Reality Reconstructed

Many years ago, one of the lectures I gave in a Photojournalism course I taught at the college was titled, “A Photograph:  Tangible Proof An Event Has Occurred.”  The hypothesis being, that if a photograph of an event existed, that was proof conclusive that particular event did in fact occur.  It was a lecture meant to drive home the obligation a photojournalist had to be truthful in how they documented a particular event.  

Of course that was in the day when doctoring an image produced on film took hours to accomplish and in the end could really only produce a mediocre and obvious alteration. 

 Today, digital photography and its attendant after-capture processing, challenges the viewer’s assumptions that just because we have a photographic image before us, does not necessarily mean that we are seeing a true representation of reality.  Of all the art forms that exist, photography is the one we can most likely expect to represent the world as it exists.  But does it really?

 A creative photographer can modify reality by the way he approaches, responds and ultimately records the subject.  Anais Nin, the French-Cuban writer said,  “We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."

 Consider for a moment the options a photographer has in front of them when making an image, all of which reflect in one way or another the photographer’s creative intent: f-stop (selective focus), shutter speed (how motion is recorded), composition, lighting, vantage point, lens choice.  And add to these options the 1000’s of possibilities that exist with after-capture processing.  

 Now, introduce the viewer into the equation.  That is, how the viewer now interprets or reconstructs the image the photographer has put in front of them.

 Grosse and Shapiro in The Tao of Photography describe the process with this example:   “Once we become generally aware that photographs “lie,” it is instructive to learn how these lies come about.”  They go on to relate a story about Picasso painting a portrait of a woman in front of her husband.  The husband becoming increasingly agitated said the developing painting did not look like his wife.  To which Picasso apparently replied, “What does your wife look like then?”  The husband produced a photograph of his wife from his wallet and pointing to the photograph said, “That’s how she looks.”  

 Picasso’s response:  “Oh really!  Small isn’t she.”

 We maintain this illusion that a photograph is a true and accurate representation of reality, yet a photograph is first made (constructed) by the photographer with all of the creative tools at their disposal, and then that same photograph is then RE-constructed, subjectively in the viewer’s mind with all of their historical references, perceptions and biases.

So where does all of this lead us?  Once a photographer realizes the interpretive, (constructive) nature of photography, a whole new world of creativity opens up.  Now the photographer is no longer constricted by an expectation that a photograph must be a literal representation or documentation or a true record of the real world, but is rather freed to visualize and interpret that world however she sees fit.  

 As Elliot Erwit, the Magnum photographer put it, “To me photography is an art of observation.  It’s about finding something interesting in an ordinary place.  I’ve found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them.”