With the onset of digital technology, it is becoming easier for people to take photographs. It is also getting easier to make a more accurate representation of the world. By more accurate, I mean closer to what we actually see with the naked eye. (I will refer to this later as well) In the beginnings of photography it took ages to setup and take a shot compared with that of modern day digital "point and shoot" cameras. Nevertheless a snapshot can indeed be an accurate representation of the world. After all, that is what it is designed to do. This unmanipulated view is close to what one sees with his eyes. When I look at a photo of this type, I see what is trying to be represented. Take for example PLATE 1, a normal enough view of some sand dunes in Death Valley I took a few years ago. This is an accurate representation of what I was looking at on that day that has not been manipulated since it was taken. This photo by no means puts you in that place but it does reflect the place itself. As I recall, that morning was rather cold and the air seemed dense with the fear of the coming heat. The air seemed to make everything grey and the sand just reflected the bright white sun. This type of snapshot is what I will eventually refer to as a 'Photorealistic View,' meaning a photo that is purely made to accurately represent what is seen by the naked eye.
So I am assuming that some photographs represent what the eye is capable of seeing, what of those that do not accurately reflect what is seen? Do the more surrealistic photographs have no weight in representing what is seen or are they just as accurate? Take for example PLATE 2; it is the same photograph as in PLATE 1, yet quite different at the same time. This is an example of a snapshot photograph that has been manipulated by me to an end that I see fit. It began life as the photograph in PLATE 1, but has ended up looking different. Much about the photograph has changed in some way. The lighting is different, the color, the feel, even the overall tone of the photograph has changed. This photograph puts you in a different place than the photograph in PLATE 1. The color is not natural; it has been manipulated into something else. I remember the day that I took the original photograph, and I do not recall it looking anything like that. Instead of the cold morning sand that is shown in PLATE 1, we see a warm morning sunrise that looks more like an afternoon sunset. The intense sun has deepened the shadows into pools of black cut off from each other by the warm sand. The sky has deepened to reveal a sharp backdrop of crusty mountainous terrain offset by the soft warm sand. The foliage on the right-hand side proves that some things can in fact grow, or once grew, in such a harsh environment. There are many ways that PLATE 1 and PLATE 2 are nothing alike, yet they are the same. They are the same image yet one image has been manipulated to look differently from what was actually represented on that chilly morning. So, is PLATE 2 an accurate representation of that subtle Death Valley morning? Is one representation better than the other, or are the 'Photorealistic View' (PLATE 1) and what I am going to call the 'Artist View' (PLATE 2) essentially the same?
Before this question gets answered, it is important to answer some other questions beforehand. Do photographs represent reality? Reality is a tricky word to define. But when I speak of reality, I speak in the sense that we share some common view of the world that is held together through society. For example, in "The Paradoxes Of Art" by Alan Paskow, he states that we have a fairly definite idea of what things are dictated by society. Namely, there are universal ideas that society can agree upon; such as a pen is a pen and not something else such as a hammer.
Even though it can be argued that between any two people the idea of reality changes greatly, there is some common idea of reality that most can attest to. Given that photographs are in many cases an accurate representation of what is there, I believe they are also an accurate representation of one's reality. I believe that if someone else was standing by me on that morning in Death Valley his or her 'Photorealistic View' might be much different. The colors between us for example could be slightly different because the pigment in our eyes was of a different shade. But I believe that even though it may be true that not everyone sees PLATE 1 exactly the way I do, it is close enough in proximity to discuss philosophically. So, do photographs represent reality? Yes, in many ways. Photographs represent my reality, your reality, her reality, his reality, and many others in between. If photographs represent reality they must be inextricably linked to the world through many avenues. Because of this they have significance.
Photographs are obviously linked to the world through us because we are the ones in fact taking the photographs. We are the ones pulling that shutter open, framing the view, choosing exactly what we want the viewer to see, and manipulating that view to no end in some cases. Sometimes we are even the subject matter of our photographs. If photographs are in fact linked to us, to when end are they linked? How deep does the connection go? I believe the connection to not be skin deep. Many photographs are linked to us on a much deeper level than one would initially think. For example someone could be linked to a photograph of a place that one has been before and feel connected to it on many levels. He may have a fond memory of that place, for example, or perhaps he climbed to the top of the sand dune one morning on a family trip; there is no end to which one can feel linked to a photograph.
It is also possible for a person to feel linked to a photograph in which they have never been to the place it depicts or seen anything like it depicts in their life. However I do believe it necessary for the viewer to have some idea of what it is they are looking at. Nevertheless I have felt linked to many the photograph of the exotic desert island or the remote glaciated landscape, regardless of whether I have been there or not. Why? Because if there is one constant in this discussion, I believe it to be that photographs are inextricably linked to us not just on a physical level but, more importantly, on an emotional level as well. It is true that we are emotional beings, and if photographs are in fact linked to us, it stands to reason that they can be emotionally linked to the world and us.
