Why Am I Bothered?

[Ted Byrne]

I need some counseling here...

Some of you know the grief we used to get from the Organic Photographers when we'd enhance our images in Post Processing, right? If the image failed to look "Real" or "Photographic" or "Traditional"... they were hurt and frequently tossed their pain right back, charging that PP enhancement was NOT photography.

And I bristled at anyone defining photography for me. Well, you probably noticed that this battle is over. Everyone's living pretty happily together now in the Fine Art Photography world... except.... except...

Sigh... I am, ironically, now having trouble coming to grips with an exploding popular technique which doesn't seem to have a name... so lettuce call it Not-Mine or NoMi image making.

The NoMi image maker goes to a stock photo site and pays for images containing components that s/he wants to use. Then, entirely in Post Processing applications, creates a final image. The NoMi artist has never taken a picture, but instead has picked and chosen among some very good ... and totally available electronic photography which others have taken and sell for whatever use the buyer has in mind.

Now this has gone on for years in commercial graphic design... but it is relatively new to Fine Art Photography. And I'm having as much trouble accepting it as I think the Organic Photographers had accepting invasive post processing enhancement techniques.

There is a great deal of high craft involved in a lot of NoMi work. And the final images are made to totally conform to the artist's imagination... they are in no way limited by the photographer's own inventory of personal images. The results run the gamut from seemingly perfect photographs through virtual trips into impossible realms.

But... but... it isn't photography in the sense that the artist is not  a photographer. Or at least the final product isn't his/her photography. It is his/her image, but not his or her photographic image... or ... or ... is it?

I find myself terribly disappointed when I discover that the artist did not 'take' any part of the final image. And yet... yet... I will collage from my own image library. I will enhance with my own clouds, moons, foregrounds and backgrounds. But... but... THOSE ARE MINE!

Isn't that pathetic? What difference does it make... should it make... that the component parts are foreign to the artist? After all, the filters we use, the applications we apply... the lenses, the cameras, all  of the apparatus we as photographic fine artists use were created by someone else, so why not the component parts of the final image as well?

Why am I having this reaction? It is art. No question. It is frequently filled with wonder and art without wonder is merely craft. So? So?

Help me here.... is there something "wrong" with NoMi photographic collaging that  is not wrong when I do photographic collaging of my own created elements? And what does the word "wrong" have to do with art at all? Is NoMi the future of Fine Art Photography?

Oh well, this is so long that I expect I am reeeeely writing to myself and that no one has read it. But at least I've managed to turn my discomfort into words. Anyone got a reaction?

[eob]

Well, IMHO, it is just a matter of nomenclature. Art it is (or can be) - no doubt - as you stated yourself. Fine art? Possibly. But fine art photography it isn't. Fine art illustration might be a better term.

As I mentioned when posting my early collages (cutouts) from various magazines, I was very apprehensive to even show them, precisely because I used photographs that were taken by someone else. And I treated all of those collages only as exercises, all along (from the moment I decided to create them more than 25 years ago, to this day). I would never dare to call any of it an art (any kind of art). Other creators of that kind of an illustration can call it art, photographic art, fine art, whatever - I just couldn't care less... But I would never put this kind of creativity on the same level as composites done from scratch by real photographers. 

And, BTW, for the similar reason, I still do not endorse some heavy post-production effects that look like they are the sole theme and subject of a completely cooked image that can not stand on its own feet.

[André]

I guess this is just a differnt kind of art. It is no longer a photo, it is just an artwork or a collage.

I think you can compare it to musik. Some guys do a great job to make some really good songs which we listen to as real musik. Others just use these songs and either copy them or mix them with different songs (like a DJ). The latter two are definetely artists, but the are no propper musicians.

I just see it as what it is. A different kind of art, but it is definetely not photography. Not even when you use your own images.

My 2p :-)

André

[habakuk]

Well, after I accidentally trashed my last reply... here's a second pass...

