I have long held the opinion that photography, like any other kind of creative art, tends to take its lead from nature and the world around us. If you ask a thoughtful or formally educated artist about the purpose of art, you might get an answer along the lines that art allows us to interpret our experience and make sense of our place in the world. Many years ago, I remember reading a book that described art as a way of taking possession of the world - in that sense, art allows us to understand our world and thus give the artist and those who view the art, some ownership in a word that can otherwise seem quite overwhelming at times.
I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed in that long ago read, and that is probably why it has stuck with me. Having said that, I think the creative process is also much more complex than any single thought can express. I think we also create art because we are esthetic creatures who have been given concepts such as beauty and ugliness. I think we create art because we are natural engineers who like to modify our environment. I think we create art because we are created in the image of God and are therefore creative ourselves.
The thing about art that one needs to understand right off, though, is that it is the result, or in some cases the process, of being creative. Art in whatever form it takes is as much a new thing as it is a facsimile of something that already exists. I think this is an understanding that painters and sculptors, and those who appreciate those forms, would understand almost intuitively - it can't be exclusively new or accurately representational. Strangely, when we move from such traditional forms to photography, we find that many practitioners and viewers hold to a different understanding. While no one would say that a painting is reality, it is remarkable how many people feel that a photograph is. Of course, no matter how an image is made, it can never be more than an interpretation of what it seeks to represent.
I wanted to talk about this today, because one of the potential problems I see with photography are people who insist on "reality".
"You shouldn't change that colour, or process that image, because it isn't real," is something many photographers have heard at one time or another. Of course, when one sits down and takes the time to understand that a photograph of a valley isn't a valley, then the senselessness of that statement becomes somewhat more clear.
An out of camera jpeg and a version processed through ACDSee Pro 5 from RAW. Which one better evokes the scene as viewed by the photographer? Shot with an Olympus E-30 and 9-18mm Zuiko Lens. Photos Copyright Christopher Wheeler. Do not use without the permission of the photographer.
"But, a photograph is supposed to represent the real world," may be the subsequent comment. Well, yes, a photograph is representational art, but so is a book that describes the lives of its characters. I am no philosopher, but it seems to me that much of what we create in art and science is in fact representational even if that relationship is not immediately obvious. Religions seek to uncover the mysteries of the universe through a search for God, and science despite its supposed logical detachment is in fact doing much the same.
Religious art seeks to represent something of the divine without blundering into the area of idolatry, while science, through math and an understanding of the laws that govern the universe, finds its own way of expressing the same. For a scientist or mathematician, an elegant and concise algorithm or formula may conjure a remarkable picture of the universe or represent a physical manifestation of the natural world more concisely and accurately than any image. Likewise an inspired piece of biblical text may evoke in the reader a profound image of life encompassing far more than any momentary experience.
Producing an image when the goal is realism cannot be accomplished simply by what the camera records. The camera is a product of science and engineering. It is a cold hard tool that responds only to light. The light passes through glass elements that redirect it and focus it onto a sensor. The sensor has more microscopic lenses that focus the photons into silicon wells where they create an electrical charge. The electrical charge is then quantified through the magic of electronics and reinterpreted on a small screen as a recorded visual image that emits light. This light then enters our eyes where it strikes nerves that send signals to the brain which then reinterprets the image. It is quite a process and one that emphasized how far removed the recorded image is from the scene it represents.
When one explores the world, what we see is not just informed by the photons that enter the eye, as the cameras image is by the light that contacts the sensor. Our prior experiences, our state of mind, and our other senses, to name a few contributory elements, all impact on how our minds interpret the scene. I for one, often find that no matter how good the camera, its results seldom describe with any real impact, the profound beauty of the view that propelled me to take the photo in the first place. The colours are hardly ever as saturated, the vista never feels as immense, the range never as dramatic, and the detail is never revealed to the same extent. If I were to leave such a photo as the camera "saw" it, then I would have a poor representation of reality to share with others.
An out of camera jpeg and a version processed through ACDSee Pro 5 from RAW. Which one better evokes the scene as viewed by the photographer? Shot with a Canon 7D and 15-85mm Canon Lens. Photos Copyright Christopher Wheeler. Do not use without the permission of the photographer.
Post processing is one way that the modern photographer seeks to recreate something of the mystery and magic of their own vision in the final work. You start with a RAW file from the camera and then you tweak it in a effort to reveal the beauty that was there. Then there are photographers who push photos beyond the threshold of mere visual reproduction. They want to evoke the emotion of their experience, which is no less real for them than a cold image uninformed by human experience or feeling.
The truth is that we all see the same scene quite differently. There is no one reality! If you don't believe this, ask a crime investigator. He will tell you that three honest witnesses, all of whom saw the same crime take place, will each tell a different story. None is lying, but all saw something that was interpreted differently by their minds because each was, in fact, a different person.
Photography, as an arm of art, records the visual world. Sometimes this is the visual world that we are familiar with as in street, landscape, or portrait photography, and sometimes it records the less familiar as in macro-photography or astrophotography. Whatever the subject matter, what one sees is unique to that person, and how one represents it, to be honest and accurate, must also be unique.
So, in conclusion, my message today is don't get hung up on whether or not the photograph looks "real enough" to you but consider it as a representation of the artist's vision, as something unique and special in its own right. If then you can say, "I love this!" So much the better. If not, well, that's honesty and there's no fault in that.
