proliferation of digital imaging and image editing software such as Photoshop.
"By now, we've witnessed all the magical morphing and seen all the clever tricks that have turned so many photographers—formerly bearers of truth—into conjurers of fiction."
I think this is quote represents the meat of my objection to this article, for two main reasons. First, there is honestly very little that can be done in Photoshop that cannot be done without digital "trickery". A clever and resourceful photographer can duplicate pretty much everything that Photoshop can do either in the field, in the camera or in the darkroom. Just look at the work of
Jerry Uelsmann or
Scott Mutter. Believe it or not, Uelsmann's montages are done in the darkroom, the traditional darkroom, not the digital variety. Color, contrast, density, distortion, correcting distortion, creating a larger dynamic range, blurring, dodging, burning, eliminating elements, adding elements.... these were all terms folks that existed well before any of us knew the word "Photoshop". True, it is easier to do much of this on the computer, and it eliminates the need for certain equipment and in some cases, years of experience, thereby allowing more people to enhance and manipulate their photos, but by no means were these types of manipulations inventions that were made possible only after Photoshop and digital cameras became available.
Which ties into my second argument in opposition of this article, and more importantly, this line of thought. Photographers were never bearers of truth. Ever. A photograph is a creation, it is something new brought into existence by the photographer. Often times they resemble the truth or reality, but to believe them to be is to confuse what they are. This is a sticky wicket of a philosophical debate, but I guess it really boils down to how we define "reality". Because for each of us, our reality is our perception of the world, and we all possess a unique perception. Put two people in one location, allow them to choose when they photograph that location during the span of one day, with which equipment, and to be in control of their own post-processing. You will get two very different photos, is one more real than the other?
It's a trick question. Neither should ever be described as real, or rather both should be. See how this quickly gets sticky? Are Uelsmann's montages not real because they are obviously darkroom manipulations of many different photographs? Well ok then I guess we just need to go even further back, to the "good old days" right? We always romanticize those good old days when photography was photography and a picture was an unmanipulated reproduction of reality. Surely at one time this was true.
No, not really.
See, Arthur Rothstein took a very famous
photograph of a steer skull in the badlands during the Great Depression in 1936. He found the skull, picked it up and moved it to a more advantageous location for the photograph he had in mind. Then took several different compositions and chose the print that best represented the vision he wanted to communicate. Is this any more real than the photography done today? Of course not, because that is what photography is about, communicating one's perception of the world, one's reality. Using one's imagination and their photographic skill to create a message, to share a concept. In this way photography is really no different than writing, yet writing has never had to bear the responsibility of communicating reality, nor has sculpture or painting.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
So why photography? It is because film and digital sensor capture light that has actually reflected off of some piece of this world, creating an impression of this world created by light. We point a camera, snap the shutter, and we have captured reality, right? Well not quite, because while photography may come much closer to being a direct reproduction of a moment, a place, or person than any other art, it is still an art, meaning it requires an artist, a creative individual who is in the process of creating. And that is what makes photography great. It is interpretation. It is the fact that two people will get entirely different pictures from the same place, even at the same time. It is that we all carry around our own personal reality through which we filter this world and life, and that is what is reflected in our photography. If you want it more real than that, throw away your camera and haul around a Xerox machine, oh wait that would be a manipulation of reality too....
Photography's soul is only as dead as we believe it to be, because photography's soul is not contained in the billions and billions of images snapped and printed each year. There is no 4x6 rectangle out there that contains even a trace of photography's soul. Photography's soul resides exclusively in photographers. Anyway, I think I have rambled long enough, for those who have made it this far, your ability to concentrate is simultaneously admirable and scary.
I will close with a brief description of this photo though. I took this a few summers ago in Mt. Rainier National Park. Shot on my Pentax 67 (which is now dead and replaced by another 6x7, sigh. That story to follow someday) and Rollei infrared film, at least I think it is Rollei, it might have been the Maco. Either way it is infrared, I know that for sure. I have shot a lot at this lake and in this park. It is one of my favorite places within driving distance along with the Gorge and the coast of course. A pretty straight-forward shot, the infrared really picked up on the floating grass and darkened up the clear and featureless blue sky. It really reflects the majesty of this mountain. Anyway, thanks for reading so much. I will pack up the soapbox until another day now.
