Reify and Redact

I wanted to put in my own two cents about Gordon's topic of the other day— photographic legacies—before we leave the idea behind.

A. D. Coleman uses two particular words with respect to photography that I think are illuminating. They're both scholarly-sounding words, and I think Allen uses them in ways that he has refined somewhat beyond their dictionary definitions. The words are "reify" and "redact."

"Reify" means to make real. This is of course an important word for artists, since artists are all the time getting ideas. An artistic project can actually have a rich life and and an elaborate structure in your head without being anything more than a notion; but until you "make it real," it's unlikely that anyone else is going to be able to get much out of it. Also, of course, the process of reifying any idea usually changes the idea, which is the fodder for so much of what goes on in art schools, not to mention what happens when you go out with a camera.

You might have the idea that you want to photograph the logging industry, or make a series of pictures that are all blue, or whatever else you might think of, but to be art the idea has to be made real by being put into some transmittable form.

"Redact" is a word the meaning of which, unless I misread him, Allen has extended somewhat. Strictly, it means to edit a text for publication. More generally, it can be thought of as putting any kind of creative project into final form.

Redaction is the reason why so many successful artists prefer to work toward some sort of culmination with any given body of work. For some it's to publish the work as a book, for others it's to have a show. There's no standard form for fully redacted work, of course; the concept simply implies that the work is wholly and completely reified to the limits of the artist's intentions, abilities, or resources.

Redaction, I think, is what really "separates the men from the boys," if the women reading this will forgive the expression. Most of us don't even edit our work, much less redact it into some coherent final form. Redaction, as those of you who have done it even once will be well aware, is very hard work. It requires that edits be hard, sequences be set in stone, final prints be made and matted, and the work be submitted to judgment with no excuses. For some it's even threatening work, requiring a certain kind of courage, since to finish something is to close it off to future improvements either actual or imagined.

The redaction project that is most common among photographers is the portfolio. (As you read this, ask yourself: do you have a portfolio that you could present without a single excuse or elaboration as being representative of what you've done as a photographer?) A custom book is also a great project, or even the humble "photo album." A fine print framed and hung can reify and redact a single picture.

Redaction is anyone's best shot at a legacy of any sort—whether it's to be worldwide fame in times to come or a considerate heirloom for the great-grandkids. The better the print, the less likely someone will be to throw it away. The more complete and finished the project, the easier other people find it to understand and appreciate, and the more likely they are to value and preserve it. It can be anything; but whatever it is, finish it. It will help it to endure.

Whatever form it takes, redaction is really the key to accomplishment, as well as to a "legacy."

______________

Mike

Featured Comment by Gordon Lewis: Thanks, Mike. Reify and redact: "Make it real and present a clear statement." The redaction part is precisely the issue I'm struggling with. As usual, you expressed it better than I ever could. [I might take issue with that.... —MJ] The only thing I would add is that if one has the right attitude and approach, this struggle can be energizing and illuminating, for the photographer as well as the viewer. Conversely, I'm convinced that an inability to redact indicts an inability to make sense of one's life. And it's not just deciding what to say—it's having the courage to say it. If you never complete it, you never risk criticism. On the other hand, you also eliminate the possibility of praise and acceptance. To this extent, no legacy is simply given to you: You have to claim it.

UPDATE: I heard from A.D. Coleman after this post appeared. Firstly, he wanted to share credit for his refinement of the word "redaction" with the late photographer, teacher, and theorist M. Richard Kirstel. Further, of his usage of the word, he says he would "probably object to anyone reducing it  down to a sentence or so of paraphrase," and refers interested readers to his essay "On Redaction: Heaps and Wholes, or, Who Empties the Circular File?" in his book Depth of Field (University of New Mexico Press, 1998 [OoP]).

Comments

[Ernest Theisen]

Thank you. That should get me off my ass. I have a 15 print project of photographs of this big island to be printed in Kallitype, matted, framed, hopefully put on some kind of gallery wall. I have done the "reify" part. I have all the images, made big negs of them, and I have 4 more prints to make to finish the 15. I am about 1/3 through the "redact" part. And it has been stalled like that for 3 months. I have a hell of a time staying motivated to finish projects. Lots of things, much more important things, like painting the porch, get in the way. So off I go and if anybody in my family asks me what I am doing in my little work area I will tell them the I am Redacting. That will slow them down. Thank for the motivation. E

[dasmb]

"Do you have a portfolio that you could present without a single excuse or elaboration as being representative of what you've done as a photographer?"

