Morality, integrity and capability

[Sparrow]

In the pre-digital days the craft itself imposed boundaries, a set of rules we were all constrained by.

However in today’s digital darkroom there’s no need to file out your negative carrier to put one of those arty black outlines on your prints, or charge the compressor to airbrush your girlfriends’ complexion we can just bang them on in Photoshop afterwards.

Do we need to work within a set of rules to preserve the integrity of an image?

Or does the simple fact that something is possible make it legitimate, or desirable?

 

[rbiemer]

Do we need to work within a set of rules to preserve the integrity of an image?

I think so, but I'm not sure the rules need be the same for each of us--or even for each of our photographs.

Or does the simple fact that something is possible make it legitimate, or desirable?

No.
Rob

 

[Sparrow]

I think so, but I'm not sure the rules need be the same for each of us--or even for each of our photographs.

No.
Rob

I think I agree, on both counts. Do you think we would have said the same thing as teenagers?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Simon,

In art, surely, there is little or no morality; the very idea does not bear close examination.

In representation, there are degrees of fidelity, but the only 100% accurate representation of anything is the thing itself, or an indistinguishable replica.

What, in this context, is 'integrity'? Removing a dust spot? Removing a road sign? The former would be acceptable in a forensic photo; the latter would not.

If the picture without the road sign were being used as part of a tourist campaign, it would be a lie, but if it were a book illustration of a generic scene, the lie would not necessarily matter.

Finally, digital hasn't changed the rules: it's just made things easier. Think of the airbrushing skills of the Politbureau's experts, for example.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BillP]

Do we need to work within a set of rules to preserve the integrity of an image?

No.

Or does the simple fact that something is possible make it legitimate, or desirable?

Interesting choice of words. I would like to decouple the two. Why would an image be illigitimate? The only reason I can think of is if it is deliberate and intentionally misleading. Superimposing a politician's head on a prostitute's body, for example, to discredit that politician. (edit - or vice versa)

Desirability is a different concept. I can think of many reasons why an image would be undesirable, on grounds of taste, morality, ethics, aesthetics etc.

Existence is not justification. I am not, just because I think.

Regards,

Bill

 

[tkluck]

I believe this argument also occured in a cave in the Neander Valley.

 

[yanidel]

As long as you like the output of your creation and you are not doing anything illegal, why should there even be a problem ?

Integrity, morality all refer to a certain set rules, which do not exist in art.

 

[Sparrow]

I'm not sure you can apply the concept of integrity to an image. Any image is only a shadow of the object. Manipulation, though, quickly turns a photo into an artifact and it's not the artifact that I want people to see.

Well I see it differently I would have said manipulation changes it from artefact to art.

I think you’re correct Bill legitimate is wrong word in that context

 

[BillP]

I believe this argument also occured in a cave in the Neander Valley.

"Wat dat?"

"Mammoth"

"Dat not Mammoth!"

"Tis. Tis impression of Mammoth."

"Aaaaah... Well captured!"

Thus was born Forum image criticism...


Regards,

Bill

 

[Sparrow]

As long as you like the output of your creation and you are not doing anything illegal, why should there even be a problem ?

Integrity, morality all refer to a certain set rules, which do not exist in art.

I’m thinking of personal rules, not universal rules

I think every artist has their own set, even dear old Tracey Emin has some somewhere

 

[yanidel]

I’m thinking of personal rules, not universal rules

I think every artist has their own set, even dear old Tracey Emin has some somewhere

So my personal rules is that I must like my picture either aestatically or because it brings up a certain emotion. But any rules relating to techniques/gear are just a waste of time for me. I even wish I would have never read about the famous thirds rule, as I find myself sometimes influenced by it and forget my initial instinct.

 

[Sparrow]

Rules are meant to be broken. 😉

How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that!"🙂

Photographers change bulbs in a flash!





😀

 

[kalokeri]

Do we need to work within a set of rules to preserve the integrity of an image?

It depends imho. We need something like a common sense that photo journalists show the not manipulated picture - that´s a form of morality and integrity. For example Salgado and Nachtwey should note if their pictures are not "real" but photoshoped.

Manipulation of reality has always been - as well as propaganda and art. The latter is okay - artists are allowed to photoshop themselves to death as long as they don´t pretend it´s real.

So: as long as you consider yourself an artist don´t accept rules but don´t pretend to show reality.

Thomas

 

[Leighgion]

In brief, I feel the answer is "no" to everything asked, including the assumption that somehow pre-digital photography had self-imposed boundaries. It's been mentioned already, but it bears repeating how much politically revisionist airbrushing went on in the Soviet Union, long before the digital darkroom was a reality.

I find it strange that photography is treated as if it's an art that has special status and thus needs special oversight. I fail to see the logical foundation of this.

Do painters have similar endless debates about how their craft had more integrity when they had to mix their own paints out of two colors as opposed to being able to buy endless shades in tubes from the store? About how there should be rules about how many colors you can buy per month? OK, I'm sure it comes up occasionally, but I'll bet the bulk of modern painters are quite happy they don't have to painstakingly slave over two pigments just to get a couple extra colors so they can think about actually painting.

