Artistic value of photography today?

[Alpha]

I think the distinction to be made between manipualting a shot with the camera and manipulating it in PS is one of interaction. When you do your cropping, filtering, lighting, etc, all with your camera, you're using it to accentuate things that naturally exist in the environment you're photographing. Conversely, "purists" such as myself and Ivana tend to view editing in photoshop as further removed from the reality in which the image was captured. That is, doing as much as you can with the camera itself about manipulating the way the image is captured. Consequently, editing in PS manipulates an image that's already been manipulated. I personally don't like editing in PS because you may be introducing things into your images that couldn't possibly have existed in the true setting. For proponents of PS, that's an art in and of itself, but to others it can seem fake.

 

[Kent Frost]

Portraying things that were in the true setting is a goal of certain photography, yes. However, that's not the goal of ALL photography. The goal in most of it, I find, is to portray a mood or an idea, rather than recreate what actually WAS. The closer you get to portraying that idea in the camera, then great. The less work is required later to help further that idea in that case. However, PS is no more or less a tool to help portray that idea than a darkroom. Once again, I say it doesn't matter what your tool is, be it just the camera, or the help of a darkroom....hell, even if it's an image that was made SOLELY with photoshop.

The point is, it's an image. Images are there to envoke thought or mood, whether with paint, charcoal, a pencil, a camera, or a computer. The artist knows no boundaries or rules.

 

[Kent Frost]

Another point to make about photography and trying to recreate the mood that was actually there; when shooting portraits, not always do the people who are in the pictures want them to turn out as they actually were:

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I have to agree with Max and Ivana to some extend.
I see a distinction between using PS or darkroom techniques for creative effect and using these same tools to 'rescue' a photo. If I am using these tools to save a poor image then I have failed to exercise control over my medium. Image manipulation should not be seen as a substitute for knowledge, ability and skill in photography.
When I take pictures with my DSLR I save RAW and the only post-processing I do is to convert to JPEG for posting. I don't even adjust levels (even though I can use PS and have used it for graphics for many years).

 

[Kent Frost]

I agree that if it's a poor image to begin with, try again. If it's an image that you want to look like a winner, but is missing a few details that keep it from being so (and some of you know how hard it can be to take the same exact photos twice) then PS is a very useful tool. Once again (and this is a huge point that everyone has to soak in)...no matter what the tools you use are, each image (especially good images) is unique to its creator. That creation is no less yours whether you made it with film and in a darkroom, or with digital and in PS. Show it off.

 

[ksmattfish]

When I first started printing my own BW there were negs where I had goofed the exposure enough to make them impossible for me to print satisfactorily. Ten years of darkroom experience later, and after learning a few tricks, now I am able to "rescue" them, and make very nice prints. These days most of my exposures in regular sorts of lighting (daylight or flash) are right where I want them to be, but in difficult lighting situations such as night time and other low light, or high contrast situations, extensive darkroom manipulation may be neccessary to get good prints, or even just to get the prints the way I want them. My pre-visualization isn't always accurate to reality.

IMHO using levels is the same as choosing a certain contrast grade of paper or using VC papers, and that increasing saturation is very similar to using a polarizer or choosing to load the camera with Velvia (Velvia ain't natural no way!). Unsharp mask is definately a lot easier in Adobe PS, but it's been around a long time in the darkroom. The biggest convenience I see with Adobe PS is the ability to stop working, save it, and then restart almost immediately at a later time. With the darkroom there is set up and clean up that means I need to schedule enough time to finish my work in one session.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

With b&w film I worked very hard to control everything so it prints perfectly on Grade 2. It's rare that I print more than 1/2 a grade off. Similarly I very rarely burn in. I guess I'm just trying to do the same with Digital.
At heart I'm an old purist - bring back the good old days when you used your hat for a shutter.
I am aware that my approach is mine alone - if other people want to do things different I'll cheer them on regardless.

 

[ksmattfish]

With b&w film I worked very hard to control everything so it prints perfectly on Grade 2. It's rare that I print more than 1/2 a grade off.

Wait a minute, since lighting in reality isn't always contrast grade 2, isn't this image manipulation?

I've known many photogs who would consider themselves "purists". I have a buddy that does fantastic large format color landscape work. He does not use filters (like a polarizer) because he believes in capturing nature unmodified. Of course he shoots with Velvia. Now I think Velvia is beautiful, but I have a hard time seeing a significant difference between choosing it, and using a polarizer. Either choice strays from pure reality.

if other people want to do things different I'll cheer them on regardless

I think this is what is important. Choose your own path, but if others choose a different path, it doesn't mean their ways are inferior. In fact, I have more respect for the folks who are doing all of their own processing and printing, even if it is in PS and on inkjet printers, than folks who are dropping their color neg film off at the lab to be printed by someone else (and if you think they aren't making manipulations and decisions about how your image is going to look as an end product you're kidding yourself). The process of photography does not end when the finger comes up off the shutter release.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Wait a minute, since lighting in reality isn't always contrast grade 2, isn't this image manipulation?

