From: December 23, 2019
When I started this course in December 2019, it had different reflective questions attached to some of the weekly units. The following are my responses to the original Week 03 questions attached to this course.
In what instances might we accept photographs as evidence or accurate records?
In this week’s slideshow it was noted how “Photographers often seek to capture a reliable view of the real world through a camera’s lens.” Ultimately, this quote emphasizes the idea that photographs can serve as objective documents of evidence and an accurate record of what has happened, as portrayed within the photograph itself. On the MoMA website, it is mentioned how “Photography is often perceived as an objective, and therefore unbiased, medium for documenting and preserving historic moments and national and world histories, and for visualizing and narrating news stories.” It also notes how photographs can “...bear witness to history and even serve as catalysts for change.” The MoMA overview also notes how these photographs can stir emotion in people, “foster sympathy,” and shed light on important issues, “...people, places and events.”
What makes photography’s relationship to truth so complicated?
Photography’s relationship to the truth is complicated for several reasons such as:
a photographer’s relationship to what they are photographing;
the decisions made about what photos are selected to be shown (either online, or in a magazine or in an exhibition) by a photographer, publisher / editor, or a curator;
the decisions made in how digital or analog editing by a photographer, photo curator and / or photo publisher; as well as
how shown photographs are discussed by viewers.
First, in terms of how the relationship between photography and the truth is complicated the unit’s slideshow does discuss how most photographers try to produce reliable images of the world they encounter. But this can be complicated, as the slideshow also noted how a photographer’s formal decisions impact the relationship the content of their photographs have with the context of the truth being presented, as: “...all photographs are necessarily shaped by how the photographer frames his or her subject, a process that introduces a personal point of view or perspective into even the most seemingly objective documentary photographs. Knowing this, some artists play with the notion of authenticity in their photographs.” Further to this, in the video interview with photographer Mike Mandel, Mandel discusses how people forget about the choices photographers make when he describes how: “The photograph is a complete abstraction… from the fact that we use different f-stops to create different depths of field, different illusions of motion. And different dark room capabilities of enhancing contrast, and all the things built into photography that people just totally ignore, and just read right through...”
Secondly, the decisions made about what photos are selected to be shown (either online, or in a magazine or in an exhibition) by a photographer, publisher / editor, or a curator can also impact how photography’s relationship to the truth is complicated. Maurice Berger, in her 2015 article for The New York Times, called “Gordon Park’s Harlem Argument,” explains how: “‘The Making of an Argument’ is an illuminating exercise in visual and racial literacy, investigating how words and images communicate multifaceted realities, convey points of view and biases, and sway or manipulate meaning” where “...the hundreds of photographs taken for the story were whittled down to the few published in Life, the editorial selection process, as Mr. Lord noted in his catalog essay, raised questions about authorship and meaning: ‘What was the intended argument? And whose argument was it?’ “ Ultimately, it seems reasonable to assume that the answers to these kinds of questions will shape the truths each viewer negotiates with the images.
Thirdly, the decisions made in how digital or analog editing by a photographer, photo curator and / or photo publisher can impact the can impact photography’s relationship to truth. Today, using digital software tools such as Adobe Photoshop, it’s become ever increasingly simple to alter photos. If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard someone exclaim how “...that photo must have been Photoshopped,” I’d be able to buy a really nice dinner. Today, we live in a world where the noun ‘Photoshop’ has become an active verb and this undoubtedly has created a mistrust of photographs (and by extension, videos) as being representative of the truth. In this week’s slideshow, the discussion Carleton Watkins revealed how: “Watkins affixed to its mount a certificate vouching for the authenticity of its content.” Today, this doesn’t always happen. In photographer Ted Forbes’s 2015 YouTube vlog entry, “Photography: Truth or Beauty,” Forbes discusses the implications the Economist dealt with when it was revealed how their cover photo of President Obama was glaringly edited to remove several individuals. Forbes discusses how the impact of these changes to a Reuters image created a dramatic image that shows Obama “...staring down, pointedly deep in thought in front of the Gulf itself with an oil rig in the background.” Hany Farid, in his essay “Photo Forensics: From Stalin to Oprah” notes how dictators “...understood the power of photography. They understood that if you could remove someone from a photo, you could effectively remove them from history.” To this end, the individuals with Obama in the Reuters photo have effectively been removed from history. Following publication, Reuters ended up issuing a statement saying how they did not alter the photo, and that they did not support photo manipulation. Here is a screen capture of the Economist photo as compared with the Reuters original:
<<PHOTO>>
You can find this video here:
https://youtu.be/CfQY5hps_ZA
Today, truth in photography and the media in general has become even further complicated by the tribalism that has taken over politics, as exemplified (but certainly not limited to) by people such as American President Donald Trump who has declared the media to be ‘the enemy.’ But what’s interesting to note is how this has been an issue that photographers have struggled with for decades, and it’s one whose roots stretch farther back than the development of Photoshop. Handy Farid, in his 2015 article “Photo Forensics: From Stalin to Oprah” argues that “Photography lost its innocence almost at its inception.” For example, in this week’s slideshow discussion of photographer Gordon Parks, it is noted how: “Of the hundreds of images Parks took, Life’s editors chose 21, which they cropped, printed, and sequenced into a narrative emphasizing the drama and sensation of the conflicts. Many magazine photographers, including Parks, resented the way the meaning and interpretation of their work was skewed. In subsequent decades, they and other photographers who had largely depended on illustrated magazines for their livelihoods reclaimed editorial control of their images by publishing them elsewhere, without such manipulation.”
