The Truth About Photography

Been reading a little about the history of photography lately.  Specifically, I've been trying to understand the movement known as pictorialism.

By the second half of the nineteenth century the novelty of capturing images was beginning to wear off, and some people were now beginning to question whether the camera, as it was then being used, was in fact too accurate and too detailed in what it recorded. This, coupled with the fact that painting enjoyed a much higher status than this new mechanistic process, caused some photographers to adopt new techniques which, as they saw it, made photography more of an art form. These new techniques came also to be known as High-Art photography. In effect, the term Pictorialism is used to describe photographs in which the actual scene depicted is of less importance than the artistic quality of the image. Pictorialists would be more concerned with the aesthetics and, sometimes, the emotional impact of the image, rather than what actually was in front of their camera.  

History at rleggat

And from Encarta, here is another slant on the period:

Widespread amateur photography was greeted with dismay by photographers who saw their medium as a form of art. A group who became known as pictorialists sought to distinguish their artistic efforts from the snapshots taken by masses of so-called Kodakers.

History at MSN Encarta  

 
This all sounds strangely familiar.  Is there a new pictorialist movement on the horizon or has it simply never gone away?  It would not be surprising if it were so.  With the surge of enthusiasts resulting from the emergence of digital photography,  I believe similar reactions are evident in many photographic communities.  Every new digital camera owner has found a convenient outlet for their creative urges and with the proliferation of photo sites on the web, they all have a ready forum.  This is not a bad thing, though much of the photography is not 'good' .......... yet.  Still, with the numbers of new enthusiasts, many of whom do not know basic fundamentals of the craft, there is an instant camaraderie which results in weak efforts being praised  as good work.  Within such communities, the more experienced often react by demanding originality and creativity, rather than craftmanship and thus is born the new pictorialist.

Ansel Adams said,   "I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster."   
 
Perhaps this is a misrepresentation of pictorialism.  Certainly AA wasn't referring to pictorialism when he made the comment above.  Nor is pictorialism, in retrospect, necessarily characterized by a lack of craftsmanship, though it may in fact be the result of such .  Still, much of the work from the pictorialist period is recognized today as meaningful and enduring photographic art. Nevertheless, it's clear from other material that AA was not in favor of the pictorialist approach to photography.    He, and others before him, including the pictorialists' most celebrated practitioner, Alfred Stieglitz, ultimately recognized that photography's greatest voice was found in it's own unique characteristics and chief among them is it's believability.  To quote Ansel Adams one more time,  "Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs."  This, in my opinion, is the greatest departure of the pictorialists, who's mantra could be summed up as "The image is everything".  In the end, this perspective sabotages photography's greatest strength by trivializing the importance of the subject.  It was the subject that was the core of the message of Migrant Mother as well as that of Moonrise, Hernandez, NM.  It was the subject that was the core of Diane Arbus' incredibly intimate and revealing work and of Robert Capa's Spanish civil war photos.  The list could go on and on but the point is clear...........the most salient characteristic in enduring photographic art is it's believability, the perception that the message communicated is about the photo's subject and the artist's response to that subject.  Pictorialism can certainly find a voice in such a medium but not without recognizing this common thread of honest communication between photographer and subject.  That's the truth about photography.

Pictorialism Revisited

A few of my comments from an exchange of ideas that took place a few months back on one of my favorite photo forums:  

There are so many things to respond to here and Jean has already said much of what I wanted to say but there are still a couple of points I wanted to make, especially in light of our earlier conversation about Ansel Adams.

"but i can say from lots of experience - that a lot of art galleries and art judges will never pic a technically perfect pretty pic - they say it's not art"

Interesting observation and I realize it is an observation and not necessarily your opinion. Still I wonder how Ansel Adams would feel about that? In his autobiography, when discussing the formation of f/64, he says, "Group  f/64 became synonymous with the renewed interest in the philosophy of straight photography: that is, photographs that looked like photographs, not imitations of other art forms."
 
f/64, as I'm sure you know, was a group of photographers including Ansel Adams, Imogene Cunningham, and Edward Weston, who came together in a concerted effort to promote straight or ‘pure’ photography and at the same time to protest the rise of pictorial photography.
 
“Pure photography implied truth to the medium, using it to do the things it did best, and an elimination of any "qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form." The qualities of photography - its rendering of fine detail and delicate tonality - were to be utilised to the full, by using a large film format and great depth of field.” 

 http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa072202b.htm

Though Adams went on to develop the Zone System to accommodate a pre-visualization process that truly brought photography into the realm of a 'creative' art, clearly he did not view the pictorialists of the day in a favorable light and their 'fuzzy' techniques certainly went against the grain of the more technically competent photographers of the time. In fact, Adams' ability to bring photography out of the realm of craft and into the realm of 'art' would not have been possible without expert craftsmanship. Ultimately art without craftsmanship is dubious at best, regardless of the medium.
 
