Untitled (Headlights), 2006
© Angela Strassheim
Leave it to Mr. Colberg to break the discussion down for us. In light of the questions I hoped to ask about the value of staged photographs and photographs of real moments, Jörg responds,
It seems to me that many questions about photography — like, for example, the one just discussed by Shane — boil down to the complex of authenticity. I find it quite interesting to see how many people still want a photograph to be absolutely authentic. It has to depict something that really happened or that really exists that way. So “street photography” is taken as more authentic (or honest) than, say, staged photography (a variant of this is the “reality TV” craze, which shows “real” people and their “real” problems). I really don’t know how useful such an approach to photography is. If we were to make authenticity our criterion for what is good and bad photography, we would limit our experience of photography as an art form quite severely.
Point well taken. It’s true, our experience of any medium would be limited by narrowing our criteria for “good” work. But, about this authenticity matter: Photography is a special medium for the reason that in it’s early history, before many attempts at analog (and, eventually, digital) image-effects, it was thought that photographs never told lies. They were believed to be, well, authentic — the most accurate representation of how life looks. The problem with this notion of authenticity is that as we are now more fluent in the language of images and, as a result, we are often more skeptical of the believability of photographs. We know that images can lie. Maybe, then, it’s photography’s youth, prior to image-saturaturation, that compels some people to crave something “real” in photographs — something that doesn’t sell them anything except a moment from the real world?
I must (for the sake of discussion) clarify where Papageorge stands in this as the last quote that I extracted may have not allowed him enough text to elaborate. In this quote he professes that now, as I explained above, “a picture’s not the world, but a new thing.” From Alec’s interview with Papageorge:
I have no real argument against so-called set-up photography, at least as a process. The fact that I’ve had many successful students doing it in different ways I think makes my case. I also think that the reason they’ve felt free enough to work in this way at Yale is because I profoundly believe in—and teach—the proposition that photography is inherently a fiction-making process. Don’t speak to me of the document; I don’t really believe in it, particularly now. A picture’s not the world, but a new thing.
That said—too briefly—my argument against the set-up picture is that it leaves the matter of content to the IMAGINATION of the photographer, a faculty that, in my experience, is generally deficient compared to the mad swirling possibilities that our dear common world kicks up at us on a regular basis. That’s all. Remember, T. S. Eliot made the clear, brutal distinction between the art that floods us with the “aura” of experience, and the art that ‘presents’ the experience itself. ANY artist, I feel, must contend seriously with the question of which side of that distinction he or she is going to bet on in their work. Obviously, I’m with Eliot—and Homer—in this, believing that the mind-constructed photograph almost necessarily leads to a form of illustration, the very epitome of aura-art.
Again, I have to stress that I don’t entirely agree with Papageorge but, rather, enjoy his appreciation for the remarkable possibilities of everyday life. Do staged photographs present an aura of an experience any more than unstaged photographs?
Untitled (Liz passing Ray some Boiled Eggs), 1995 (from “Ray’s a Laugh”)
© Richard Billingham
Additionally, I’m reminded that there are photographers who might fall somewhere else on this spectrum of photography, which complicates the question all together. Last night (after the Easy Rider opening) I had a conversation over dinner about this topic with Bill Sullivan, a photographer who makes work that he feels doesn’t rightly fall into either of the polar categories. Bill brought up the 1972 Walker Evans Retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art (the first exhibition at MoMA devoted to the work of a single photographer). Jim Dow, a profressor of mine at the Museum School, printed for Evans from 1970-1972 — made most of the prints used in the exhibition and used in the monograph, Walker Evans. Jim studied under Harry Callahan at the Rhode Island School of Design. Here is an excerpt that Bill sent me from Belinda Rathbbone’s 1995 Evans biography:
Dow quickly learned how difficult it was make a successful print from one of Evan’s negatives. Though Evans had never considered himself a technician, over the years he had developed his own refined approach to processing his pictures, which was dificult for anyone else to follow. His negatives were of widely varying contrast and density: each one seemed to require its own chemical formula. When Dow took his first efforts to the Musem. Szarkowski told him he was on the wrong track. The prints had too much contrast it was as if he were making them for the more abstract photography of Harry Callahan, his former teacher at RISD. Evan’s work called for an entirely different chemistry. Dow learned at one point Evans had used a formula called Amidol, a “compensating” developer. He managed to find a paper had approximately the creamy white quality of the kind that Evans had used in the 1930′s, Illustrator special Azo. Over time and with practice. Dow learned to bring out the subtler contrats of a soft grade paper, to “dodge and burn” the negative under the enlarging lamp to achieve the luminosity and softly graded gray scale of Evans best prints with a similarly apparent effortlessness.
