photoshop and photography: when is it real?

I was reading this article/blog that talks about the line between a true photography versus a digitally manipulated image.

So, where is that fine line? As a photographer, I'd have to compose a shot extremely well to NOT edit my photos. This goes for working in the darkroom as well. There are times where I have to dodge and burn, create contrast, and plan development time. Maybe I'm stretching it a little, but aren't those still a means of "manually" trying to get an ideal image?

Everyone wants to see a great photograph. They are drawn to well composed shots and technically sound images. I don't think there is anything wrong with using Photoshop to manipulate the image.

I was taking a digital photography class last semester, and one of our projects called us to use Photoshop to create a collage type of photo. Basically, we took a group of photos and used Photoshop to make it one large cohesive photo.

While I went with more of a David Hockney style of collaging, there were others that created some amazing photos that were seamless; kind of like the seagulls and lighthouse the article mentioned:

Everything in the photograph belongs to the photographer. He uses the camera as his main medium and uses the computer to enhance them. So, should this image be discredited as a true photo?

Painters, graphic designers, sculptors, etc all use their imagination, but base it on some aspects of reality. As time passes, new art movements emerge and move away from merely portraying what the artist sees, or true reality in this case.

Photography was initially to capture what the photographer saw through the lens. Through time, the nature of photography has changed as technology advanced. Why not utilize the medium this culture is beginning to embrace?

Sure, the photograph above is not a one shot wonder, but I wouldn't place it in a different category. It's the digital age. Embrace it.

second home

The photography lab is my second home. I've was there for the past 12 hours only to find myself disheartened after many failed attempts at making a print.

I was talking to one of my classmates, who is a grad student, and mentioned how I failed miserably for a 12 hour workday. He then interrupted me and said, "Failed what? You got something done! You're on the right track so you didn't fail; you're only closer to your goal."

So I thought it was cheesy talk in the beginning, but he kept saying it over and over to me the more disgruntled I got. It hit home then.

One of the joys of being an artist, I've found, is the lack of "failure." What I mean by that is, we all work hard in the lab/studio and while our work may not be considered "perfect," the process of creating the work is art as well.

My initial thought of failure was driven by how much film/photo paper I would use yet, not have a perfect print. The monetary aspect of it became a bigger deal than the process of making the art using the materials. I won't lie; photography isn't cheap and if I keep on "messing up" my prints, it only creates a bigger hole in my wallet. It's a worry, but it should be the least of my worries.

Rather than looking at what I'm losing, I need to start looking at everything else I am gaining.

brutal honesty

Slowly, but surely, this blog is doing what I want it to do. Well, at least I'm getting some participation and it is really helping me. Thanks. :)

There's an article about photography and digital re-imaging that I will be writing about soon, so keep posted.

*****

While taking color photography last semester, a friend of mine had, what I thought was, great conceptual work that I actually understood for the first time. Honestly, conceptual art is not my forte, so to see something which actually caught my attention is a big thing. (Side note: this is another one of those entries which expresses my frustrations with professors).

Well, to start off, we were given the "freedom" to photograph whatever we wanted to - a semester long project, you can say. My friend is a musician and figured to incorporate his two passions and put up semi-installations for his project. Since, I don't have photos, I'll try my best to describe the experience.

One project, in particular, he used a tripod and shot a series of photo of a girl dancing to a song in shack or abandoned home. As a part of his presentation, he put up his iPod and headphones along with the photos so we, as the viewers, could take part in that experience. The figure was usually a blur of movement, which I thought looked beautiful. I agree there were some technical/compositional issues, but overall, I didn't think the project deserved a "C".

For the sake of keeping this short, he received a "C" on every single project last semester. I saw him working in the lab constantly, yet, his work was considered "half-assed." He took on every suggestion from the professor, but never saw an improvement on his grade or critique.

Eventually, for his final project, he decided to abandoned his semester long project and take on a satirical approach to what he was taught throughout the semester (which was nothing along the lines of constructive criticism). He took a series of photos with captions underneath, and each caption was a quote from the professor or something along the lines of "after some artist, probably William Eggleston..." (side note: there were certain artists that were constantly ingrained into our heads and that was William Eggleston and Nan Goldin, which was why he referred to them).

I thought compositionally and technically, this was his best project. The idea behind is was so... honest. He was showing his frustration through his art, and it showed. I thought it was brilliant. Apparently, the professor didn't think so and took it very offensively.

Now, I think if we create art that raises such emotions: confusion, anger, laughter, etc, in a sense, we have succeeded as artists. It's better than someone looking at your work and simply turning their head away without a thought in the world. I feel like that's what I was taught in art school. To be challenged by the art that you see; to feel uncomfortable; to feel anything but nothing.