Let me ask it this way, Ted: if we would judge or enjoy a picture solely by it's impact, by the power to provoke thoughts, emotions, associations - would it matter how it came into existence?

How much is it about our ego, about the recognition we might or might not gain from producing photographs that please, that touch and move? Do we do it to touch and to move the viewers, or do we do it to get attention and back patting ourself?

I personally was one of those guys who thought that only us real men with the acetic acid holes in their t-shirts, us who had inflamed nostrils and light sensitive eyes from working hours and hours in the darkroom are the true photographers. Then I bought a digital SLR and fell in love with the potential that my digital darkroom suddenly provided. First, I had to cope with the loss of pride and glory because I was no longer one of those real men and photographers. And then, I discovered how much more creative I can be thanks to those new technologies. But I also had to accept that my photographs no longer had that smell, that corrosive background, that alchemistic touch of letting a captured moment of reality magically appear on a sheet of white paper...

I was able to produce effects in seconds that previously took hours to achieve. And many others were also able to apply the same filter, the same action to their pictures. And that did hurt my ego substantially. So, I had to go on and study my intention, find the reason why I am doing the photography thing. And in that process, I started to understand what the similarity and the difference between my personal intention and the intention of e.g. a glamour photographer is. Do you know what the difference between your work (intention) and the work (intention) of those NoMi image makers is?

It probably has nothing to do with the technique, nothing with the result itself. It has everything to do with the reputation and therefore the effect on the ego. "Do they deserve that much of ooh and ahhh from the broad audience?" or rather "Do they deserve MORE ooh and ahhh than *I*"?

I know that some of my work gets a positive feedback in the public. But those shots that I personally think contain the essence of my current state of the mind and consciousness... those shots often get not much ooohh and ahhh at all. Is that a compelling reason to change my work and produce more of the stuff that gets the oohh-ahhh? And here we're back to the question: what is our intention with the work we do?

cheers
®

[eob]

Roland, I think you are dodging the real dilemma Ted is asking about.

One thing is an unquestionable technical superiority of the digital photography over the traditional one, with its ease, speed and low cost. Another thing is a moral/ethical question of how we use that superior technology to get artistic results.

People who are using other photographers' work (even if paid for) to create their own composites, are trying to make things even easier for themselves by skipping the most difficult and painful stage of creating the work of art. To me, they act like art directors and not photographers.

[habakuk]

No, I don't think I'm dodging the issue, at least I didn't meant to. But what good comes out of the attempt to define who's a "real" photographer and who's not? Why do we bother about that distinction at all?

You're talking about the "most difficult part"... so is it all about who's working how hard to get a result? Then it's true that everyone using a digital camera and a computer isn't a real photographer either, compared to those that still use the darkroom. If the effect the final work has on the world is what it's all about, then it's utterly meaningless to discuss the way this has been achieved.

cheers
®

[eob]

Again, I think that the real issue is how we use the technology and not what technology (or technique). In other words, it is rather an issue of ethics and creative process than the choice of technology. Besides, I think that the result of final work - no matter how artistic - has little-to-nothing to do with the problem.

All that said, I have to admit that I am quite ambivalent to the whole thing. If others choose to use photographs taken by someone else to create something new with them, I do not object. But I will probably not accept this practice as a legitimate art-making.

[habakuk]

But I will probably not accept this practice as a legitimate art-making.

And this is where I don't follow you. Why wouldn't that be art in your opinion?

cheers
®

[eob]

Because, in my opinion, creating art is not mere concept. It is also labour, expertise, craft. Would you rather listen to the original music, or sampled fragments put together by a third party?

[habakuk]

Well, there we go with my first argument: I don't care if it is original art or sampled - to me, what matters is the impact it has on me. The point of ethics would be if the one who sampled songs gives credit to the originators or not. But I can enjoy and respect his work just as much. That might be a consumer oriented way of thinking and not a art historician way, tho.