Houses and Billboards in Atlanta, Georgia, 1936
© Walker Evans
That bit aside, what Bill was getting at by bringing up the Evans Retrospective was that by deciding on how to present the surface of an image — no matter how “real” the photograph may be — we alter the world to feel a certain way. The “mastery” of printing, the shades of grey known in Evans work, is a whole stylistic world away from the blacks and whites in Robert Frank‘s photographs. Is one more real than the other?
Lastly, I’d like to pull a short comment from the previous discussion. Horton says,
Would anybody be so vehement about the documentary film being exponentially more moving then a fiction film? I doubt it.
Thoughts?
18 Comments
July 12, 2007 – 5:19 pm
One thing to remember. We as photographers choose to press the shutter.
When this act takes place, we are “creating” the photo. Real or not, what we
chose to frame within the small or large glass we looked thru, is authentic.
July 12, 2007 – 5:23 pm
What people used to believe usually is not all that helpful in dealing with how things are now.
I think my main problem with how Papageorge talks about this complex is contained in his sentence that staged photography “leaves the matter of content to the IMAGINATION of the photographer, a faculty that, in my experience, is generally deficient compared to the mad swirling possibilities that our dear common world kicks up at us on a regular basis.” I don’t think that this statement makes a lot of sense if one started to take it apart.
I mean the bit about “the mad swirling possibilities that our dear common world kicks up at us on a regular basis” I don’t find too problematic. But the idea that staged photography falls short of capturing these “mad swirling possibilities” whereas – and that’s what is implied – street photography (or whatever else) doesn’t, doesn’t hold much water I think. It’s simply not true.
I think the crucial bit here is (and that’s why I wrote my comment about authenticity) is that whereas staged photography doesn’t claim to be authentic – street photography does. But there’s no way for us to tell whether that autheticity is really there – it’s just supposed to come with the photo. But to pull a Wittgenstein here (if Papageorge does Homer and Eliot, I prefer something more modern), where is the authenticity? On the back of the photo? And that’s really the problem with this argument – just think about the photo of the kissing Parisian couple, done “decisive moment” style – it was staged. But it was supposed to be authentic (and we weren’t told it was staged).
I don’t know whether I’m explaining my position very well (probably not, I’d need to write something longer about this), but in the end, the argument that staged photography is somehow deficient whereas street photography isn’t falls apart for the same reason as the argument that photography shows us reality or the facts or whatever else you want to call it. It’s something that we would like to be true (because it gives us something to hold on to) but it isn’t true.
Or maybe it really just comes down to saying that if you want street photography take a walk! People always think I’m just joking when I say this – but going for a walk is the best way to “experience”, without the uncertainty of whether or not one is being deceived by a photo.
July 12, 2007 – 8:36 pm
Something I think about when lying. To one spectrum photographs have that awesome power of truth, but they are often so very vague that they never really deduce to solving real social problems. A lot of my favorite photographs are from the streets of the 50Äôs and 60Äôs, and more often then not they are wholly ambiguous, especially those by Frank. It seems to me; at least, when experiencing this way of working (through photographing the street, our travels, or the experience of personal space) we often come back with images of these found private realities. Photographs such as these may be considered straight, but the ideas are Äúset upÄù indefinitely. Some of the most curious of images come about when your own ideas meet up with what actually exists in any given environment. I think thatÄôs why a lot of us take pictures, as some sort of d√©j√ vu with the world, or ÄúYeah, thatÄôs exactly how I feel!Äù
My photographs of the smokers in Philadelphia are, at best, depicting people worn down by years of abuse of some kind. Now, I meet a lot of people in the street who are beautiful, normal people, but the images I took in where often of the ugly people. Although their numbers are probably equal, I chose a reality that was much more squared with my sentiments.
I think there are so many things that go into making a photograph, and it all starts with the motivation to go outside and see whatÄôs out there. It then becomes an addiction that we cannot recede from. If my feelings about the world are truly cynical, then my images are going to give life to that world, although it might coexist with many different realities. IÄôm not saying photography is that subjective, but the kinds of photographs I can make are so drastically different from what I know to be true about the world. The same set of variables that go into making photographs can either be pessimistic or optimistic depending whoÄôs looking. Therefore, for someone who disagrees with a staged image, I think they have more experience being a member of the audience, but not really experiencing photographs themselves because thereÄôs not a whole lot of difference between having an actor stand in a specific place, and standing in a specific place behind the camera, including and excluding information as you with.