Closer to home, consider the cinema, the birthplace of modern photography where 35mm still rules the roost. While each filmmaker is different, in a general sense the movies have grown into embracing every scrap of technology that can help it. We accept as a matter of course that the vast majority of moving pictures are created with the aid of armies of specialists at various forms of artifice from the traditional stunt techniques to elaborate sequences where the actors were performing in a completely greenscreen room with the environment completely generated by computers in post. Yet, despite all that, documentary films are alive and well. I've done some video work myself, and in conversations with other videographers, nobody is seems concerned that digital video, CGI or any of that threatens the "morale integrity" of the medium, whatever that is. Individuals have their opinions about what they choose to use and what they don't, but overall filmmakers seem a great deal more secure about the integrity of their medium in the face of technology. Overall, it's a happy thing that it's now cheaper and easier than ever for anybody to make a movie if they really want to and even afford special effects if that's the kind of movie they're making. "Whatever it takes," is a well-established maxim of moviemaking.

I'm mystified why so many photographers don't have the same confidence to embrace the expansion of their art.

 

[Leighgion]

Quick addendum I kind of slide past and forgot to get back to: in the case of journalists or documentarians, you have an obvious case where manipulation of the image to modify its content is unacceptable. However, I don't see that consideration as any different in the Photoshop age than before. A manipulation for the purpose of deception is the same regardless of the nature of the technology or technique used to create it.

 

[williams473]

I think the difference is in that some photographers who classify themselves artists are actually frustrated painters. We get to taste the satisfaction and excitement of creativity through photography, but find that eventually we are limited by film, lenses and papers, all of which are manufacturered for us with certain limtations.

The root of painting is drawing, and photography and drawing are linked all the way back to the camera obscurra, we are still pretty much drawing with light. Still, I know (for myself at least) that I often long to be able to draw well enough to paint and create directly on to the paper, without the intermediation of technology. At times I would prefer to use the lower tech brush. However, learning and mastering drawing and painting is much harder than Photography, so I think a lot of us are forced to use the camera and to stop there, even though we use the same concepts and understand light, form, texture etc. as a painter does.

So assuming my presumption that some of us are frustrated painters holds true, we tend to hold on tightly to the more difficult and antiquated processes of photography - because it means we can still do something others can't.
We are afraid of technology that makes creating a picture easier, because that makes our Art more accessible to anyone, thus cheapening our Art.

Course I'm just talking about perception here, what motivates us to fear photography becoming easier. I think the truth remains that no matter how easy it is to get to a final image, the best artists will still find ways to challenge us visually, to knock our socks off with whatever is out there, and to use the equipment to make the best images, becase the final work is much more than just the quality of the image itself.

 

[bmattock]

I blame all of this on Ansel Adams.

 

[georgef]

I think of photography as a medium to describe what I see, not what is out there; personal freedom to adjust to my eye, I feel, is critical here.

I do come from a drawing /sketching /painting background, and even though I shot film for about 18 years before digital, it allways felt very "confined" as a very descriptive medium for me. But I can apreciate ones desire to record faithfully what is there.

So I guess my answer would be a profound NO......for me, personally.

 

[Leighgion]

We are afraid of technology that makes creating a picture easier, because that makes our Art more accessible to anyone, thus cheapening our Art.

That's the side of things that makes me break out four letter words and awakens slumbering idealistic iconoclasm in me.

I really hate the elitist attitude that wants to hoard and guard what should be accessible to anyone. Speaking of painters, we respect Michelangelo's accomplishments in part because of the hardships he fought through in order to achieve them, but ultimately the Sistine Chapel is a marvel regardless if you know how much brutal physical suffering the painter endured to create it or not. Knowing the circumstances around the painting and a bit about the artist enriches appreciation of the work, but the work is still ultimately standing on it own.

Fast forward hundreds of years later, and we've got mass produced paint by the gallon, airbrushes, and powered lifts, but we noticeably don't have an increase in Michelangelos. The tools don't make the art, the artist uses the tools the make the art.

I've got no problem with using whatever level or era of techniques one chooses to, but I strenuously object to complaining that newer and easier ones are available to others. If anything is immoral, it's wanting to look better by wishing everybody else looked worse.

 

[RML]

What integrity was there in the chemical dark room that is now all of a sudden lost with PS?
Just because people are using it doesn't mean they're all good photographers.
Just because a lot of people dabbled in chemical developing film and a bit of printing at school, didn't mean they were all good photographers.
A crappy shot will not become worth a grand just by using PS or in the dark room.

For me it's all a non-issue. All I see in the end as a viewer is a print on the wall, most likely behind glass. Do I care how the photo was created? No. Do other people care how I made the photo I gifted them? No.

In the pre-digital days the craft itself imposed boundaries, a set of rules we were all constrained by.

However in today’s digital darkroom there’s no need to file out your negative carrier to put one of those arty black outlines on your prints, or charge the compressor to airbrush your girlfriends’ complexion we can just bang them on in Photoshop afterwards.

Do we need to work within a set of rules to preserve the integrity of an image?

Or does the simple fact that something is possible make it legitimate, or desirable?