So what was the verdict on his final project?

"C."

freedom of expression vs. guidelines

A few weeks ago, I opened up my semester project idea and our class came into a pretty good discussion about the freedom of expression versus guidelines.

Someone said, "Guidelines often help push us as artists and gets us to think outside of our comfort zone."

While I agree with that statement, I feel it is somewhat contradictory. We are forced to think outside of our comfort zones and create this "new" art that defines us and expresses our interpretation of the project. So it's this mixture of freedom of expression and guidelines.

I don't have a problem with guidelines. I have a problem with professors giving an entirely subjective critique based on whether they like the work or not.

I have found professors will gravitate towards a student's work that is most like theirs. Perhaps it's the natural thing to do. You will immediately be drawn to works you find interesting and inspiring; however, why is there such a bias? Is this how all professors base who is their favorite and who gets the better grade?

Several years ago, I was taking a figure drawing course (and mind you, I absolutely suck at anything that is hand drawing) and I was having a tough time getting started in the class. Everyone else knew how to do gesture drawings while I was in my corner making stick figures. Throughout the semester, I grew tremendously. I learned how to quickly draw gestures, shade, build form and mass of the body. The professor saw this improvement, yet at the end of the semester, I never got the grade I had hoped nor a constructive critique. Everyone else got the attention and I was left in the dark, or at least that's how I felt.

I followed guidelines and I grew, but I never got the appreciation from the professors. I decided to do things my way, and I grew even more and began to receive responses - though not much constructive criticism.

What am I doing wrong?

placing a value on art

I came across this funny/interesting article from TIME.

While quite amusing to read such unfortunate accidents, I was wondering how a value is placed on a particular piece of art.

I understand these works of arts are hundreds of years old, and perhaps a catalyst to a particular art movement; but, is it the artist that places such a value on these pieces? Is it the current owner of the painting or those people who want to bid on the work of art?

There are some artist's whose works I never got around to understand.

• Mark Rothko
• Jackson Pollock
• Ad Reinhardt (specifically "Black Painting")

This is just to name a few.

I recall sitting in my art history lectures studying paintings by such artists. Now, perhaps it's my ambivalence towards this genre of art, but I never understood why these were such fascinating artworks. Sure, there is a ton of meaning attached to each painting, but is that all it takes? A simple painting with an elaborate meaning attached to it?

Take all I say after this with a grain of salt, please.

I remember when I was in kindergarten, I played with paint in my art class. I splashed different colors onto the canvas using the flick of my wrist and unknowingly, I was following in the footsteps of Jackson Pollock. I do think I painted several boxes on a canvas as well. There goes Mark Rothko. Could this have marked a legendary career in art for me?

Honestly, I don't understand it. Does everyone in the art school find this as fascinating as the professors.. profess? What am I missing here? Can I dig up my old paintings from elementary school and receive the same praise as these famous artists?

Please, someone enlighten me.

refreshed

I've been taking large format photography this semester, and so far, it's been probably the most refreshing classes I've taken in a while. My professor, Ben Reynolds, has been very open about the assignments. He knows it's a learning experience and has been quite understanding of my many mishaps.

I've always had long, drawn out critiques. It's really not my style to spend 15 minutes per person for critique and arguing (debating) about how the photo doesn't give the right "feeling". I've had previous professors talk about how certain works did not convey what the assignment called for. I don't understand how they can come to that conclusion. Granted, maybe there's a sense of integrity behind it where the student should take carefully planned out photos; they shouldn't just shoot some random subject the last minute and try to think of some great artist statement that will fit along the lines of the given assignment. But, when it comes to me, I usually carefully plan and take photos; yet, the professor never seemed to get a "feel" for them and during critique, I rarely heard suggestions on how to better what I wanted to convey. It's always "great photo" or "I don't feel it."

In large format, my professor goes through each group of photos and gives us the option of saying something about it. He then critiques on technical aspects and how we can use lighting, camera positions, etc to make the photo stand out more. If we failed to meet the assignment guidelines, he won't say the picture sucks; rather, he'll point out areas where we succeeded, and areas where we need to better for the next time around. It's very constructive criticism. I think I'm getting better each time and it's because he helps us to be better. He doesn't just throw us out hoping we'll figure it out for ourselves.

This semester in general has been refreshing. I'm able to really take time during my classes to discover myself as an art project. For far too long, I've been catering to what everyone else thought was art that I ended up not building myself up as an artist.

If anyone has any articles they'd find helpful to me during my quest of "searching for my identiy as an artist", please pass them along.

hiatus

I've been away from this blog, but I have not forgotten about it.

My thoughts are in a chaotic mess.

My grandmother passed away this weekend, so I'm taking some time away to spend with the family. I will continue to write after family matters have settled down.