This is in response to Robb Hill's comments to a post I made about the death of photography.
Robb, I am with you on the quest to somehow hold sacrosanct the word “photography” for the actual process of trapping light in a box and exposing it onto silver-halide based film. I too agree with you that these montages, while gorgeous, (by Maggie Taylor, John Paul Caponigro, Jerry Uelsmann or, Pedro Meyer) are a far cry from being technically photographic. While they derive from photography, their use of digital “light,” in my mind, disqualifies them from being called photographs.
I disagree with you on one point, though – that the darkroom experience alone is solitary. In my opinion, so is the process of tweaking an image using Photoshop. In fact, I think it is more likely that you are going to be alone at your desktop working on your images than when you are printing (unless you are set up at home) in a darkroom.
The issue about capturing “reality” via photography is also nebulous one. By delving into the process of photography (with film, lenses and a camera) I don't think we are experiencing a “universal” reality, but a “personal” and highly subjective one. But going from there to what Pedro Meyer does is a huge leap (he injects backgrounds and other elements to an existing image).
I have never believed that photography was objective or neutral. Meyer and I appear to be on the same page on this issue. As a photographer, I know I have brought my perspective and biases to bear in the final print. In this regard, it's much like painting as the impressionists intended.
Meyer says:
“I think it's very important for people to realize that images are not a representation of reality. The sooner that myth is destroyed and buried, the better for society all around.”
Too bad there isn't a clear reason as to why it is beneficial to society.
In one of the articles, a mug shot of Meyer accompanied the text. I wondered if changing his hair color, or, digitally “shaving-off” his beard, or, placing him on top of the Eiffel Tower might give society a “true” image of the man. After all, it's my interpretation of Meyer, right? I don't think so. According to Meyer, however, these changes in the image shouldn't matter as they are a stream of sub-realities anyway. Debatable.
Back to the initial topic – Is our vocabulary so dirt poor that we struggle to come up with a name for this new genre of photography-based art? I am taking nominations. Send me your quirkiest suggestions. The best entry (yeah, I'll decide) wins a Tiffinbox T-shirt (include your shirt size when you email me at: tiffinbox AT pipalproductions DOT com). Subject line of your entry must read: DANCING WITH LIGHT. Contest ends on August 23, 2004. You have about a month. So, get cracking!
Latest posts by Seshu | Editor & Publisher (see all)
- 10 Steps To Stay Positive In Times Of Great Stress - July 13, 2022
- Why You Need To Read “Personal Branding For Photographers” Now - April 28, 2021
- How To Master Your Website Content Step By Step? - December 16, 2020
“…..Maggie Taylor, John Paul Caponigro, Jerry Uelsmann or, Pedro Meyer) are a far cry from being technically photographic.” How could you possibly say this?
Also..”While they derive from photography, their use of digital “light,” in my mind, disqualifies them from being called photographs. ” I know for a fact that there is nothing what so ever digital about Uelsmanns’ work. He is one of the best, he has pushed the envelope for over 30 years years with his unique way of seeing an image, be it real or fantasy. He still pushes his work to edge and beyond with no digital manipulation at all.
As for the others I don’t know, I am not that familiar with their work, but to say Uelsmann’s can’t be classified as a photograph is ludicrous
“…..Maggie Taylor, John Paul Caponigro, Jerry Uelsmann or, Pedro Meyer) are a far cry from being technically photographic.” How could you possibly say this?
Also..”While they derive from photography, their use of digital “light,” in my mind, disqualifies them from being called photographs. ” I know for a fact that there is nothing what so ever digital about Uelsmanns’ work. He is one of the best, he has pushed the envelope for over 30 years years with his unique way of seeing an image, be it real or fantasy. He still pushes his work to edge and beyond with no digital manipulation at all.
As for the others I don’t know, I am not that familiar with their work, but to say Uelsmann’s can’t be classified as a photograph is ludicrous
Photosuperstar
I stand corrected! Thank you very much for pointing out to me/us that Uelsmann’s work is not digital manipulation. I went back to his web site and sure enough he does do a LOT of work in a very wet darkroom.
As far as Taylor, Caponigro and Meyer – you have to agree it’s a masala of processes. They don’t use a straight photo process.
The question is – does a print that has seen only a small percentage of natural light to create it be called “photographic”? Do tell. This dialogue could get interesting.
Photosuperstar
I stand corrected! Thank you very much for pointing out to me/us that Uelsmann’s work is not digital manipulation. I went back to his web site and sure enough he does do a LOT of work in a very wet darkroom.
As far as Taylor, Caponigro and Meyer – you have to agree it’s a masala of processes. They don’t use a straight photo process.
The question is – does a print that has seen only a small percentage of natural light to create it be called “photographic”? Do tell. This dialogue could get interesting.
“The question is – does a print that has seen only a small percentage of natural light to create it be called “photographic”? Do tell. This dialogue could get interesting.”
I would label it a photo illustration, as with Maggie Taylor’s work. From what I can tell from her web site is that she doesn’t shoot any of the images, I wouldn’t call her work “photographic”, but a photo illustration.
As for John Paul Caponigro’s work, it is so heavily laden with natural light images, I would classify it as a photograph. The more elements you add to an image, be it digital or traditional, I feel is what would determine its classification.
I also would be led to believe, it is the viewer that makes that decision. It is an interesting line to cross, digital has created a whole new world of imagery, and it has also opened up a broader world to convential photography.
“The question is – does a print that has seen only a small percentage of natural light to create it be called “photographic”? Do tell. This dialogue could get interesting.”
I would label it a photo illustration, as with Maggie Taylor’s work. From what I can tell from her web site is that she doesn’t shoot any of the images, I wouldn’t call her work “photographic”, but a photo illustration.
As for John Paul Caponigro’s work, it is so heavily laden with natural light images, I would classify it as a photograph. The more elements you add to an image, be it digital or traditional, I feel is what would determine its classification.
I also would be led to believe, it is the viewer that makes that decision. It is an interesting line to cross, digital has created a whole new world of imagery, and it has also opened up a broader world to convential photography.