man & nature # 211 ~ back to pictures

Plant life at the Hollywood Theatre ~ Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggenWhen last we spoke photography-wise, the topic was manipulation. My primary point regarding the idea of picture manipulation was that manipulation is perhaps easier to see / recognize than it is to categorize / define.

IMO, much of the attempt to categorize / define what constitutes manipulation focuses on the usual suspects of doing so - cloning (in or out), staging, over-the-top contrast / color / saturation, etc. - rather than on what I believe really matters; intent, presentation and, to a lesser extent, effect.

That said, while it can be assumed that picture makers come to their own personal picture making with some form of intent, it should also be assumed that, good or bad intentions aside, the picture maker can't always control or predict the effect on the viewer that their intentions may invoke.

As an example, my personal prejudices dictate that when I see a typical drama-queen landscape picture I react with a yawn and a shrug. Over-the-top landscape pictures usually have on me what I assume to be the opposite effect of the picture makers intent - which I assume is to produce a reaction of wow and awe.

All of that said, I am always somewhat amazed at the near pavlovian (and, IMO, intellectually lazy) response of so many picture makers whenever the subject of manipulation comes up. Like little puppies who roll over and assume the genitals-up posture of submission, they mouth some variation of the standard line, "just taking a picture is a form of manipulation" which basically a subset of the notion that "all art is a form of manipulation".

Case in point, the Spanish culture minister declared in a recent article regarding Robert Capa's famous Falling Soldier, “Art is always manipulation, from the moment you point a camera in one direction and not another.”

Now, it is true that picture making involves the art of selection as one of its defining characteristics. Where you point your camera and what you decide to include or not include within the edges of the frame is, indeed, part and parcel of the process of selection and therefore an important tool for implementing and reinforcing the picture makers intent but ...

IMO, doing so (pointing a camera) is not a de facto act of manipulation.

There are plenty of pictures that depict the natural beauty to be found in our nation's parks. Almost none, at least amongst those that we see as prints or in print, depict the often negative - litter, congestion, tacky concessions, and the like - presence of humankind. Here in the Adirondacks, tourism pictures are always metaphorically speaking "clean as a whistle" - the sun always shines, everybody's happy, and everything is just hunky-dory.

The picture makers have decided to engage in the act of selection by pointing their cameras in one direction,the one that depicts only beauty, and not in another, the one that depicts a different reality.

Now, I'm not suggesting that tourism promotion groups should be in the business of addressing rural poverty, environmental pollution, or even rainy days but what I am suggesting is that those "glossy" pictures - even though they may be made to the strictest standards of straight photography - are fine examples of pictures that are made to be manipulative. Even though the pictures may be absolutely true the reality they depict, they are made with the intent to invoke an effect upon the viewer that creates and reinforces an agenda / image that is less than true.

That said, IMO, as a genre tourism pictures are pictures that have been made with the intent to manipulate the viewers understanding and perceptions in a manner that is only partly true. Even if the pictures would be considered as straight photography, they are manipulated both by the makers intent and the context within which they are presented.

That said, the notion that all acts of selection are manipulative is, IMO, rather specious.

The act of selection is, in other words, an act of drawing attention to something. IMO, it is possible to draw attention to something without "taking a position", pro or con, regarding it; to picture the thing as an observer / reporter rather than as a propagandist.

Think of it this way - most of my pictures are quite simply about what I see. Sure enough, I tend to picture things that I see that I find interesting. Things that I find interesting for one reason or another, or, most often for many reasons or some others. I am, in fact, drawing attention (by pointing my camera in one direction or another) to those things that I find interesting.

However, I picture and present my pictures in a very straight and straightforward manner because my desire (intent) is merely to "report" what I see and present it as it is in order to let the viewer come to their own understandings, conclusions, and appreciations (or lack thereof) about what I find interesting.

That said, and as many of you know, my stated intent is to draw attention to what I consider to be the everyday / mundane / commonplace beauty that I believe is to be found all around us. However, in doing so it is also my intent to do so by utilizing and honoring the medium's inherent characteristic as a cohort with the real.

