Back to Basics — No Computers Allowed
The digital revolution (it seems so antiquated to even call it that anymore) opened the doors for many to enter the photographic arena, but it also jump-started a quiet yet cranky undercurrent that chastised those who used Photoshop and other technological thingamajigs as a crutch instead of as subtle enhancement.
Professionals certainly had a valid gripe: After all, now even posers could manipulate, twist, and finagle photos with user-friendly hardware and software in attempts to create art, whether or not they had the vision or talent necessary to pull it off. Sometimes, the technology paved the way for hidden genius to erupt, but more often than not, it simply let loose a gaggle of layer-crazy wanna-bes who used every toolbar, gadget, and gizmo to create a chaotic hodgepodge that would be unrecognizable in its raw format.
That may be why the exhibit mentioned in the New York Times’ New Year’s Day edition is so refreshing. Entitled “First Doubt: Optical Confusion in Modern Photography,” the showcase at Yale highlights more than 100 “confounding” photos from the mid-19th century to the 21st century. They’re puzzling, strange, eye-catching—and totally unmanipulated. That’s right: According to the article, there was no digital trickery involved in any of the images. All the photos were exactly as the professionals saw them through the lens.
It’s an experiment in surreal comprehension—and a shout-out to old-school photography done the way it should be.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
very good stuff thanks
January 21st, 2009 at 4:16 am
thanks for posting this article. The ‘belly landscape’ is astounding. I really did a double take when viewing it.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:31 am
My comments relate to the first two paragraphs of your blog,not to the exhibit. Photography has always had mechanical and technical aspects inherent in it’s processes that are not necessarily found in other art disciplines. Does that make the photographs produced any less original or creative or artistic than art forms?
Experimentation, manipulation of established techniques, whether in the darkroom or on the computer, have led individuals to exercise their esthetic sensitivities, finding new ways to express ideas, explore themes and establish a distinctive style.
To me what counts most are the images created, not the methods and techniques used to achieve them. It’s up to the viewer, their taste, to determine whether they like, appreciate, get something from the images.