Berenice Abbott discusses photography throughout history and the effects of popularity and money on its development. At the birth of photography, there was “enthusiasm among artists, scientists, [and] intellectuals,” all interested in investing in the new form of technology. Due to the interest and demand, technologies improved quickly and soon almost “anyone could afford the photograph, whereas before only the wealthy could pay the price to have their portraits painted.” What Abbott does not mention though, is that photography was not considered an art form for much of this time. It appeared to users that photographs simply documented the world we see, lacking the skill necessary for painting portraits in the past.“The term ‘documentary’ is sometimes applied in a rather derogatory sense” for this reason. I feel that it is necessary to make this point known because painting and photography are so closely compared in the reading.
When money started to take over and photography was used for commercial work, photographers began ironing out the imperfections that made the original documentary photographs so beautiful and real. This perfecting process “…was thought to be imitation or emulation of painting,” but poor painting, in Abbott’s opinion. “Instead of the honest, realistic likeness, artificial props with phony settings began to be used. A period of imitating the unreal set in…Retouching and brush work also set in.” This shift created a very different form of photography that no longer focused on capturing the world how it is, but how we wanted it to be. It allowed more imagination to be involved in the creation of a photo.
While I understand Abbott’s aversion to the works created around this time, I feel that both kinds of work are equally relevant. In the definition of “documentary’ according to Webster, anything attempting to convey information could be considered so. While what we refer to as “documentary” today may be a more clear representation of what we see in the real world, photos taken with the intention of flattery or being ‘picturesque’ are still attempting to convey information. They are a combination of the imagination that came with painting and the realism that we expect from photography.
2 comments:
I think you bring up interesting points about how while painting portraits (at least in the past) is striving toward realism whereas photographs are attempting to make real life more beautiful than it really is. Both mediums are in a sense abstracting reality to fit the artists point of view. Both the artists I am writing my paper about are doing this with their photographs that are modeled after Victorian/Baroque still lives. It is ironic that when an artist creates a prop for a photograph we say they are not capturing the world as it is because they technically are, it just may not be the way we initially interpret the image. Mat Collishaw plays with the viewer's emotions by setting up modern food as a seventeenth century still-life in "Last Meal on Death Row" in the CAG gallery. What he is picturing is a form of the truth, just not the actual moment of what he is documenting. The thought process that goes into a piece like this is part of what makes it art.
I definitely agree that both kinds of work are equally relevant: both real and "unreal." I think it totally depends on the purpose of the image. If the image is meant to document, then yes, absolutely, it should be as accurate as possible. But if the image is for personal use, for friends, family, ourselves, etc., then it doesn't matter how "accurate" it is. Photos that attempt to flatter do still convey information, just perhaps not always the information that is relevant to anyone but the photographer.
Post a Comment