The book of Veles - Does photography need reality?

[olakiril]

Jonas Bendiksen completed a controversial work on disinformation. The original book of Veles contains religious text but is considered a forgery. Bendiksen tried to see how far he could take an obvious photographic forgery. Surprisingly, he managed too well to convince everyone about its authenticity.

Here you can find the book from Bendiksen and here you will find a YT video about the book.

I am going now to ask the question: Had he been honest from the beginning, would the book reach that level of recognition? I am guessing not, but the interesting question is why? Is it our expectation that somehow photography reflects reality and that is a unique aspect of photography that distinguishes itself from other forms of art?
Some examples:
In few years many of the films will be mostly CGI. What is the job of a director of photography? It is already happening in product photography and there are few examples in fashion as well. I can use modern AI algorithms to create any landscape that I want. Unless I tell people about the source of the image, the pleasure of looking at the photography will be the same. At the end of the day I consider Edward Hopper as a great photographer...

So while it is not photography in the true sense, using light to draw an image, using virtual light still can move an audience. Of course there are some types of photography such as documentary work which in principle should not be confused with a simulated life. Bendiksen is a documentary photographer by the way.

 

[raydm6]

...
...
Some examples:
In few years many of the films will be mostly CGI. What is the job of a director of photography? It is already happening in product photography and there are few examples in fashion as well. I can use modern AI algorithms to create any landscape that I want. Unless I tell people about the source of the image, the pleasure of looking at the photography will be the same. At the end of the day I consider Edward Hopper as a great photographer...

So while it is not photography in the true sense, using light to draw an image, using virtual light still can move an audience. Of course there are some types of photography such as documentary work which in principle should not be confused with a simulated life. Bendiksen is a documentary photographer by the way.

Interesting you should ask this question. I was pondering film usage in cinematography in the present day (as a reflection on Bill Pierce's thread Film?) and came across this article in British Cinematographer:
Past, Present & Future
Special Report / Cinematography Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, & Part 4

I lot of cinematographers are concerned with losing creative control and attribution - especially in post with all the CGI and VFX occurring. Each mini-interview asks the poignant question:
"What do you feel are the biggest challenges facing cinematographers today?"

Some very interesting insights and answers... too much reliance on technological gimmicks (departures from reality) and loss of creative control and beauty of lighting/film-making are some recurring themes...

Of course, a lot of us (not all) alter/manipulate "reality" in post - whether digitally, photo-chemically, or in other ways; sometimes subtly - sometimes not.

I don't see anything wrong with this as long as we control the creative process. But what if there is a team of people involved? How would you feel if someone took your original image (or film) and altered it to some other form of reality that doesn't jibe with your original vision/intent. Very interesting question.

 

[robert blu]

For sure the question is interesting. I need to prepare myself before answering. I'll check the proposed links.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

I think that photography needs to be based in reality with allowances for creativity. I really don't like to over think this sh1t , but I do like to pretend that I'm an artist.

All the best,
Mike

 

[zuiko85]

Looking at that article in British Cinematography brought up a different question to my mind. If use of film in movie making dies, would it even be possible to continue 35mm for still cameras? I wonder if the millions and millions of feet of 35mm used in movie making helps to finance making film for still cameras.

 

[olakiril]

I think that photography needs to be based in reality with allowances for creativity.

But why... Is it just the definition that restricts it? Let's say I do virtual street photography. The viewer wouldn't be able to tell the difference and the image wouldn't have any "documentary" value. If as photographers we use light to paint, why can't we use virtual light? It can be assigned to "digital art" but I think it can be something more. What is it about reality being tied to photography? Is it just the fact that photography was always about reality so it is difficult to imagine something different?