Finally, photography’s relationship to truth is also complicated by how photographs are discussed by artists and viewers. The introduction to this unit touches on this idea, saying how: “...text was called upon to shape viewers’ understanding of even seemingly straightforward pictures.” The introduction also stated how: “Today, photographers continue to use the camera as a means of documenting the world, acknowledging that their images are not fixed statements of fact but, rather, that they may be read and interpreted in many different ways.” In many ways, these readings and interpretations are the foundation for how photographs are discussed. As time moves forward, so to does the context of viewers who examine photographs, highlighting how images are interpreted and discussed can change over time. In “The Photographic Record” article on the MOMA website, it is noted how: “Many contemporary artists have taken on photographs and photographic archives as the subject of their own work, re-examining and re-interpreting the histories they convey through methods ranging from appropriation to digital manipulation of existing images. In doing so, they seek to reveal biases, challenge accepted histories, and construct new narratives.” Wang Ya Mu, in response to Hany Farid’s article “Photo Forensics” argues that: “Since image tampering is nothing new, it somehow creates a wide space for different readings for people with different political inclinations regarding “authenticity”... we have shifted from the paradigm of to-see-is-to-believe to believe-what-you-believe.”
In what ways do a photographer’s artistic choices and point of view affect the meaning of a picture?
In my answer to question two above, I quoted the introduction to this week’s slide show which described how every photograph is influenced by the formal decisions a photographer makes when composing and making an image. These choices can include in-camera choices that impact how the photo is framed and exposed; and the choices can also include post-processing decisions (whether they occur in the darkroom or on a computer), such as: how a photograph is printed in terms of contrast and filter choices, whether a negative or digital photo is cropped, or whether it is processed using traditional techniques or alternative techniques, as well as whether pictorial elements are added or removed.
The photographer also has influence over the content of their photographs in respect to the context in which it is created - both of which affect the meaning of the final image that is produced. This week’s slideshow revealed how the context that say Gary Winogrand brought to the decisions he made in selecting his subject matter of the everyday differed from the context that Carleton Watkins brought to his photographs that were designed to attract people to come purchase land in the American west. Both photographers brought very different contexts to the photographs they created, contexts which were impacted by the needs of their time, as well as the history of photography up until that point in their lives.
It’s interesting though how on the MoMA website’s discussion of Dorothea Lange’s photography, it has been noted that commissioned photographs can negatively taint how a photograph is considered, and that such photographs can even be viewed as examples of propaganda in support of a very specific agenda or point of view. To this, Lange argued that: “Everything is propaganda for what you believe in, actually, isn’t it? I don’t see that it could be otherwise. The harder and the more deeply you believe in anything, the more in a sense you’re a propagandist. Conviction, propaganda, faith.”
Finally, in moving beyond the focussed discussion of this week’s unit - I read how Pete Brook, in his article for Wired Magazine called, “Photographs are No longer Things, They’re Experiences” argues that today, in our immediate contemporary moment, “Photography is less about document or evidence and more about community and experience.” Brook interviews Stephen Mayes, director of “VII Photo Agency,” who argues that the move from analogue to digital photography marks a move from a fixed image to a fluid image, where: “Analog photography is all about the fixed image to the point that fixing is part of the vocabulary. The image doesn’t exist until it is fixed. It can be multiplied, reproduced and put in different contexts but it is still a fixed image. The digital image is entirely different: it is completely fluid. You think about dialing up the colour balance on the camera, there’s no point at which the image is fixed. More importantly than that, images now live in a digital environment. Given that an image is defined by its context it exists in a perpetually fluid environment in which the context is never fixed. Images’ meanings morph, move and can exist in multiple places and meanings at one time.” This clearly moves control of an image from that of the content producer photographer or publisher and into the hands of individual viewers.