The Eye of the Blind

It's probably high time we moved on from our "photo-ontological" musings, as people who are not interested in the topic must be getting bored by now. But before we go I'd like to add one more idea and one recommendation to the mix.

Actually, the recommendation is only a "what he said." Those who are talking in the comments about Tom Wolfe's The Painted Word and From Bauhaus to Our House (both great fun and easily recommendable, although not entirely applicable to today's art world and its main concerns) should check out Michel Hardy-Vallée's recommendation of David Davies' Art As Performance. Davies begins his book with several long quotes from Wolfe—and a gentle critique of him, which is also, um, desirable. Art As Performance is a somewhat more difficult book (although still very readable) but, in the end, it's a more rewarding one.

The following is just something I want to throw up for your consideration. It seems to me that a number of readers are confused between photographic rendering that needs to be interpreted and an alleged departure from the "straight," or real, or reportorial principle.

Photographs show (or "tell us") certain things and don't tell us other things; but all photographs still need to be interpreted, often based on the viewer's knowledge of photographic techniques and means, and all such interpretations are provisional, with greater or lesser foundations of evidence. In that respect they're like any other attempt to arrive at truth, whether you're an historian trying to interpret what happened in the past or a reporter trying to put across what happened in a news event or a judge and jury trying to weigh the truth-value of evidence to come to a determination of guilt or innocence. No truth is absolute, perhaps, but that doesn't mean there is no truth.

The provisional aspect of the facts contained in a "straight" photograph do not mean that there are no facts there. This can be proven in a number of ways, but perhaps the most obvious way is that you can extract facts from pictures that the photographer didn't specifically intend to point out, or perhaps wasn't even aware of. Astronomers were able to pinpoint the exact moment that Ansel Adams's "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" was taken, but that wasn't because Adams was specifically trying to show what time it was by astronomical means when he took the picture.

In John Lehet's barn photograph two posts ago, for example, the primary fact I'm pretty sure of is that there was a barn there. That has a pretty high evidence-quotient even in his "expressive" photograph and I'm fairly certain of it. I'm also pretty sure I've gotten a reasonably accurate idea of the relative positions of the barn, shed, and tree, and that the barn has a metal roof. Now, I personally know what "infrared" or partial-infrared rendition looks like, so I'm not fooled into believing that the field and tree are covered with snow (although the evidence of this is somewhat less sure); someone who has never seen an infrared photograph might be immediately convinced that the meadow is snow-covered, and we could argue about what the fact in the photograph actually is. One of us would be right and one would be wrong—there was either snow present in the meadow when the picture was taken or there wasn't—but neither of us could be 100% sure of our conclusion based solely on the picture. We'd have to admit that our conclusions were provisional. (Cf. Roger's Fenton's cannonballs.)

Now consider what the photograph tells us about...oh, I don't know, let's say, what State it was taken in. There, the evidence is minimal or nonexistent. We can make a stab at a guess (e.g., "it probably wasn't Hawaii"), but it would just be speculation. It was taken somewhere, but exactly where is a fact that the picture itself doesn't obviously contain.

The point is that none of the aspects of technical photographic rendering put forth by people as being "unreal" are actually departures from "straight" photography, necessarily. Whether a photograph is luminance-only (i.e., black-and-white or monochrome), whether a sky  has a creamy tone or some objects are out of the depth of field or rushing water is motion-blurred—all such things merely affect the quality of the evidence the photograph offers, and perhaps increase or decrease the necessity of interpretation. You can still pull some facts out of the picture based on interpretation (having seen unnumbered pictures of motion-blurred running water, for instance, I am unlikely to conclude that someone has gone and hurled dry ice into a stream), and other facts remain fugitive or absent. But that's the situation with any photograph. And it's the same way with any other attempt to determine truth, whether it's a statement in a history textbook or an assertion by a witness in court.

The change that has overtaken "photography" is simply that a larger number of facts contained in new pictures are now less secure. If the moon in "Hernandez" had been Photoshopped in, or moved, then the time of day based on its position would no longer be a fact contained in Adams's picture. If you can't reasonably determine from the picture whether the moon was Photoshopped in or not, then "a" fact  about the time of day is still retrievable, but its quality as evidence plummets—it might have been such-and-such a time of day, or it might not have been. You might not care; Adams might not have cared. But the difference is real.

