civilized ku # 986 ~ made pictures
Monday, June 13, 2011 at 04:09PM 
Strawberry detritus ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenIt has been stated that "constructed" pictures should have a disclaimer, re: as "made" pictures, in order to inform the viewer that the picture is not a straight picture.
IMO, that directive certainly applies to pictures such as my life without the APA pictures and other like pictures. However, also IMO, "constructed" / "made" pictures created in the manner of Cindy Sherman, Jeff Wall, Gregory Crewdson, Aaron Hobson (aka: the Cimemascapist), et al, don't seem to required a disclaimer inasmuch as it should be very apparent - the telltale signs are rather obvious - the pictures are of staged events.
But what about portraits? What about still life? Does the viewer need to be informed the pictures are "constructed", not found? Is a portrait any less real because it is "posed"? Is a still life less than real because it is arranged?
Many of my still life pictures are actually found / straight pictures. As an example, the recent civilized ku # 981 ~ droppings and trimmings (and many others like it) is a found still life. I pictured the droppings and trimmings as they were on my kitchen counter.
However, many of my still life pictures are of the arranged variety - the Decay & Disgust series or today's strawberry detritus, as examples thereof.
Do I need to inform viewers the pictures are arranged?
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Dennis Allshouse (no link provided) wrote: "This is a link to a terrific interview with Jerry Uelsmann. Well worth reading in the current context.
Much appreciated.
Reader Comments (8)
One of the defining characteristics of photography is that what is shown in the photo is what was captured in a minute fraction of a second. That’s true of portraits and your Decay pictures. If you add something that wasn’t there in that fraction of a second then you are not being true to the medium. Arguments may rage about how much post processing is acceptable and how it changes what the camera saw – and I think we all know where you stand on that issue – but adding something that wasn’t there. Then I feel cheated by the medium.
How about the opposite, cloning out something that might be distracting? (A telephone wire cutting across the corner of an image, a piece of garbage, etc...) Would I need to label my image as "Altered"?
I think it comes back to the expectations of the viewer.
Most people expect a portrait to be posed -- it's a known convention. Likewise with a still life. The problem arises if the viewer is expecting a straight image (from the context, their experience of the subject etc) but it's been altered significantly, or vice-versa.
Another issue arises if the viewer knows you are capable of editing an image; then they tend to question the veracity of any image you present.
There are rules when it comes to art? I don't think so. Unless the photographer is engaged in documentary, she or he should do whatever they want. Please just make it interesting.
http://www.shutterbug.com/content/master-interview-jerry-uelsmann
This is a link to a terrific interview with Jerry Uelsmann. Well worth reading in the current context. Btw I got the link from the Wikipedia article on JU.
Further is dodging and burning altering enough to require a tag of altered?
I think pepeye is right.
As long as the intent is not deception, then you should have the freedom to express your vision any way you like. No disclaimer needed.
I have had the veracity of straight forward captures doubted, and combined images taken for one shot wonders. There is no accounting for how people see your images once they are let loose :-)
I'm starting to think there is no such thing as purist straight photography unless you're going for something along the lines of straight from the camera, no cropping, no burn/dodge (thinking of a film paradigm here). All of which I believe you could stipulate as a working position if you wanted to. What do we know of Cartier-Bresson's prints for instance? So when you start to admit manipulations such as burn/dodge, cropping etc. at what point have you left photography behind in favor of photo illustration. I consider what Jerry Uelsmann does as photography. He captures his material with a camera, his prints are done in a darkroom using traditional photographic techniques. Clearly set pieces like still lives and portraits are photographs also. The real bugaboo I suppose is lying about what you done. Claiming a straight capture when it's not.