Exercising control over exposure and processing isn't technically 'image' manipulation as modifications are done before the negative is produced.
You could make an argument for it, though, but it would mean that choice of film would be considered image manipulation. And choice of lens and camera. And so to would be taking the picture in the first place.
Actualy, that is quite a persuasive argument.
So if taking the picture in the first place is image manipulation then any argument about manipulation using PS (or anything else) becomes meaningless.

 

[omalley]

I think photoshop is great for art in the sense that it will separate the wheat from the chaff, much in the same way that gelatin silver printing did. For example, a platinum print is more time consuming, expensive, and technically difficult than a silver print. Therefore less of them get made, their percieved value goes up, and they are appreciated all the more.

When we are speaking of commercial art, there is a definite advantage in using a software program rather than some messy old chemicals and having to spend years learning the skills of a master printer. Years are not required to learn the skill of a computer program.

On the other hand, when we are speaking of the fine arts, there is a disadvantage in using something like photoshop, not the least of which is the fact that many reputable galleries prefer an archivally processed g.s.p. To an average person, it may look as though art photos are mostly being produced digitally, but to someone who is familiar with the gallery system, that is not the case. That has everything to do with the fact that you may see a good photo (of any kind) but galleries are not interested in a "good photo", they are interested in a cohesive body of work and an artist who is committed to the aesthetic concerns of the work over the long run.

The whole argument of digital versus film will only end when people accept that they are intended for different purposes.

 

[Mumfandc]

On the other hand, when we are speaking of the fine arts, there is a disadvantage in using something like photoshop, not the least of which is the fact that many reputable galleries prefer an archivally processed g.s.p. To an average person, it may look as though art photos are mostly being produced digitally, but to someone who is familiar with the gallery system, that is not the case. That has everything to do with the fact that you may see a good photo (of any kind) but galleries are not interested in a "good photo", they are interested in a cohesive body of work and an artist who is committed to the aesthetic concerns of the work over the long run.

The whole argument of digital versus film will only end when people accept that they are intended for different purposes.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree in your view of photography within the realm of "Fine Arts" and what reputable galleries are "looking for". You're in NYC, go to the Chelsea contemporary art galleries, things can go way beyond material commodites. And did you see the Armory show? HUNDREDS of the World's established galleries/dealers were there (I spent 5 hours, had to rush through the end), many displaying photographers who work heavily with digital manipulation.

VERY successful Fine Art, non-commercial photographers/artists like Anthony Goicolea, Miwa Yanagi, Ugo Rondinone, Laurie Anderson, Thomas Ruff and Paul Pfeiffer use Photoshop and an ABUNDANCE of digital manipulation which is the basis of their work, and they are represented by the most recognized gallery names in the scene Larry Gagosian, Barabra Gladstone etc. (Of course, you don't have to take their word whether these artists are good or not). But IMO, art has always progressed alongside technological advances.

Take a look at Paul Pfeiffer's work in particular. I don't know if you saw his recent show at Gagosian, but his "Four Horseman of the Apocalypse" is a good example of incorporation of digital editing in photography, (as "Fine Art" if you want to call it that).

Also Miwa Yanagi, heres a quote of a short bio I found of her work...

The Japanese artist Miwa Yanagi achieved her breakthrough into the international art world with the photo series Elevator Girls, which intermingled the twin themes of consumer culture and the role of women. Originally begun as a performance project, Elevator Girls depicts groups of women in identical uniform enclosed in regimented consumer spaces. The Girls, modeled on the young women who operate elevators in Japanese department stores, stand in as a symbol of the repressive strictures governing the behavior of young women in contemporary Japanese society. Yanagi's latest series, My Grandmothers, is a penetrating and fantastic analysis of the future dreams of young women. Using makeup and computer manipulation, she shows her protagonists as they imagine they will look and live in 50 years.

You said it yourself, galleries are interested in a cohesive body of work...why would that exclude those who use digital manipulation as an essential part of it??

 

[omalley]

You're in NYC, go to the Chelsea contemporary art galleries, things can go way beyond material commodites.

I think the term you're looking for is investment, not commodity.
While I cannot argue that those artists have representation, only time will tell if photoshopped images go the way of graffiti art and Mark Kostabi or if they prove to be a medium which is taken seriously by investors (all the people who buy art expecting it to hold its value, not just the rich people at Sotheby's.)
You are correct in assuming that I'm unfamiliar with those people. Except Laurie Anderson. If it is the same Laurie Anderson of 'Language Is A Virus', then technically she is a performance artist and the photos of her work are simply an artifact/document of that work. Of course it could be a different person.

You said it yourself, galleries are interested in a cohesive body of work...why would that exclude those who use digital manipulation as an essential part of it??

