Responding to Ritchin [chapter 8]

To preface, Ritchin has felt incredibly repetitive these last few chapters. I understand his emphasis on a hypertext, a hyper-reality that incorporates the realm of digital photography. But I am not finding the chapters different enough from one to another. In every chapter he throws in a [or multiple] statements about a curious viewer who may mouse over an image and more would be revealed. He almost as often mentions how many websites, projects, and shows, that he was personally part of........................................................End preface, I just had to get that out.

I think what I enjoyed most about this chapter was thinking about how photojournalists and the media record events and how we view those events through the photography that is presented to us. When I looked at the two images [viewpoints] of American troops invading Haiti in 1994 part of me is angry at the audacity of journalists to 'stage' such shots [as the top image is shown to be staged via the bottom image]. But it really only takes a minute for my rage to be replaced by sheer embarrassment that I have yet again believed that I understood an event through ONE single image. What a fool I am, we all are when we believe in the 'truth' of imagery from the media, especially that concerning politics and war. Ritchin pulls the perfect quote from Benjamin Bradlee saying:

"...What is actually happening that is being described by the media? Is Somalia being assulted in the predawn dark by crack U.S. troops? Or are bewildered GIs being photographed by freelance photographers who have been waiting for them for hours? The difference is often critical."

Bradlee is speaking of 'double images' of which nearly all non-computer generated photographs are. Every photo shot 'forward' through a viewfinder also had a view behind and to either side of the camera. But we hardly ever get more than that one view presented to us. As viewers we have to be careful of making too grand of assumptions about an event just because of one image [even when accompanied by captions because they too can be incorrect].

I like the idea of allowing subjects to have a say in how they are portrayed in the images of documentation [or to allow local subjects to document themselves]. To do so may allow for less errors in interpretation about a specific person or groups of peoples. Indeed a nice thought, but as we see how others are portrayed (through Facebook, blogs, fashion magazines, etc) we often try to create our own like image. In imitating those imitations are we really portraying our true selves then?

And finally I come back again to thinking about the purpose of the media and photojournalists working in war, poverty, famine, and diseased areas. I will admit that I am a skeptic. I do not know the intentions of the photographers, nor how they came about their imagery (faked, staged, ill-gotten gained, etc.), nor if the captions are true, nor if the image has been digitally enhanced, nor if I really have any right to view the [gruesome, heartbreaking, outrageous, etc.] image they returned with. There are so many variables to contemplate when considering an image from the media. And so many ways that images can inspire help, and so many that breed destruction and hatred within our culture and others.

Responding to Ritchin [Chapter 7]

I enjoyed reading about “The Social Photograph”. I think that the beginning quote sums up part of my thought on photography in that I do not care where a photograph falls (art, documentary, journalism, commercialism) so much as I care about what it says to/about society. It is just like language and text. In the realm of the written word science, fiction, politics, religion, etc, are composed. All have very different purposes, yet are all written/recorded through the use of language/text. Photography too can be used one day as a documenter, the next as a writer of fiction. I think that is okay so long as we view photographs with an open mind and try to understand what we are looking at, how it was made, and the purpose behind the image.

I believe that photography can be (and has been, as Ritchin demonstrates) an incredible tool in bringing social situations to light. I think that what Ritchin demonstrates well in this chapter is the complex nature of actually shooting, sharing, and receiving photographic images of social issues. When it comes to the photographer, how do we trust his/her intent, view, that the scene was found and not composed, that the story recorded in captions are accurate? When it comes to the sharing/publication/distribution of imagery how do we trust that an image in view is original and is not a reproduction/enhanced version of the original? How do we trust authenticity? Again, how do we trust the story/captions that accompany the image? Finally, when it comes to us (the viewer) how do we trust our own reading of the image? How do we know that our own views of the world will not interfere and cloud our vision of what has been presented to us?

I believe that the internet too is as complex in nature as photography. It is hard to always know where the information presented on our screen falls in terms of fiction, truth, altered truth. When the internet and photography combine and together pump out more bits, bytes, and imagery than we can handle (which it does) then we begin to filter out the overload. Sometimes we mean to, sometimes we cannot help it. As I read I do keep coming back to the idea of hypertext. I believe that as negatively as we may view combining photographic imagery and hypertext we cannot escape that reality, and in fact we already live there. (Cyber) physically linked or not, definitions, captions, and personal viewer recounts and interpretations will be applied upon an online image. We will grasp a single word within the caption or webpage, or the photographer’s name, or the geographic location, and will continue searching for additional information to either further understand that specific photograph or to add to our knowledge of the world at large (inspired by the image). Either way, everything that we learn after that image will in some way refer back to it. We are already always applying information that the author did not specifically intend.

Responding to Ritchin [chapter 6]

What I kept coming back to in this chapter was the ideas/possibilities of using a collective everyone to create art, pictorial data bases, etc in photography. That is where we are in the realm of technology – computers, cameras, and editing software are all affordable and available to the masses [not just those with money and ‘training’]. The ability to teach oneself anything one needs to know about photography can be found on the internet. Finally, the ability to self publish [whether virtually or in print] is also available through free and low-cost programs; i.e. editing (Photoshop, GIMP), book formats (blurb), prints (mpix, online galleries that handle printing, packaging, shipping for others who want to purchase one’s prints), and online domains (blogs, Facebook, Flikr, etc).