July 12, 2007 – 8:43 pm
Joe — I think there is much more “creation” involved in a Crewdson tableau than in a Nan Goldin photograph, for example. You should know, weren’t you on one of his sets? Certainly, we as photographers take the picture when the shutter is pressed, but you can’t deny the difference when photographers make the picture.
Joerg — I love the walking anecdote. Though, I don’t know that I’ve ever been able to adress a stranger passing in real life as I have been able to in a Harry Callahan, Beat Strueli, or Philip-Lorca diCorcia photograph (such an extended period of time). And I agree with you about Papageorge, about personally having more modern inspiration myself, as well. I hope it’s been clear that I wasn’t taking his “side” by quoting him and discussing what he had to say.
I’m not sure about your comment “What people used to believe usually is not all that helpful in dealing with how things are now.” This may be flawed; historically, people’s previous belief systems are very important in understanding the current state of things. While my proposal about why viewers are often attracted to real moments may not be entirely true, I think it’s always important to consider the history of photography and our relationship to it in any attempt to deconstruct how we look at images in the present.
July 12, 2007 – 9:08 pm
Let me give you an example that’s not coming from the world of photography so you can see what I mean. Eighty years ago, most physicists/cosmologists (incl., famously, Einstein) believed that the Universe was static. The idea that the Universe would be expanding (or contracting) was seen as absurd. And to a large extent people believed in a static Universe because they wanted to believe in it. Then came the discovery of receding galaxies, and it took the smartest brains only a short time to realize that the Universe actually was expanding. And not only that, it was actually physically impossible to have a static Universe. When we talk about the Universe today, these very early considerations of the static Universe don’t play a role any longer, even though – partly as a consequence – we don’t understand the Universe very well at all. But like I wrote earlier, this old idea of the static Universe doesn’t help at all to deal with our lack of understanding how the Universe evolves.
There are many historical examples for radical changes like that, and there even is a philosophical theory about how science evolves by often radically changing it paradigms (Popper).
And it’s like that in photography, except that here, people still cling to this idea that somehow, photography is a simple depiction of the “truth” or “reality”. It’s something that many people still want to believe, but in the end, it’s not very useful at all for what we are dealing with now. It is quite uncomfortable to have this much more uncertainty – after all, wouldn’t it be nice to have some anchor somewhere? – but then this uncertainty opens up new roads and new ways to experience new things. And *that* is how art evolves (if we want photography really to be an art form that is).
July 13, 2007 – 3:05 am
Joerg, I don’t think your Einstein analogy works here, though I understand and agree that “peoples” understanding and knowledge of photography has changed very much from the 19th Century.
Photography is language, and since you mentioned Wittgenstein, let me add a few even more modern thoughts launched by von Wright (who edited Wittgensteins work, and followed him as a Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge).
Language is common in culture, but unique to individuals. How we think, interpret and communicate is largely determined by how we understand the words and symbols we use. While there are similarities, how we make associations from words and symbols are unique to us as individuals. There will of course be many common associations among people sharing a culture or sub-culture. The larger the culture the larger the differences in how people understand language. For example an 80 year old man understands the word and concept of “a computer” very differently from a 10 year old kid.
While one could theorize that photography isn’t authentic and depict reality in a literal sense, I don’t think one can escape common sense. Photography does in fact depict reality to a degree that separates photography from other forms of visual arts. It isn’t just random shapes and colors, it is a visual language, and when presented as photography, associations are made that will make us interpret photographs differently from drawings and paintings. And yes, those associations will for the most part be of a picture that is more authentic, real, and honest than a drawing or painting.
July 13, 2007 – 3:51 am
Interesting to see this generation now join the very same discussion that was discussed, analyzed and argued some 30 yrs prior, every bit as vigorously and enthusiastically as it is right now. Lines were drawn, alliances formed, tempers flared. And life went on… Cindy continued to stage, street shooters continued to prowl. Interesting to note that despite all the revolutionary technical innovations, the central arguments remain the same. Enjoy your youth!
Anyone see where the B&W revival went?