Well, obviously it doesn't disclude them, but again, only time will tell if these are serious artists or the latest Pomo hipsters glomming onto the newest trend. Take Loretta Lux, for example, as one of these digital artists. I think her ideas have some merit, but she is technically lacking as a photographer and couldn't care less. She publicly declares that her husband sets up studio lighting for her because she doesn't want to bother with it, and that if the photos look boring then she spruces them up in Photoshop before printing them out. To my thinking, this is not someone who is committed to an aesthetic philosophy, and if she doesn't get bored and move on to something else besides art eventually, I will be greatly surprised.
It's possible that I am an old fogey who is resistant to new things, but again, only time will tell.

 

[Cuervo79]

Well IMO it all comes down to taste, for me I prefer to stay away from photoshop if I want my picture to talk for itself, on the other hand, I love changing and adjusting my photos if I want to put them as wallpapers in my PC. For me I like my art be done with no digital manipulation, because of the fact that if you do something wrong in photoshop you can undo it or even revert processes with the history, wich you can´t do that in a dark room, the 1 chance of doing it the way you want it makes it unique.
I understand digital manipulation in comercial photography, and I understand and accept the manipulation the artists Mumfandc talks about. But that does not mean I have to like what they do.
It al comes down to taste, not who is right or wrong

 

[Mumfandc]

I think the term you're looking for is investment, not commodity.
While I cannot argue that those artists have representation, only time will tell if photoshopped images go the way of graffiti art and Mark Kostabi or if they prove to be a medium which is taken seriously by investors (all the people who buy art expecting it to hold its value, not just the rich people at Sotheby's.)

Time will tell? There's no need to wait because digitally photoshopped images have long been accepted already. Who said graffitti art can't be taken "seriously" by investors? Jean-Michel Basquiat and Barry McGee are both graffiti artists who very successfully brought this "low-artform" into the realm of high-art. Hell, Basquiat sold at the age of 23(?), a number of his works for around $20-30,000 (I believe he was represented by Barbara Gladstone gallery) which was considered a HUGE success for such a man his age. There is currently a comprehensive show of Basquiat's work at the Brooklyn Museum right now.

Well, obviously it doesn't disclude them, but again, only time will tell if these are serious artists or the latest Pomo hipsters glomming onto the newest trend. Take Loretta Lux, for example, as one of these digital artists. I think her ideas have some merit, but she is technically lacking as a photographer and couldn't care less. She publicly declares that her husband sets up studio lighting for her because she doesn't want to bother with it, and that if the photos look boring then she spruces them up in Photoshop before printing them out. To my thinking, this is not someone who is committed to an aesthetic philosophy, and if she doesn't get bored and move on to something else besides art eventually, I will be greatly surprised.
It's possible that I am an old fogey who is resistant to new things, but again, only time will tell.

Another example, Jeff Koons...he's absolutely NOTORIOUS for not even lifting a finger in the creations of his "artwork", and yet the buyers still pay MILLIONS for his work at Sotheby's...? Go to the New York Foundation for the Arts website, as well as craigslist.org...Jeff Koons studio is always running listings seeking painters and assistants to work for him.

And what exactly is your definition of "aesthetic philosophy"? We are currently discussing all of this in my required Western art theories class (interesting, but I sure won't say I enjoy it!). Have you ever read Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Judgement"? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, and it's too complicated to summarize here, but basically..."serious artist" or trendy hipster, if they are able to make an artwork which people enjoy, then that's the way it is.

To back that up, here's an interesting excerpt I found regarding Kant (from Robert Williams "Art Theory" 2004):

"...Important for Kant, is the idea that aesthetic Judgement remain free of controlling principles or concepts. "Whether a dress, a house, or a flower is beautiful is a matter upon which one declines to allow one's judgement to be swayed by any reasons or principles. "When we judge something to have a nameable function, we cease to regard it aesthetically...Aesthetic judgements are thus characterized by a "purposiveness without purpose". We keep on looking because the object satisfies the needs of our gaze in some way we cannot fully grasp. Kant concludes with a succinct, if unlovely, formulation: "the beatiful is that which, without any concept, is cognized as the object of necessary satisfaction."

That's also why I meant what I said, more than a "commodity" (with archival purpose), and not "investment".

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Seems to me we are getting into the 'what makes Art?' argument. You really should go back to the person who started this question - Marcel Duchamp. He opened this can of worms in the early 1900's and people have been trying to sort the mess out ever since. Kurt Schwitters pushed it along. People now are just rehashing their work.
You also need to realise that galleries and such are not in the least interested in Art. They just want to find something that they can sell for wad's of cash and are just in to novelty (I could tell you stories...)
Art buyers are similarly obsessed with money. They only want to buy things that will gain in value and they have their methods.
The name of the game now is novelty and gimmick and lot's of young 'artists' jump on whichever bandwagon is passing - not to make art but to make money.
It will sort itself out in time. Probably.