If someone picks very decidedly photos out of a huge pile, which can be tedious and hard work, uses his expertise to compose and create a strong visual communication and he does that in a technically advanced way, isn't that art by your understanding?

When Ted asks "why am I having this reaction", then I still think it's a matter of pride and therefore a matter of ego.

cheers
®

[jlmoriarty]

eob ~~ to follow your logic my painting is "art" your photograph is only, well, a photograph. And as someone who uses oil on canvas I still have a bit of a problem with the push-of-a-button "artwork", if I'm being truly honest. This is perhaps the only place I would make that statement because I know what the likely reaction would be in less thoughtful quarters. I'm trusting that you will see it as part of the conversation, not art snobbery.

I know someone who has been quite successful with making and selling collage. None of the pieces are his; they are all borrowed. On the other hand the finished product is very much his vision. The viewer is asked to consider the vision, not the individual pieces.

Just my take...

John

[eob]

As I already mentioned above, I don't care what technology or technique one uses to produce art. Photography is as good an art as painting.

And, of course, I think collages made up of borrowed material can be as imaginative (or more) as the original pieces. After all, they are made as a result of an afterthought and everybody knows that a hind vision is always 20/20.

In my view, though, that is not a core of the discussion. I see an ethical aspect of it all as more important than technical or conceptual part of creating that kind of art. In a way, it is an aspect of creativity that has much to do with copyrights, originality and respect for those who actually do "heavy lifting". In this view, I am inclined to think of people who sell "remanufactured" art as a sort of parasites. Of course, this is an exaggeration I made on purpose to drive my point. In real life, I wouldn't call anybody a parasite for that kind of practice we are talking about. But I wouldn't buy their art, either.

[Ted Byrne]

Okay... I want to repeat... I understand that what the NoMi artist does can be art in every sense... so we're not at odds here Roland. YET... YET... I still have a discomfort with their process. On the other hand I'm working on a series just now that's applying applications of the AlienSkin Brokeh and SnapArt filters. Surely this is as far from "reality" as the NoMi pieces. But.. but... every element here is carefully pulled from my own ideas. And at the base... my pictures.




Now I know that this image is on the edge of what most discomforted the organic photographers. It also bothers painters. The former see too much augmentation, the latter see an augmentation which is 'too easy'... cheating as far as they are concerned.

And in a way each of these discomforts are what bother me when I see a NoMi piece. I'm thinking this is a problem that I own and need to overcome, eh?

 

[habakuk]

Overcome... I don't know. I think noticing the uneasy feeling leads us to questioning the source of this uneasyness. That was what I tried to point out. If I bother, if I feel uneasy, maybe even threated by the "new arts", then why is this so?

There is a reason in the outside world, but there also is a reason in the inside world...

cheers
®


BTW: Love that last shot! What power those eyes have!

[Ted Byrne]

Thanks for your compliments re. this Race Against Racism portrait. She is hauntingly beautiful which reduces the image-maker's role.

And of course you are correct. When I look at a NoMi image I feel cheated. I wanted to believe that the artist did that. And a part of me says... "NO! NO, that is not the artist's creation. It is cake made with a sugar substitute. Artificial! And yet... yet... all art is art-ificial. That is the point, right? Neither a classical actor nor musician writes the text that they recite. Hmmmm.... perhaps that is it? Perhaps the NoMi artist is more like the performer than the composer? Maybe I have been looking at this wrong?

I was concerned, I now think, that the NoMi artist was shallow. That they are much like the performer who sings another's words, another's music... who dances to another's choreography, wears another's costumes, and who whirls in another's lights supported by the arrangements and music played by an orchestra of other musicians.

But why would any of that bother me if the performer herself pulled it all together magically? It is the magic.. the resonance which makes it art, right? And why not support an artist's talent to do that with every possible device available? Yes... that's it.... That was as you indicated, the source of my uneasyness. And it is a strength not a weakness.