Frankly, I look back at some of the icons of photography and see original, creative vision represented by the works of Ernst Haas, Eliot Porter, Pete Turner, and Ansel Adams, to name but a few and the common thread running through all of it is technical expertise. To diminish the importance of technical mastery in photography is to deny the very vehicle through which enduring photography is accomplished.

If the work represented on PB is indeed “transparent and naïve”, it’s not because the focus of it’s participants is on technical mastery but more likely the result of a prevailing notion that anyone with Photoshop and the subsequent ability to change a sky to their liking is instantly an ‘artist’.  In pondering some of the more common ways which we see Photoshop used today, I’m often reminded of those absurdly cute and often cherished abstractions that come from the kindergarten art class. Who knows, perhaps that is the purest form of artistic creativity and if so, it might suggest that the more transparent are in fact those charlatans that appoint themselves experts and define for the rest of us what art is. Frankly, it’s always been my impression that most of the ‘fine art’ galleries include photography as an afterthought and generally relegate to photography criteria from their more familiar art forms. In other words, photography is art if it looks like something else.

 
Just a few thoughts. :o) 

In case it's not clear,  our exchange was about the relative merit of the criteria commonly used at that site for critiquing posted images. It should be noted that the other person's position is not fully represented by the highlighted quotation above. He was not advocating a departure from craftsmanship but was protesting the sometimes simplistic and formulaic approach often found on many of the photo sites around the web and this one in particular.  I certainly understand his point but my contention was and is, that a lack of insight is not cured by trivializing learned skills. Ultimately, he agreed with that thought.  However, it is also my belief that this revival of pictorialism contributes more to "transparent and naive" work than does a simplistic application of straight photographic technique.  

The Big Deception

I was somewhat shocked to read recently of someone’s notion that “the function and purpose of art is to deceive.” It was surprising to see this statement on a public photo forum go unchallenged. (Yes, I had the opportunity and in fact, these thoughts were originally formulated for just that purpose but alas, the comment and the photo under which it was posted was removed before I had a chance to reply) Frankly I don't believe that even the most remote purpose of art, as we generally know it, is to deceive. If it is true then the greatest deception is upon the artist himself for all attempts at self-expression become futile. Mastering one's craft to facilitate expression of personal impression does not equate to deception. On the contrary, it offers the uncommon truth of a personal vision. Diane Arbus said, "I really believe there are things nobody would see if I didn't photograph them." All great photographers share this belief and ultimately their photographs become art because of their own belief in their unique vision. Hardly sounds like an act of deception. As a matter of fact, with regard to photography, this is the complete opposite of what I believe to be one of the most meaningful and enduring characteristics of the medium. Edward Weston said, “Only with effort can the camera be forced to lie: basically it is an honest medium:”. This is, in my opinion, the primary reason photography has grown to it’s current state of popularity. People believe in photographs. Ansel Adams said, “Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs.”.

That’s what I love about photography, this personalized and believable slice of history that becomes our art, our lives, our lessons that lead to our greater understanding. I look at Dorothea Lange’s Migrant Mother and I know a little more about the hardships of depression era migrant workers. I look at the war photos of Robert Capa and I know a little more about the horrors of human conflict. I look at Moonrise over Hernandez, NM and I share the unique experience of that fleeting, cosmic moment seen by Ansel Adams so many years ago. And are these great images less than art because they are ‘documented’ rather than created……..I don’t think so but then I think art is something more than the mere act of creation. Others would argue that these photos were not ‘just’ documented and they would be right, of course. But there is a clear notion that photography is a lesser art because of the honesty of the medium. Perhaps that is where this notion of deception arises, though I think it is inaccurate regardless of the medium. Ultimately, I’m not deceived into believing that paint and canvas are real but instead, am won over by the resonating truth of a shared revelation. Great photographs are the same. They move me, not because of some visual gimmickry, or shock value, or graphic acrobatics. They move me because they connect with something inside that says “I know this to be true”.

Fine Art Prints

Fine Art Prints........what does that mean? I've often pondered that question as I'm perusing some fellow, unknown photographers site. I always had the notion that fine art was time tested.....kind of like "classical" music. In other words, it had stood up through generations of viewers/listeners and had not become dated but more cherished. It seems, however, that the label of "fine art" in photography requires only the assignment by the photographer. Wonder what that does for the Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bressens of the world? I guess they're "extra fine art" photographers.