I use me and my picturing as an example but I am certain that there are many, many others who take a similar approach to making pictures - tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may. And, I think it's time for those picture makers to stand up and be counted for, not only their own work, but also for the inherent integrity of the medium itself when it is employed as a cohort with the real.

Comments

[Matt]

A few weeks back I was up in the Adirondacks for a few days. In the process I ended up driving through Au Sable Forks. It was actually quite a jolting experience. I thought I had a good idea of what the town looked like from your photographs, but the actually place was much different than I had expected. But to me that doesn't make your pictures manipulative. It is just that what you picture, and thus your work, is to some regard a reflection of your world view.

Today's picture feels more like what I saw. But I didn't see much more than the few buildings you pass along the main road.

[Walter McQuie]

I think that a lot of the problem lies in unthinking usage of a word that connotes a range of intentions as if it always means the same thing. At one end of the range, stock prices or public opinion may be manipulated, indicating some ill-intent. Staging a photo, adding in a dramatic sky, and perhaps over-the-top HDR warrant this usage.

On the end of the spectrum we say that a doctor manipulates a joint for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. A photojournalist applying a curve to bring out detail so that the viewer gets an accurate impression of what the photographer saw is the possible correlate here.

Somewhere in the middle lies a usage with less moral judgment implied. The controls of complex machinery are manipulated by its operator to achieve the desired results. It seems that much of what is referred to as digital manipulation falls rather directly into this category. (Too much of it fades toward clever, almost devious manipulation, IMHO)

We tend not to get confused about the nature of the intentions of con-artists, doctors, and machine operators even though we may use the same word to refer to their actions. No one would argue that it is OK for a wall street firm to manipulate stock prices because we want the operator of the back-hoe to manipulate its controls accurately and quickly to get his job done. But many who seek to impose their reaction to a scene on the viewer seem, like the Spanish culture minister, to intentionally blur these distinctions. I think that a lot of the problem lies in unthinking usage of a word that connotes a range of intentions as if it always means the same thing. At one end of the range, stock prices or public opinion may be manipulated, indicating some ill-intent. Staging a photo, adding in a dramatic sky, and perhaps over-the-top HDR warrant this usage. Simply choosing whether to aim at the grand vista or the intimate detail does not.

On the end of the spectrum we say that a doctor manipulates a joint for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. A photojournalist applying a curve to bring out detail so that the viewer gets an accurate impression of what the photographer saw is the possible correlate here.

Somewhere in the middle lies a usage with less moral judgment implied. The controls of complex machinery are manipulated by its operator to achieve the desired results. It seems that much of what is referred to as digital manipulation falls rather directly into this category. (Too much of it fades toward clever, almost devious manipulation, IMHO)

We tend not to get confused about the nature of the intentions of con-artists, doctors, and machine operators even though we may use the same word to refer to their actions. No one would argue that it is OK for a wall street firm to manipulate stock prices because we want the operator of the back-hoe to manipulate its controls accurately and quickly to get his job done. But many who seek to impose their reaction to a scene on the viewer seem, like the Spanish culture minister, to intentionally blur these distinctions.I think that a lot of the problem lies in unthinking usage of a word that connotes a range of intentions as if it always means the same thing. At one end of the range, stock prices or public opinion may be manipulated, indicating some ill-intent. Staging a photo, adding in a dramatic sky, and perhaps over-the-top HDR warrant this usage. Simply choosing whether to aim at the grand vista or the intimate detail does not.

On the end of the spectrum we say that a doctor manipulates a joint for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. A photojournalist applying a curve to bring out detail so that the viewer gets an accurate impression of what the photographer saw is the possible correlate here.

Somewhere in the middle lies a usage with less moral judgment implied. The controls of complex machinery are manipulated by its operator to achieve the desired results. It seems that much of what is referred to as digital manipulation falls rather directly into this category. (Too much of it fades toward clever, almost devious manipulation, IMHO)

We tend not to get confused about the nature of the intentions of con-artists, doctors, and machine operators even though we may use the same word to refer to their actions. No one would argue that it is OK for a wall street firm to manipulate stock prices because we want the operator of the back-hoe to manipulate its controls accurately and quickly to get his job done. But many who seek to impose their reaction to a scene on the viewer seem, like the Spanish culture minister, to intentionally blur these distinctions.