Help on photography show categories

[jwc57]

Hopefully I've put this in the correct section of the forums. I'm on an art show committee and there was a rather heated disagreement between myself and an art teacher about photographs--and digital enhancement. I'm hoping to come here for some insight into what you folks think.

Here is the background....

At last year's show, an entry that got second or third in still life, was a composite of a man standing on an apple. I had voiced my belief when it was entered that it didn't belong in still life, nature, or people--it was more graphic arts or creative design. I brought this up again at a meeting last night and an art teacher said that all digital photographs are digitally enhanced and that photo was no different. I once more disagreed and he continued that adjusting contrast, levels, saturation, B&W conversions are all digital enhancements and because of that photographs today are not any different than the man standing on the apple photograph.

My point to him was contrast, saturation, burning, and dodging were no different on a computer darkroom than that from a wet darkroom--and that twenty years ago, even film based composites were in separate categories from landscape, people etc. The chairman has decided three of us should work this out by next Monday's meetings.

Does he have a point? Should composites and manipulated photos just be considered the same as straight photos that have been adjusted in a computer? I shoot raw, so everything I do has to have some adjustment for sharpness, contrast, color correction, etc. I feel those things are no different than choosing different films and/or papers to affect the outcome of the final print.

Thoughts? Thanks.

 

[lynnb]

In my view a composite is more akin to a collage than a photograph; but I have no experience of art show adjudication to give a qualified opinion. Perhaps in future it would be better to clearly specify what is permitted and what is not, but that won't help you right now!

Edit: double exposures are different to composites in my opinion. A double exposure contains all of both exposures; a composite does not.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

Computer PP like we did in the wet darkroom is OK.

Composites and manipulated photos should be in their own category. Although some of this stuff was done in the wet darkroom as well.

 

[NeeZee]

I think there's a clear difference between adjusting (contrast, colors) and manipulating (composing a new picture in the post process) and I also believe that this difference is still widely accepted (just look at rules of various photo contests or Flickr groups). Of course each show might have its own rules. In your case it's probably just a matter of taste and of restricting the range of photos accepted or accept almost everything. I'm with you on that one, but I doubt this will help to convince him 🙂.

 

[Sparrow]

Personally the concept of 'competition' has no place in art, show your work where it can be appreciated properly

... it's only if one can measure it, that it's a sport not an art, ... how far, how fast or how heavy is fine for judging football, photography is art so it's a subtle matter of opinion, of taste, fashion and style ... tell him he's missing the whole point of teaching his subject

 

[Dwig]

Double exposures and collages are somewhat differing sub-classes of the same general class of composite image and as a class are distinct from photographs produced from a single image. Neither, though, are unique to either digital, "analog", or hybrid workflows. Those that associate composites with only digital need to review the work of Jerry Uelsmann (www.uelsmann.net/). Uelsmann's work, while traditional "analog" photography, is very much in the same vein as other surrealists, whether photographers or painters.

 

[jwc57]

Thanks for the help so far. I tried last night to tell him that what we see from computers, have their origins in the darkroom...but he wasn't interested. When I get irritated my ears heat up and that happened last night--so I quieted up.

I joined this committee because it is local and focuses on local artists. It has been a gateway for several to move up to gallery shows. I'm wondering if he has an attitude because he openly dismissed a photograph I entered last year, and two curators from a larger gallery admired the photograph and personally asked that I enter some work in their show this year--only two others got such an invitation.

 

[bsdunek]

Having been in a couple of art association in the past 40 years, this problem is nothing new. As late as the late 70's we couldn't even find a juror that would judge both 'traditional' art and photographic art. We had to hire a second juror for photographs.
I have to agree that the man standing on the apple is more graphic art than still life. And, yes, the same thing was done in darkrooms for years - it's just that those that don't know the history don't understand. If you compare this to painting, I don't think it would be considered a still life either; and least not in the art association I belong too. You might ask your friend how he would judge a similar painting or drawing.
Of course, our opinions probably won't sway your friend's opinion.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Of course, our opinions probably won't sway your friend's opinion.

Exactly. There are no authorities on this, and never have been. Think of Rejlander's "The Two Ways of Life", 1857. In what sense is this not a photograph? It was created from 32 negatives... See for example http://www.fotoart.gr/photography/history/historyphotos/onephotoonestory/thetwowaysoflife.htm

See also Rejlander's own 1863 essay, http://albumen.conservation-us.org/library/c19/rejlander.html

Cheers,

R.

 

[jwc57]

Thanks again. I asked for a couple of reasons. This is the only photography/art forum I frequent. I stopped visiting others--the people here are knowledgeable, nice, and produce photographs I really admire, so when it comes to photography and art, I trust the people here. The other is though I did go to college and take photography, I never graduated. So, when someone with a degree in art, as well as teaches art (oil, acrylic, watercolor, and pottery), I tend to think my opinion is wrong or of lesser value in the area. My gut told me he was wrong (or at least prejudiced against photography), but he is educated in the field and I'm not. I didn't feel that I stood on solid ground in the debate. I wanted other opinions and frankly some reassurance. He was so adamant last night that I was wrong that I doubted myself.

 

[lukitas]

You're quite right, a person standing on an apple is a collage, not a still life, and collage is not the same as tweaking contrast, burning and dodging, and neither are exclusive to film or digital photography.

Of course, one could create a still life from collage, and conceivably enter that as a still life. Or you could photoshop a boulder-sized head in a wheelbarrow and call it a portrait. It would still be collage, which by definition is adding and cutting stuff up.
On the other hand, tweaking a photograph for colour and contrast is much the same as darkroom work : one works with the data that is in the exposure, rather than adding or deleting stuff.

 

[jwc57]

...one works with the data that is in the exposure, rather than adding or deleting stuff.

A very good description. I'll use it Monday at the next meeting.

Thanks, JWC

Thinking about this tonight...it is as if no really knew why photographers preferred one film over another, or one paper over another.