A Frame of Reality

“Digital photography appears to complicate and even to mock the desire for immediacy that traditional photography promises to satisfy.”

For this blog I chose to base it on this one statement the author makes for one simple reason: I keep getting contradicting thoughts every time I think of its meaning. At least in my head I feel like my thoughts are fighting each other. Hopefully as I write it will actually make sense and I’ll be able to reach an acceptable conclusion.

Thought number one: The purpose of photography, whether digital or analog, is to show a moment in reality. Some people may ask what about photo-shoots? Aren’t they staged? Even if it is a photo-shoot, the photo-shoot was a real moment in life.

Thought number two: Digital photography is making the pictures even more real. As the technology advances cameras seem to capture detail and color in a way that improve the quality of the picture hence making it even more real.

Thought number three: I simply don’t see digital photography mocking the desire for immediacy that traditional photography intends, but I do see why it appears to complicate it.  True, digital photography seems to give more reasons for the audience to raise the question, is this picture real?

Thought number four: I always thought that part of photography was to be able to capture the necessary depth to convey the audience of its realism in despite of just being a piece of paper (picture print)?

In today’s world I just don’t see how it is possible to achieve immediacy in mediums like digital photography, television or film. Still I don’t think that is an excuse for the artist not to try to achieve realism while capturing the picture. Photography has evolved a lot since it started, especially in its availability to the consumer. Basically anyone can afford and use a camera. Sure it won’t be a professional nor will everyone become an amazing photographer, but the basic concept could be understood. In terms of altering the picture, software’s are available to anyone that has access to some computer. Yet, that doesn’t give the right to the artist to alter the photograph in order to alter the truth with the purpose of deceiving the audience.

From my point of view digital photography is able to reach immediacy with or without alteration. Photographs that are intended to capture the reality of the moment maybe alter to actually accomplish that intention. There is a difference when the pictures are alter to make a person look different, add something to the picture, or remove something form the picture. In those instances the picture will portray deceiving moment of reality when the picture was taken. Now most of the times is easy to tell these alteration occurred, but when they are not easy to tell is when it affects the trust audiences have in digital photography.

I think, like in everything, due to the misuse of the new technology in media that becomes available it affects the validity of what is done right. No matter what people are going to raise questions whenever new technology arises, and that is valid I think it helps in improving the technology and maintaining its credibility as well. When photography started theorists argue in favor of it by saying it had the objectivity painting could not have. That’s true; the camera captures exactly what your eyes see. Of course you choose what you see, but that doesn’t change the fact that what you capture existed. This is where digital photography and all of its tools available to alter affect the art of photography. With alteration the picture wont necessary show something that actually existed, and due to that the picture loses it realism therefore losing it immediacy. At the same careful alteration can actually help achieve in showing a more perfect picture of something that existed. Fixing the color or light in pictures most of the times is not done to change how it actually looked but to get the exact same look. Due to different reasons a picture can come out different in color than the color in the moment the picture was taken.

Now when alteration is used with the purpose of the audience being aware of it like the example the author gives of the work Truth and Fiction I don’t think it makes digital photography less real. The artist makes it with the purpose of showing its audience a hidden reality that perhaps couldn’t be photograph, or it wouldn’t be as powerful. Here the artist is making its audience aware of how he has altered the picture and with which purpose. He never intended for the audience to believe his pictures were real. I think this work shows how digital photography is giving this art ways to portray realities that sometimes are just hard to capture in a moment. It’s almost like digital photography is giving us the chance to create metaphors with images just like with words.

All in all I don’t think digital photography is trying to mock the traditional promise photography promise to give to its audience. I understand why it makes it more complicated. But then again all the media in the web, has complicated every old media. Is just part of media evolving and all these questioning and complication are probably the best thing that could have happen because it forces any new media to be used for more good than bad.  Digital photography has given the artist new tools to capture the most incredible moments in time. It is in the artist to seize the reality of the photograph and continue with its art or to alter so much it just becomes a lost/forgotten photograph.