Will the debate ever end?
Yesterday I visited a photographer who showed me an image created by Henry Peach Robinson a photographer born in 1830, best known for his pioneering combination printing of joining multiple negatives to form a single image, the precursor to photomontage or composite photography. Photography was in it’s infancy in the early 1800′s but even then artists had begun to experiment with manipulating the photographic image. According to Wikipedia Oscar Gustave Rejlander was the first photographer to establish this art in 1857, a year earlier than Robinson. Quoting from the Amica library:
Robinson began his career as a painter and became interested in photography in 1852. In 1857 he opened a portrait studio. A leading exponent of photography as a fine art, Robinson is best known for his composite photographs. Constructed through a process of design similar to painting, these images were produced by first assembling several individual photographs and then rephotographing them into a final composition. They were particularly popular with the Victorian public, in part for their sentimental content. Robinson’s manipulative approach, however, raised hotly contended questions among critics and artists.
Reading this I had to smile. Just about every day I run into a photographer who has a view that if the whole photographic image was not in front of the lens when the shutter was pressed then the image is NOT a photograph. This debate has obviously been going on for over 150 years. It is evident that I personally enjoy experimenting with photography as an art form and keep a very open mind to new styles and ways of developing images, (even when they are not new). What I find baffling is why this is still an issue. It must be because we as humans are very passionate about what we believe and feel. That passion spills over and creates the never ending debate; Mac vs. PC, Canon vs. Nikon, Film vs. Digital, Twitter vs. FaceBook.
I am genuinely interested in hearing from both sides of the fence here. Tell me why you feel a composite is not a photograph from an artistic perspective, not a documentary or news reporting one.
paraphrasing a photographer, ‘photography is not what I see; it is what I feel’
I wonder who said that George? It sums it up very well. Reminds me of something you might say actually.
Eh. A composite photograph is a photograph made from more than one exposure, isn’t it? Would seem to me the purist feels insecure, as if someone is taking something from him, or perhaps he feels like his, being pure, is really all there is.
When judging, in an art class, or in conversation, it is important to know and note the difference, if relevant. But when else is it relevant? On the idea that if an image in toto wasn’t in front of the camera at time of shutter release, then it isn’t a photograph, somewhat explains why some folks get left behind. When sunlight comes thru my window and lightens a part of my comforter, isn’t that a photograph too?
I think the key to it for many of us was the statement, “They were particularly popular with the Victorian public.” Some forward thinker was busy selling ‘photographs’ while some other thinker was fuming~
cheers~
Very good reply Tom. When sunlight comes through your window… based on that definition any interaction of “photons” with our reality is a graph. I like it.