I can't say that I do, but I also can't say that it'd be useful. Such a portfolio would need to be in constant flux for any photographer whose style is really growing, which eliminates the requirement of redaction. Portfolios are best when they are very narrowly defined; it helps establish a context and communicate a somewhat clearer message than simply "here are the pictures I'm most proud of."

I can say that I have a portfolio of everything I've done in 2005 and another for 2006. (They're on the website, you can go look).

The point of the portfolio for me is to gauge how my personal style changes over time, but also to have a simple way to get advice on my work from others. I've been geeky enough to carry a new portfolio to the bar with me, where I'll ask everybody at the table to star the back of those images they like.

I have some hope that one or another of my projects will result in something so attractive, interesting and artful as to be salable, if only so I can write off a portion of this gear's G.A.S.

[Paul]

So true and so difficault to accomplish.
Paul

[Joe Lipka]

This hits it pretty square. If you are going to take the trouble to produce photographs, you should finish the job and make sure that the job is completed. It's not completed until someone sees it.

[chuck kimmerle]

"Portfolios are best when they are very narrowly defined; it helps establish a context and communicate a somewhat clearer message than simply "here are the pictures I'm most proud of."

I think that depends on the purpose of the portfolio. If for convincing a gallery owner to exhibit our works or to showcase our talents for a prospective client then yes, we need to focus the scope of the portfolio.

Eventually, however, we may well want a portfolio consisting of our best works (or those we're most proud of), even if for private viewing. If nothing else, to serve as a reminder for who we used to be.

As to the original topic, the Internet has made many photographers, myself included, a bit lazy as we can now have hundreds, if not thousands, of people view our work without actually printing any of it. The curse of the web gallery.

[Gordon Buck]

"Do you have a portfolio that you could present without a single excuse or elaboration as being representative of what you've done as a photographer?"

What a challenge! I'm surprised you didn't include the quantity, say, a dozen.

On the other hand, I'm reminded of the violin maker, who, when asked "How long does it take to finish making one?" responded "I don't know, I've never finished one. They just come and take it away!"

[Player]

Mike, I'm responding to the siren call, only not yet with my photography. I write songs with an acoustic guitar, and record them in my home studio, only I have a bunch of individual songs that need to be "redacted." In a musical sense, that means to assemble/arrange/master these individual songs into an a cohesive album.

I ordered an Alesis Masterlink that is basically a mix-down deck and mastering machine. My high resolution individual song tracks, on my multitrack recorder, are mixed-down (from individual song tracks to a stereo two-track file) to the Multilink's hard drive for redaction: assembling a playlist, adding compression, limiting, EQing, adding fades if need be, and basically creating a cohesive finished album of songs (sort of like a portfolio) burned to the Redbook standard resolution of 16-bit/44kHz.

The lesson will not be lost when I turn my attention back to photography. Thanks!

[Mike C.]

A pedant speaks: "reify" is an odd and rather pompous word for Coleman to choose, in place of say "realise" or "materialise", and probably strikes the wrong note. Reification is a philosophical / political term with, usually, a negative meaning i.e. something like "to turn an abstract idea existing in one's mind into a thing, in a way that disguises the unreality of the idea".

But who could argue that to (a) realise your work, and (b) edit it, are the first steps on the road to taking your work seriously. And if you don't take it seriously, why should anyone else?

[Johnny]

If your idea is to photograph a slice of cheese, then you hardly need a fancy word like reify to talk about the relation between the idea and a matted, framed, exhibition quality print of a slice of cheese. The word becomes useful when the relation between idea and object is complex, and there is a lot of creative work needed to make the transition. Man Ray's photograph Le Violon d'Ingres, for example, is the reification of a violin shaped female back, but it is also a reification of certain understanding of photographs as visual media and their relation to human perception, and that is a more interesting use of the word.

[Robin Dreyer]

Mike,

However Mr. Coleman may feel about your reduction of his redaction, this is a great commentary, worth mulling over for a while. I'm glad you're feeling a little better and hoping you have some semblance of health coverage.

Robin Dreyer

[Gordon Buck]

Something was obviously missing in my assortment of prints, slides and digital files. After reading Mike’s article, “Reify and Redact”, I’ve decided to accept his challenge and produce a real and tightly edited portfolio of prints.

As an aid to selection and editing, I’ve made up the following rules:
1. Cutoff date 2006
2. Suitable quality for an 8x10 or better print
3. Only a dozen prints!

The paper, interleave tissue and portfolio box are ordered for the Great Reify and Redact Project and the selection process has begun.