civilized ku # 2086 ~ one of these things is not like the other
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 10:26AM ;)
From the Duquesne Club Cookbook • click to embiggen
Fruit bowl # 1 ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Fruit bowl ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenIn yesterday's entry, making pictures ~ one way or another, John Linn wrote/asked:
You seem to suggest there is a dichotomy: the "found/seen" and the "inside their heads" picture makers, but it seems to me these are the extremes of a continuum. "What is real" is obviously in the first camp, but isn't the picture maker that uses Photoshop beyond curves and balance, IE modifying picture elements... what most would call "photoshopping", really just moving from the real to the imagined?
It certainly is not correct to present photos as being real or documentary that have been manipulated, but what about the concept of "artistic license"? Isn't that just a step toward "inside the head"?
Getting right to the nub of it, to my eye and sensibilities / way of thinking, there is an absolute dichotomy between the found/seen and the inside the head pictures. While most likely there is a continuum within the boundaries of each picturing MO, I believe there is a sharp well defined difference between the two picturing camps.
To wit - either you picture what you see and present it as true to that referent as the medium and its apparatus allow or you don't. It's either one or the other. IMO, there is no middle ground*.
Re: the term "artistic license" - defined as a colloquial term, sometimes euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact .... made by an artist to improve a piece of art. (nota bene the use of the words "distortion of fact") - is used in the medium of photography by those who (in John's words) "present photos as being real or documentary that have been manipulated". The distortions are most often accompanied by the statement, "It's how I felt."
This is especially so in the landscape / nature genre, which is fine by me if that's what floats your picture making boat. However, "artistic license" or not, the pictures are still a distortion of fact and, to my eye and sensibilities, firmly over the line into the "inside the head" picture making MO. Nothing wrong with that unless, of course, your intent is to present your appreciation of "the beauty of the natural world" with a picture of it that beauty is a fabrication / fantasy as conceived "inside the head" of the picture maker**.
IMO, the two pictures which accompany this entry demonstrate, quite well, the difference between found/seen and "inside the head" pictures.
Both pictures are still life pictures. However, the fruit bowl picture is of the found/seen variety. Despite the fact of considerable after the picturing fact processing (or, more accurately because of it) - as evidenced by the before and after pictures - the picture is as true to the real world referent as the medium and its apparatus allow. No arranging or artificial lighting were employed in the making of this picture. It is what it is, which is to say it looks like what I aw when I "found" it.
On the other hand, the food still life from the Duquesne Club Cookbook is a complete fabrication inasmuch as everything about it is fabricated. The light I used to make the picture was carefully crafted for maximum visual effect and affect. The props were all carefully chosen and arranged. And, of course, the food was prepared and presented / arranged to within an inch of its life.
While the picture is certainly a true representation of the results of all of that fussing around, it is, nevertheless, most certainly not a "found" picture. The picture relied heavily upon "artistic license" in its making (a making involving 4-5 hours of prep). It is a stylized image of food in a setting which a viewer can "interpret" as "real" but, in most cases, an informed viewer understands the illusion involved in what they are seeing.
All of that said, I will once again ask the question - have any of you tried your hand at making pictures of what's inside your head?
*"there is no middle ground" - this statement should not be interpreted to mean that one picture making MO is "right" and the other "wrong". In the making of pictures with the medium of photography and its apparatus, it's all about intent. The only "wrong" is presenting a picture as true when, in fact, it is a fabrication.
**IMO, that exercise is little more than a demonstration of a picture maker's ability to make a pretty picture with the intent of drawing attention to the maker rather than the referent.
Reader Comments (3)
Mark, this is definitely something I am working on. Pretty early stages of the "inside your head" variety, but making progress...
I guess living in the north country has taught you to avoid slippery slopes.
"Have any of you tried your hand at making pictures of what's inside your head?"
The answer to that is not really- my photographs are entirely of the found/seen variety, but I use them to understand "what's inside my head". What floats around inside my head and makes me want to photograph is a fundamentally challenging thing for me to investigate, and the only way I've been able to do it is through the process of seeing, combined with a lot of careful thought and introspection.
I think you're right about the strict dichotomy too - either we are showing people what we "saw", or we are showing them what we wanted them to see. Either is acceptable as long as we claim it as it is - presenting one as the other is certainly dishonest.
A lot of the amateur landscape photographers I know fall into your footnote - the end result is invariably, "look at what I've made". It gets tiresome, there are only so many sunsets and waterfalls one can look at and still be interested.