PS- Horton recalls to mind a brilliant documentary of the late 90′s concerning a union and its striking members bravely battling the company goons. It hit every dramatic note, and then some; so you can imagine my surprise when I finally saw the screen credits role- including the names of the actors who portrayed the various roles of strikers, scabs, etc. I felt like I had been lied to, double crossed and cheated- probably because I had. Others thought it bloody brilliant for the very same reason. I’m not sure what this anecdote proves, other than that people will perceive, believe and defend whatever their tastes and convictions warrant. That said, I still wanna kick that director’s ass.
July 13, 2007 – 8:54 am
Svein-Frode, I’m not denying that “Photography does in fact depict reality” at least to some extent. I’m just saying that a lot of these discussions are based on the idea that there is a lot more reality in photography than there really is (likewise for authenticity).
As for the language argument, this obviously isn’t the forum for a discussion of the philosophy of language. I’m not sure I’d agree with your understanding of language.
July 13, 2007 – 10:23 am
This brings a great book to mind which I’d consider pertinent to this dicussion — Towards a Philosophy of Photography by Vil√©m Flusser. About Flusser and the book:
If any of you may be interested in this and haven’t read it, buy it now. You won’t regret it.
July 13, 2007 – 10:31 am
“ThatÄôs all. Remember, T. S. Eliot made the clear, brutal distinction between the art that floods us with the ÄúauraÄù of experience, and the art that ÄòpresentsÄô the experience itself. ANY artist, I feel, must contend seriously with the question of which side of that distinction he or she is going to bet on in their work”
this is everything-authenticity is the straw man in the argument here.
Increasingly our world is about the aura of experience and not experience itself. Fashion, style, wealth, privilege, the art world, advertising, are all about establishing an aura, or facsimile of something,-and necessarily it is divorced from the “real thing”-your real experience has to become separate from you so it can be sold back to you as if you ever lost it.
Aura’s are easy, cheap, reproducible, they are like currency, they are negotiable, transactional, ephemeral. The reason that photography has its power is that it creates a fact out of a fact, this is the only authenticity you can have. Creating a fact out of a fiction is only the next best thing.
July 13, 2007 – 10:40 am
“The reason that photography has its power is that it creates a fact out of a fact, this is the only authenticity you can have.” … which is just another way to phrase what I was commenting on earlier. Whether you call it “facts” or “reality” or talk about “authenticity”, it all boilds down to the same confusion. See my original point.
July 13, 2007 – 10:40 am
I’m only arguing the idea of “authenticity” they may be a different breed (the photography you all are discussing) but we as photographers make the choice. Look at it this way. You are walking along the streets somewhere in Vermont, you come across a beautiful pattern of grass lines. You look at it again, and something goes off in your mind.. You compose the photo with the camera. you shoot. You present this photo too us.. In a way this photo is no more set up then when Arbus pulled the freaks from the tents back in the day.. Did she shoot all the freaks? (NO) she decided to edit whom she would shoot, (once again making the photo “set up”) Now as for Crewdson, yes his photos are a jumble of light, and set up like massive photo sets.. (see PDN magazine for a lighting diagram for a few of his shots) he may choose to produce his photos this way, but in no way do I believe these are less authentic then when your or Alec or anyone else chooses the subject / framing/ presentation / even the editing / of what we see on these blogs and in books and galleries. What baffles me is who is making the decisions of what is a “worthy” work to be seen in the above mentioned. This is where I see a problem with authenticity. There is so much more work we all don’t see, and I believe it is our duty to hunt this down, so we all become better image makers.
July 13, 2007 – 12:17 pm
ÄúThe reason that photography has its power is that it creates a fact out of a fact, this is the only authenticity you can have.Äù … which is just another way to phrase what I was commenting on earlier. Whether you call it ÄúfactsÄù or ÄúrealityÄù or talk about ÄúauthenticityÄù, it all boilds down to the same confusion. See my original point.
are you about to say there is nothing real? only our perceptions of reality? pure phenomenology?
also ‘street photography” or whatever you wish to call it is not the same as taking a walk on the street. The camera transforms facts into other facts in a way that the mind does not. Otherwise, why the power of art made in this way? It’s is sort of like saying, you want poetry, take a tour through the dictionary…same words, but nothing else.
once you start taking apart the meanings of things they cease to have meaning. There is such a thing as an authentic experience, authentic art, etc, of course they are subjective to the individual. I saw the film RIZE last night-and one of the premises of it has to do with authenticity, not the “aura” of authenticity, and as one of the participants explained, you know it when you see it, there is no school, there is only practice. If you don’t clown or crump one day and come back to it, we all know, you have not been keeping up…etc. This is very ‘street photography”-it is a practice more than anything, and observing it is not the same as doing.
