ku # 501 ~ real reality

The Jay Range • click to embiggenI'm confused.

One the one hand we are told, photography is a cohort with the real.

On the other hand we are also told, The time was, we thought of photographs as recorders of reality. Now we know they largely invent reality. At one stage or another, whether in shooting, developing, editing or placement, the pictures are manipulated, which means that we are manipulated.

Now, I have never confused a picture of a thing with the thing itself. I fully accept the idea that the picture is a 'trace', a 'representation', or a recorded 'memory' of the thing pictured. And, yes, I realize that making a picture of a thing not only rips the pictured moment from the fabric of the continuum of time but also allows the observer of the picture to see the pictured thing only from a single fixed POV - both of which are decidedly different experiences from observing the thing itself in real time.

And, of course, a photograph, by the intrinsic characteristic of its 'frame' (the edges of a photograph), can present only a small visual 'slice' of the actual world. This stands in contrast to what the human sees - while the human can only focus on a slice of its total field of view, human vision also includes a much broader, albeit 'soft', peripheral vision.

All of these concepts - and many more - are valid ideas re: the medium of photography. In theory many of them can be considered to be 'manipulations' that 'distort' the observer's perception of the thing pictured. It should also be stated that much academic effort has been expended (and continues to be) and much academic blood has been spilled (and continues to be) creating, defining, arguing, and defending various concepts, ideas, and theories regarding the question of what is a photograph.

IMO, a photograph can be many things, which is why I have a high degree of discomfort with blanket statements like the above regarding 'invented reality' and 'manipulation'.

So, all of these concepts - and many more - are valid ideas re: the medium of photography. In practice (leaving aside created scenes ala Wall, Hobson, Crewdson, Sherman, et al) I am not so certain how they apply, especially to those photographs that are the result of 'simple' observation.

For instance, even though I engaged in 'manipulation' while picturing this scene (choosing what to picture and how to picture it), today's picture very accurately depicts a real place, the Jay Range, under specific conditions, low level cloud cover, during a real event, an isolated snowfall.

I 'invented' nothing. I did create a print which, because it is a real object, is a new or invented reality of sorts that is, indeed, not the thing pictured and so, by its very nature, it is different kind of thing from the thing pictured. It is an object. As an object, the print has its own 'real' tactile qualities - thick vs thin, smooth vs coarse, little vs big, glossy vs matte, etc. These are 'real' qualities that help define the print's 'reality' as a physical thing.

Now, if the print itself is what is meant by an 'invented reality', I'm cool with that. But, in fact, I don't think that is the intended meaning.

Where I think my problem with the proposition resides with the idea of 'photographs as recorders of reality. I don't think that photographs record 'reality'. I think that what photographs record can be a very accurate 'trace', 'representation', and/or memory of a real thing ('thing' includes people, places, events, etc).

IMO, a real/actual thing is different from the perceived reality of the thing. Not to mention that there may be as many perceived realities of a thing as there are 'perceivers'. Furthermore, I see a photograph that is an accurate representation of a real thing as being essentially 'neutral'. Yes, the photographer has directed the observer's attention to a real thing and the fact that an observer may come to a new 'understanding' - a new/invented perceived reality - of the thing, does not mean that the photograph, in and of itself, has created an invented reality.

In the case of a photograph that is an accurate depiction of a real thing, the creation of an invented reality regarding that real thing is much more the province of the observer than it is of the photographer or the photograph.

And that's why I like photographs that don't function as propaganda for a photographer's perceived realities.

Comments

[Beau Comeaux]

Interesting for sure, the varied definitions/iterations of photography. I find often it is the "civilian" photographer (hobbyist, etc.) that holds on to the perceived truth value in a photographic image. My armchair psychoanalysis is that their images serve as memory triggers-I was there, She looked like that, etc. For this function, any implication that there is not truth in the image is a crisis of sorts.

It is not my intention to sound elitist in describing this as I see it. I too take memory-trigger snapshots. I also deviate greatly from anything resembling photographic truth in my own artwork and recognize that others do as well.

Perhaps there is simply a case of point of view based on use. Here, we have an interesting point. Utilitarian functionality vs. artistic expression. Certainly the two can overlap, but it is this schism that keeps these dialogs alive (for better or worse, I think they are fun to discuss). Painters, etc. don't have this divide-but everyone has a camera...