urban ku # 61 ~ Muffin
Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 09:19AM 
Today - Muffin • click to embiggenTo take photographs means to recognize - simultaneously and within a fraction of a second - both the fact itself and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one's head, one's eye and one's heart on the same axis. ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson
HCB also stated that We photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing, and when they have vanished there is no contrivance on earth can make them come back again. We cannot develop and print a memory.
To which, Jeff Wall responds (indirectly); I didn’t want to spend my time running around trying to find an event that could be made into a picture that would be good ... and, his photographs ... are pictures whose subjects were suggested by my direct experience, and ones in which I tried to recollect that experience as precisely as I could, and to reconstruct and represent it precisely and accurately. Although the pictures with figures are done with the collaboration of the people who appear in them, I want them to feel as if they easily could be documentary photographs. In some way they claim to be a plausible account of, or a report on, what the events depicted are like, or were like, when they passed without being photographed.
Those things having been stated, I have passed by (without being photographed) Fran Betters flyfishing shop a zillions times.
My idle curiosity kicks in • click to embiggen It is a local, regional and even national landmark of sorts. Recently, Fran has moved his shop - a rambling ramshackle edifice - about a quarter mile down the road into a newly renovated bluiding complete with his own restaurant (managed by his wife) and 8-unit motel. It's a mini all-in-one flyfishing resort right by the legendary West Branch of the Au Sable River.
As upscale (relatively speaking) as it is, it still retains the slightly off-center character of its proprietor. It is still a rambling and disjointed place. I like it a lot. So, I decided after 7 years to take a photograph - one that captured a bit of the flavor of the place.
My question to you is this; Is it real or is it Memorex? Does it matter if signs were moved for dramatic and/or humorous effect? What if the daily special was fried batter and not "Muffin"? Would changing the word (pre or post picturing) matter? Would the photograph have more or less meaning for you if it were pictured 'as is' or 'set up'?
What do you think? Is it real or is it memorex?
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Amongst many other fine points, Royce Howland wrote; "... Photography has a relationship to reality in a way that painting doesn't. But I still feel the Picasso quote applies -- "We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth, at least the truth that is given to us to understand."
Kent Wiley wrote;"It's certainly a set-up." - In fact, it is not. It was pictured exactly as found. Why "Muffin" is leaning up against the ice machine is a bit of a mystery, especially since I had to wait to picture this scene while someone removed 'Muffin" from in front of the ice machine - so someone could get ice - and replace her in the exact same spot.
Reader Comments (3)
A Memorex is real, yes? So clearly it's real and a Memorex. :) Where debate enters is the reality of the portrayal vs. the reality of what is being portrayed. In visual art forms, including photography, what is being portrayed may not be just about the literal facts of the contents of the image or the elements of the original scene.
The difference can be significant, but I think mainly in contexts where "original" vs. "copy" or "altered" vs. "unaltered" are dominant concerns, as in photojournalism. In the realm of art, as an artist one is trying to show an intended interpretation of "source reality". If the pure unvarnished record of reality can communicate that interpretation, fine. If not and some effect has to be introduced (pre- or post-capture) to achieve the aim, that is the artist's job. Here is what I remember. Here is the boiled-down essence. Here is a single a facet that I liked. Here is everything that I cared about. Here is what I wish it had been. Here is the insufficiency of what it was compared to what I hoped for. Etc. Ultimately -- here is what I want you to see.
Objective reality is what it is (although getting any two people to agree to the full scope of what that is can be a challenge). But the artist's subjective interpretation of reality is legitimate. Of course viewers will add to that their own personal interpretation(s). As long as there is no violation of the trust relationship between the artist and viewers, I think the Memorex is the reality that the viewers look to the artist to deliver. In an important way, viewers don't want the reality, they want the artist's take on reality. In my opinion, although some people believe a photograph of a thing and the thing are somehow interchangeable, in truth virtually all photography is editorial to a greater or lesser degree. But there are editorial influences we like & trust, and those we don't.
What would violate the trust relationship would be some kind of intent to deceive or manipulate based on false pretenses. If the image is explicitly claimed to be something it is not, and the viewer learns the truth, the artist's credibility is undermined regardless of his or her noble intent and proficiency in art and craft.
Photography has a relationship to reality in a way that painting doesn't. But I still feel the Picasso quote applies -- "We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth, at least the truth that is given to us to understand."
It's certainly a set-up. "Muffin" has been moved out of the shade and the snow (at the back of the building where Fran's wife has her hidden?) to the front, leaning on the ice machine so that she's in a direct line between the two signs, which have probably been edited by some wise ass photographer.
Does the "truthfulness" of the scene depicted matter? No, but the meaning certainly changes because of the set-up. As in the Kuleshov Effect, the meaning changes due to the juxteposition of disparate elements. Move one piece out of the frame and the meaning is different.
Too bad my earlier reply to a similar topic was deep-sixed as I was especially coherent and insightful that day. My point, at least I hope I made one, was that there is a definite difference between a contrived photograph, and one that is spontaneous, journalistic "reality". That's not to say that one is right, or the other wrong, but they do require different modes of thought for the viewer. For instance, if I knew the word "muffins" was added by the photographer, I would wonder at the motive or intent. If I knew it to be real, I might marvel at the photographers humor and attention, but probably not focus so much on the message. As I said, neither is better, or worse, than the other. Just different.
I think the real question is whether or not the public benefits from knowing whether an image is journalistically "pure" or artistically contrived. My personal opinion is that the knowledge is required to give the viewer a foundation on which to understand the image.
That, of course, raises the question of definitions of "pure" and "contrived". Does moving a branch reach the level of contrivivity (if that were a real word, of course), or does something that insignificant still qualify as "pure".
I do not know where that line is crossed. I do know that, if an image were created essentially from scratch, I would want to know.