Landscapes are not the only photographs people can feel linked to. We are obviously linked in the world to each other, so it is possible to feel linked to a portrait of a person we have never seen before. PLATE 3 and 4 are the best examples I have ever felt of photographs that provoke an emotional response. PLATE 3 is a Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of a women in Kosovo by Michael Williamson, while PLATE 4 is of Owens Valley by Ansel Adams. One is black and white and of a landscape and one is a portrait and in color. Two completely different photographs in almost every way, yet they have an effect on me: an intense welling up of emotion. I have never seen the women in PLATE 3 before, yet for some reason I feel connected with her. Her portrait has provoked an intense emotional reaction in me. I feel it easy to relate to her, to feel sympathy for her situation. Her face tells a story of hardship unlike any I have seen. Aesthetically Williamson does a fantastic job capturing the colors, contrast, and the light on the woman's face. The stark blue background contrasts the dirt and grim of war. Emotionally I feel a great sense of fear and urgency for the woman, and for myself. This terrifying photograph nearly does, evoke hopelessness in me. The fact that her hand rolled cigarette is half gone and it may be the last one she has makes the photograph feel even more desperate.
The response I get when I look at Mount. Williamson is different but nonetheless significant. The photographs of Ansel Adams are dramatically emotional. Mount. Williamson, see PLATE 4, is one of the best examples of this. I have to leave its description to another exercise spoken of later.
I believe the question of photographs evoking emotional responses has been answered thus far. The above examples are some of the photographs that I find emotionally striking, which is not to say everyone will. So to recap thus far, photographs are linked to the world, visually, physically, and emotionally. Photographs are linked to the person visually, physically and emotionally. Photographs are linked to reality, in some cases this may be referred to as true. All of these things lead back to one inescapable conclusion; they are all inextricably linked to the artist and his world first and foremost.
The artist is the creator. Wherein the artist creates he can also manipulate to a degree defined only by himself. The artist chooses what the viewer sees, thereby censoring the view in some ways. In this way the artist manipulates the scene into what we see. In most landscape photograph we only see a brief amount of information about the landscape. The artist presents us with a small censored window of the landscape. This is how the artist presents us with his reality or truth. Through controlling what we see by framing and other photographic techniques that will be discussed later, the artist shows us a glimpse of reality or truth. It is ironic that a device that only captures a small piece of a landscape can in some cases be such a powerful tool of truth.
The truth of an artist varies from one photograph to another. It is not necessarily the truth of the artist but the truth of the photographic print. John Stuart Mill was once quoted as saying he was not interested in the objective world, but the artist's reconstruction of it. (Thompson pg.6) This is the artist's truth, a reconstruction of the scene in a sense. The truth is different from one artist to another. Take any two photographers even if they have a common style, what they produce will be entirely different. Even if you put them in the same place side by side with the same tools, the resulting photographs would be very different.
The truth of the artist does some strange things. I find it fascinating what beings will produce when given complete artistic freedom. I believe that the truth of the artist adds much to the experience of viewing a photograph. Let us say for argument's sake that I was alongside of Ansel Adams when he made the print of Mount. Williamson. I guarantee that with the naked eye, the landscape did not look like that. So I would at one point have my picture of what I saw on that day in my memory. If after, I then saw Adams print of Mount Williamson, I imagine I would be astonished at the resulting difference. So in a way Adams has altered that truth that I saw with my eyes into his truth, thereby adding something to my truth. Now what happens if I was not there with him on that day to see for myself? I believe one would just see Adams' truth. This is not to say that this is bad, because it is still possible to get the truth. This would only depend on how skillfully the artist has depicted his or her scene. Knowing for a fact that I was not there when Adams took that photograph, I am still able to get at the truth of the photographs. In a way the artist's interpretation of the scene adds something to it. The reality or truth of a photograph is something that is not inherently in a photograph. It is up to the artist to seek out and define this truth and thereby adding his own truth to it in the process.
Let us shift gears slightly and give some examples of what has been talked about. In the following discussion I will be using two photographs one of a 'Photorealistic Reality' and the other of the 'Artists Reality.' I will go through three examples, thus six photographs total, all to answer and demonstrate the points so far. Before I discuss my photographs I will describe the Mount Williamson print by Ansel Adams. The process is simple I will:
A. Look at the Photorealistic View or 'Photorealistic Reality' and,
1. Describe to myself what I see.
2. Describe to myself what this image means to me.
3. Describe the differences between the two.
B. Look at the Photographic Print or 'Artists Reality' and
1. Describe to myself what I see.
2. Describe to myself what this image means to me.
3. Describe the differences between the two.
C. I will discuss differences between 'Photorealistic Reality' and 'Artists Reality'.