::FACEBOOK::

Going along with the idea of society as collective contributors and Ritchin’s idea of ‘conversation’ and virtual reality I believe that we can already see the virtual reality that we live and breathe through. For me it always comes back to Facebook (but there are blogs, myspace, Youtube, and others too) – the virtual land where everyone has to post where they are, what they look like, who they are with, what they plan to do, and most importantly what they are thinking and or feeling. Where we used to be content having one on one conversations we now have to format that conversation so EVERYONE that we are ‘friends’ with can also see how that conversation went down. We feel the need to compulsively post photographs of ourselves through a bathroom mirror (sometimes 1000+ images of a single person on their own account). *

Earlier this term I was stuck in Eugene while the community I grew up in (and surrounding areas, family members, etc) was land-locked between two slides with flood waters rising around lower residences. Feeling helpless I found myself checking Facebook constantly to see status and photographic postings updating everyone as to what was going on and where. It was an entirely new world than the last large flood (in 1996) where texts, FB posts and images could all be utilized to either ask for help or ask what help was needed in the community. It felt altogether a bit safer knowing the networking/communication that was occurring to meet everyone’s needs. I could tell, however, exactly when the electricity would go out in the area because the FB postings would stop. Honestly (and pathetically)a very eerie feeling would occur, as if something were really wrong (rather than a simple and normal power outage during such circumstances) and I became amazed to realize how much I have come to depend on this type of technology. During that same time period Corvallis’ local newspaper, The Gazette Times, implemented a live news blog that allowed for anyone to post questions and answers about road and area conditions (also very fascinating to witness).

*DISCLAIMER: I am absolutely 100% guilty of that which I mentioned above…While I am commenting on the ridiculous nature of our virtual culture I also accept that I am part of and have helped encourage that culture.

Scan baby scan

While the end result of scanning [wet mount & dry mount] a single 4X5 B&W negative were visually very similar, I believe that I like the end image created after the dry mount scanning process:

IDEA :: Into the final project [quick layout options]

IDEA :: Into the final project

I would like to continue exploring an idea about the space that we inhabit everyday. I am not entirely sure still what I am searching for, but I know that this time around I would like to center my images around windows [as barriers from where we exist in one instant, from that space which is outside/on the other side of that plane]. This idea [or rather focus this time around] is stemming from last term when I was so over whelmed with where I was trying to go that I had to give up and simply look. I found transparent windows and I found that they are really not transparent at all.

For this project I want to set up rules to create this body of work :: all images must be taken through a window of some sorts. I want to again get into the habit of just looking and recording. I do want to expand the subject matter beyond that which is stuck to the window however. I want to expand beyond the shallow depth of field I was using previously. I cannot exactly say that which I want to photograph, but I am accumulating ideas about travel, decay, portraits.

Responding to Ritchin [Chapter 5]

As I began to read Ritchin’s fifth chapter in ‘After Photography’ my mind immediately wandered to thoughts about some of the first war photographers and the truth of the imagery they produced:

[1855, ROGER FENTON, The Valley of Death] - http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/4/33950.jpg
This image was a documentary photograph of the Crimean War that was enhanced by physically rolling more canon balls (than were originally present) into the scene.

[1863, ALEXANDER GARDNER, Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter] - http://photohistory.jeffcurto.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/gardner_homerebelsharpshooter.jpg
This second image was a documentary photograph from the Civil War which was enhanced by physically moving the fallen soldier and adding military props to create an image of more impact.

Photo manipulation (when those two images were created) was not what it is today, yet still those images are not completely honest about the wars they represented. If documentary war photography was not able to tell the truth in the very beginning of its existence, then how can we (in light of the digital, Photoshop, Internet world that we live in) expect them to now? I am not saying that all war photographers/photographs lie, but I am saying that the nature of war photography can be construed on so many levels that it is hard to pick out the images of truth from those that were shot or created with other intentions. Governments use imagery as propaganda, as excuse to place soldiers in other countries, as ‘proof’ of one thing or another. Photographers themselves may manipulate/compose imagery simply for shock value to gain photographic fame. Newspapers may combine text and imagery to tell a good story regardless of what was actually going on at that time and place. Finally, on the most local and accessible level, we, as photographic consumers and internet users, may arbitrarily appropriate found imagery to combine with our own sayings, wording, rumors, etc. These images are taken out of context only to be combined in another which may or may not exist. [I was using just war photography for these examples, but obviously political photographs (any imagery that gets pumped through the media to the masses) occur in exactly the same way]

I have always been torn about war photography. Even ‘true’ images (projecting a people in pain) used to help end a war were most likely used without the consent of those just devastated. Who has the right to photograph humans like such and then exploit them to the world? Why do governments get the right to broadcast certain images to prove why we need to occupy another country, yet will not allow the images that prove at what cost we are there? Why should we as the masses get to see any war imagery - will not these photos be the such a small side of the story yet our interpretations of an entire scenario will be based on those images and accompanying text (which may or may not be true)?

I have too many questions and doubts about documentary war/political photography to be comfortable believing anything these days.

Responding to Ritchin [Chapter 4]

Digital photography IS different than analog. There are similarities obviously, but the way in which one creates digital images and the way that viewers read and interact with them on an illuminated screen are far different than the flat physical pieces of print that analog provided. The internet provides imagery and then re-provides and re-provides and re-provides [the same image, or hundreds plus variations of essentially the same one].

All I can think about is the interacting ‘metadata’-like idea/form that Ritchin was purposing for thought. Part of me thinks yes, finally a way to embed a universal form that allows photographers to say everything they want about an image that will follow the image, linked and forever inseparable. No one would ever be able to read it the image wrong right? Wrong. This is a world of digital manipulation. To add a linked form containing all the ’truths’ of an image would invite just as much manipulation as the image does once it is put in the large web of the internet. The idea kind of gives me the same panic as I already feel about placing my photography online - how might it all be used one day (and then get shown as my doing)?

ring around the ring around