Q: What do I make of
the window / mirror analogy? Do I relate
to one identity more than the other?
Do photographers
have the power to create a false reality?
If photography is a window or a mirror, is it a clear view or reflection
of this world, truly being represented in its element?
Photography began
with firm roots in reality. In the
beginning most agreed that, “…their
pictorial features were understood, accordingly, to have been derived not from
conventions of illustration or from the photographer’s unfettered imagination
but from physical facts about the world as it appeared before the cameral at
the time of exposure.” (Snyder 7) It
was not long, however, that photographers recognized their power to represent
-or misrepresent- using angles, inclusion or omission of features, lighting and
other elements of basic photography to manipulate mood, beauty, and perceived
reality in its entirety.
Fast forward to
the present comprehensive availability to technology, digital cameras, and
editing software, the determination of what images actually represent reality
leaves us often wondering in our own right, as Suzanne Collins coined, “Real or not real?” *1
Is capturing
reality even in the realm of control of the photographer? Even photographers that refuse to alter one
pixel post-shutter still create multiple interpretations of reality depending
on those that view them. “What made for an effective, good, or even
beautiful picture depended entirely on who was doing the looking and the
talking.” (Heiferman, 3) Images in the mind are viewed with meaning in the
context of each individual’s past experiences.
A connection with an image may vary as many times as there are
viewers.
Do you think the power
of influence of the photograph is overrated?
Photography
intrinsically has had the power to cross boundaries from the beginning. At its
introduction, photography was for everyone, black, white, rich or poor, “…free of historical limits.” (Bate, 6). Very few historical advancements can claim as
much. Images began to be produced
representative and available to all walks of life. If then ‘to see is to believe’ the power of
photography, because of the audience it represents, is more likely to be underrated.
“Far from being a passive recording
technology, Photography is catalytic.” (Heiferman, 8) The entire medium itself is continually
evolving. When change in society is present- even if there are outside forces
existing as the real motive behind change- it is the photograph people
remember. It is the images that are ingrained as permanent negatives in our
minds. With impact that is calculable as
these images resurface with or without prompting, almost with a life of their
own in their ability of apparition in
our minds like friendly ghosts of our past.
And, when social
media is taken in to account, it sometimes can appear as if the general human
population is quite impressionable. Ready to believe a truth at a half glance, a
sort of group of artistic lemmings ready to accept ‘as reality’ any images that
cross their eyesight. Too impatient, or
simply without care enough to take a second look of evaluation to determine if
it is, or even could be, reality. Moving
on in a productivity of nothing but random viewing, one after another. It is no wonder that Bate says,
“Disstraction….is enjoying a comeback.” (Bate, 21)
It is interesting
to note when it comes to creating false realities, my own photography
promulgates this, in a way, as most of my composite images are completely based
in alternative realities. Yet they are
stretched so far from current realism that one would hope it would trigger an
actual moment of assessment, a double take with a moment of evaluation, that
may be transferred to other less obvious, but just as false, manipulated
images. I want my viewers to see my
images as real AND not real, simultaneously. If my photography
is a mirror, it is more likely Alice
Through the Looking Glass. 2
What photographs and bodies of work do you
think have inspired unity and change?
An image does not
have to be acclimated or wrapped in fame to forge an effect. And the effect often comes not from giant
catalysts, but from tiny fulcrums on which our lives turn this way and that. As
Heiferman explored, “Not the ones made by
photographers and artists, but the less pedigreed ones that play equally
important and vital roles in our lives—the photographs that don’t get framed
but which deliver the news, sell clothes, get you a date, cause parking tickets
to be written, and save lives” (Heiferman, 3-4) I also liked how Heiferman
said that photography slows time to a standstill but keeps things active at the
same time. Day by day photography
continues to be a small but radical stimulus.
Or is the power of
photography as a tool for advocacy understated?
Here is what has challenged me this week: Do we have to create photographs to drive change? Is photography a gift that comes with
responsibility? Is it acceptable to be
creators with the motive only to enjoy creation? During Max Ferguson’s webinar he mentioned
that after photographing many strangers he has found himself turning back to
photographing his family and those he loves.
Does he have to try to change the world, or can he simple create for his
own personal fulfillment, and if so, will that have a more fundamental effect
on society in the long run?
Either way, change
is often created, so we need to be aware of the potential for influence.
I feel like I have learned not to underestimate the power of an image,
and whether we produce photography specifically to catalyze a change or
we simply create and the impact is a secondary bi-product of our efforts
we should not be blind to photography's influence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Works Cited:
Heiferman, Marvin. Photography Changes Everything. New
York; Aperture 2012.
Bate, David. Global Photography [IN] Photography: The Key
Concepts in Photography: The Key Concepts.
London; Bloomsbury Academic,2016.
Snyder, Joel. Territorial Photography [IN] Landscape and power. Univ.
Chicago P. 1994.
*1
quoted from: Collins,
Suzanne. The Hunger Games. New York: Scholastic Press, 2008.
Print
*2 Alice
Through the Looking-Glass. By Lewis Carroll. Academy
Editions, 1977.
No comments:
Post a Comment