There is a lot of constructed photography that I like, I think I tend to like constructions that have to do with processes, elements, perception, (form) and I tend to not like constructions that have to do with narrative (content).
So here is a question, is there an authentic construction?
July 13, 2007 – 12:28 pm
I’m talking about photography and what it does (and what it can’t do). That’s all I care about (at least in the context of this discussion). I’m not taking apart the meaning of things, I’m trying to take apart the *supposed* meaning of a photograph or of photography.
You say that “the camera transforms facts into other facts in a way that the mind does not”, but I’d object to that statement (since it doesn’t make sense). The transformation (assuming there is one) is not done in the camera – what part of the camera does the work? is there a little device inside the camera for that? – it’s done in the mind, with the mind.
July 13, 2007 – 12:38 pm
read stephen shore’s “The Nature of Photographs.”
I have to rely on others here, winogrand-a photograph is a new fact
the camera absolutely transforms. The world is three dimensional, the photo, is two, yet it is a depiction of three dimensional space, and in our minds, we reconstruct another (separate) three dimensional space.
I agree, our minds do some of it, but the camera (the optics, the compression of light values, the transformation of color to bw or color to processed colour, the added noise) transforms reality into a “picture” which is something else. it is another fact.
If I understand you are saying the authenticity is “supposed” or assumed, so yes, examine that commonplace, but there are reasons why, the ones papageorge speaks about.
July 13, 2007 – 12:49 pm
The mapping between the three-dimensional and the two-dimensional world is actually quite irrelevant for the original question, namely the question whether staged photography is any less valid or interesting than, say, street photography (or the kind of photography Papageorge has in mind).
And the point is exactly that people assume certain things about a photo – especially w.r.t. what they like to call “reality” – which, when you take it apart, doesn’t make any sense, because unlike what many people want to believe no photo comes with “authenticity” or whatever else you want to call it. When you see a photo there’s no way to tell whether what you see is real or has really happened or not. So this whole distinction between staged photography and street photography does not make any sense.
But I think I’m repeating myself – probably because I’m not explaining it very well – so I’ll stop here (and won’t comment on this any further).
July 13, 2007 – 1:31 pm
I think we are splitting hairs here. I can not understand that there isn’t a very significant distinction between taking a photograph of a real event and a staged/directed/posed event.
Authenticity in this context might be defined as a photograph of a subject that is not posing for the camera. A staged photograph would then imply the opposite, namely that the subject photographed is aware and affected by the presence of the photographer. Of course, dead subjects have no consciousness, but they become authentic by being photographed as they are found, in other words, the photographer does not physically change the objects he intends to photographs.
Then there is of course the gray area where one can talk about degrees of authenticity. Very few photographs can be all authentic, just as there will be something authentic present in every staged photograph. But I won’t explore this subject further as it becomes too much of a philosophical exercise in this context.
This sadly needs a lot more words to fully explore in detail. We should meet in a bar and drink some wine some day…
Authenticity is just one of many criterias by which one can “value” photographs, but as a finale example: If this photograph ( http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/slides/g22.html ) by James Nachtwey was staged it would have a significant impact on how one would interpret and value the image. But I completely agree with Joerg that authenticity should by no means be the only and most significant factor in which one judges the value of photography in general!
July 13, 2007 – 11:13 pm
What a fascinating topic! I am risking naivety here.. for I am not a professional or academic. I do consider myself an amateur in the sense of having a passionate enjoyment with the affairs of the potential of photographs. So, I offer a passage from The Velveteen Rabbit as a way of trying to articulate (illustrate?) my thoughts…
“What is REAL?” asked the Rabbit one day, when lying next to the old Skin Horse in the nursery… “Real isn’t how you are made, ” said the Skin Horse, “It’s a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real.”
“Does it hurt?” asked the Rabbit.
“Sometimes, ” said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful, “When you are Real you don’t mind being hurt.”
“Does it happen all at once, like being wound up,” he asked, “or bit by bit?”
“It doesn’t happen all at once, ” said the Skin Horse. “You become. It takes a long time. That’s why it doesn’t often happen to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept.”…. “once you are Real you can’t be ugly, except to people who don’t understand.”
text above from “The Velveteen Rabbit, or how toys become real.” by Margery Williams.
One Trackback
[...] / viewpoints on this – as well as many other examples can be found here, here… and here…. …examining the threshold at which ordinary visibility ends and perception begins [...]