The only reason this matters is that the only thing that is interesting about many photographs, or what is most interesting about them, is the evidence they give of something that actually was. In Paul Strand's famous picture of the blind beggar woman, we can have a high degree of confidence that her sign actually said "BLIND" and that her left eye actually appeared to be open and peering at something in that wonderful furtive manner. If our confidence in either or both of those facts goes from 98% to, say, 30%, then the enigmatic, emblematic, numinous masterpiece becomes more like a mild joke with about the same level of interest as a Hallmark card or a New Yorker cartoon. The fact that we can't tell what color her cloak was isn't something that makes the photograph unreal, and it's no reason to throw up our hands in a fit of relativism; it's just one fact that the photograph doesn't happen to contain, is all. One of many (she might actually have been totally blind, for instance; the picture doesn't tell us that).

That's just the way it is. This is nothing that digital photographers need to have a chip on their shoulders about, but neither does having such a chip on one's shoulder change anything. Our newfound digital freedom gives us a lot—an awful lot—but it also taketh away; and I think it's wise to be aware of that.

_______________________

Mike

Comments

[Bill Mitchell]

I love the profound wisdom of Walker Evans when asked in an interview, "do photographs ever lie?"
His answer: "Photographs ALWAYS lie."

[David Emerick]

While photographs may not lie, liars may photograph.

-- -Lewis Hine

[Adam Isler]

Amen.
A fitting close to a fascinating conversation that has begun to remind me of some late night freshman debate over too many beers - when all of a sudden you realize it's time to get to bed and in the morning you feel you decided some important intellectual matters last night - you just can't remember what they were but, damn, you're sure you were brilliant.

Adam

[John Lehet]

His answer: "Photographs ALWAYS lie."

Exactly. I guess for me the question finally comes down to the issue of whether the lie helps me and maybe others see/feel/understand better, or if it makes us feel cheated and dirty and cheap.

Just yesterday a web client sent me a photo of one of her members for me to put a thumbnail up as a link. It was a "fine art photographer's" shot of fall colors in Vermont, with the saturation slider pushed past the right edge of the screen. Yuck. That's not helping.

[PBurs]

"That's just the way it is. This is nothing that digital photographers need to have a chip on their shoulders about, but neither does having such a chip on one's shoulder change anything. Our newfound digital freedom gives us a lot—an awful lot—but it also taketh away; and I think it's wise to be aware of that."

Mike

I think it's wise to be aware that,it is here to stay, everything has changed, in my opinion for the better.

"but it also taketh away" taketh away what?
I miss the loupe and light box, no... (1944)
Digital has ADDED a new dimension to PHOTOGRAPHY and ART. not taketh away.

Yes, please get off this topic and move on to more PHOTOGRAPHY.

Thanks Mike, keep the good stuff coming.
PBurs

[Ade]

> people who are not interested in the topic must be getting bored by now

It's not just me then? I can't even begin to read any of the preceding posts, let alone feign an interest. Take the photo, don't take the photo, run it through the "fake watercolour/HCB/gorilla filter" or not, I JUST DON'T CARE. Perhaps I should. Oh well. Just another week in the life of TOP, I guess. Fingers crossed for a more interesting upcoming week.

[Christopher Perez]

[Mike wrote]...the only thing that is interesting about many photographs, or what is most interesting about them, is the evidence they give of something that actually was...[/Mike wrote]

Wherein we recognize a difference in the way we view "photographs" from other "art" forms. The concept that what is represented is evidence "of something that actually was" might not apply, or even be assumed, in other fields of artistic pursuit.

It's interesting to me that we consider starting from the assumption that a "photograph" is real. Then observe how we might approach a painting or sculpture. Do we approach these from the same points of view (emotionally or intellectually)?

Further, talking of "photography" in this manner not only makes it somehow different than, it appears to take an intellectual justification for it's very existence.

Witness the back-lash against "anti-intellectualism" in a previous subject thread. Now consider, do we as humans approach and respond to various art-forms with our hearts? Or do we intellectualize our response? Why would/should photography be any different?

[Mike]

Chris,
Why should you think hugging your wife is any different than hugging your dog? Because it IS different, that's why. Photography is not just another means of making art, along with all the other means. First of all, precious little photography--what, .0001%?--even ASPIRES to the status of art, and a much smaller percentage achieves it. And of that which does succeed, a fair percentage of it succeeds because it exploits the nature of the medium, and because its practitioners understand the nature of the medium they're working in.

Mike J.

[Bron Janulis]

Well,

Lots of thoughtiness required here of late, so some thoughts.

I, personally wouldn't be bothered if "Moonrise" was a composite of multiple negatives, done to acheive the dynamic range. It's a wonderful image. I also wouldn't mind if it was a composite done for no other reason than to have a laugh on the folks analyzing it to find out what day and time it was. I don't think those "facts" have relevance to the image.

Mr. Bedfords essay seems to state that increased technical knowledge about the "image", and how it was produced, would improve the discourse about the "art". I'm confused by that, as I can't think of an instance in painting where the knowledge of what brand of paint was used would help my appreciation. In fact, the technical aspects seem only of interest because I am a painter, and in that capacity, not as a viewer. I respond the same to photographs, or whatever the decision was to call them.

Now, obviously I don't mind digital manipulations; at the same time I find infrared Photos "irritating"; as moving water rendered as a smooth silkiness causes a part of my brain to cringe.

One of the curiosities of the "horrid photoshopped manipulations" is that they seem to have been exposed.

The author may state that their work is true and honest, and swear on a stack of journalistic ethics manifestos, that he or she is an honest practitioner; I will think they protest to much.

Well, nice posts and comments; they sometimes confuse, but mostly some clarity comes of it, as to how to approach my own art and craft.

Bron

[Christopher Perez]

Mike,
Your analogy works for me, but only to a point. The lines between any of this have become so blurred, how can anyone say "photographs" are about expressing "reality" or "what was"? In selling palladium as well as inkjet prints alongside water-color artists and sculptures, I have come to the strong feeling that such nuances only matter to the creator(s), and not the buying/viewing public.

To turn your analogy back on you - witness an interesting fact. I may feel differently about hugging my wife over a pet, but many Americans might not. Why would I ever say such a crazy thing? More money is spent on pets in the US than on health care for children. So who gets more hugs? Children? or pets? The human need for hugs hasn't changed, has it?

[JBrunner]

"Digital has ADDED a new dimension to PHOTOGRAPHY and ART. not taketh away."

Actually, both are correct. The gate swings both ways, as it always has. There is no free lunch.

[robert e]

As if on cue: Errol Morris this week addresses responses to his essays on documentary photography. I found "Reply to comment No. 25, 'Hooded Man.' The claim that language can breed error — just like photographs" especially enlightening.

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Carl Root]

For me, Mike's point here is obvious and irrefutable. At times like this, I wish all respondents who claim "it doesn't matter" would do so in a venue where their dozen "best ever" prints were mounted and framed on a wall behind them. We could then point to things that are 99% clearly "true" about the content of each image, then claim that they were faked. Then tell me that you don't care that we discredited your photographic eye.

. . . or does a photographic eye have no value?

[Tom Foley]

Excluding photojournalistic images that are required to meet ethical standards set by most respected news purveyors, I believe a photographer has the right to artistic freedom as to how he or she presents an image in print forum.

The image is the thing. As is often stated, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

[Paul Amyes]

Mike digital photographers don't have a chip on their shoulders...its in their cameras.

[Nick]

A few nights ago at the photo club we were discussing a picture I took:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4868419&size=lg

The bird in this picture, we all agreed, used to be the icing on the cake. But in 2007, alas, it is no longer; everybody realizes how easy it is to fake the odd bird. They believed me when I said it was the real deal and liked the picture anyway, but most also regretted the loss of the spontaneous smile when seeing a thing like that in a picture…
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussions this last week, thanks.