Outside The Norm: Photography

Welcome to my photographic visions

Greetings,

What makes a photograph? Technically a photograph is a recording (whether captured digitally or on film) of reality for a relatively brief moment in time.

What changes a photograph from a mere recording of what the eye can see - a snapshot of reality and into art? Here we begin to leave the technical and move into the subjective. For me, the answer is a combination of light, focus and time - well understood these concepts allow one to show the absolute of what is present in a way which transcends the ordinary. A photograph that you will remember elicits something in the you - an emotion of some form, it stands out because it shows something unusual, or shows the ordinary in an atypical way.

Are the evoked emotions/thoughts what the photographer intends? Definitely not - the emotions and thoughts that you feel when you see a photograph are your own, colored by your past - what you feel and think is a reflection of yourself and your upbringing and no more. A photograph can trigger emotional harm in a you, but the photograph is no more responsible for it than the knife you may use to cut your own wrist - nor is the photographer any more responsible for the thoughts and emotions that occur within you than the knife maker is for your choice to open your wrist as how you use/treat each is entirely up to you.

Is digital manipulation cheating? In my opinion, unequivicably not. A photograph is an artistic expression using reality as a template, any and every tool available should be used in order for the photographer to create what they wish to show. The manipulation begins as soon as one opens the shutter on the camera. The duration of the exposure, the angle of the camera to the subject, the aperture of the lens, the choice of film/dgital sensitivity all contribute to begin the distortion of reality - and when one begins to direct the setting and control the lighting, well there reality has no remaining chance. Then film or digital, the way that the initial capture is then developed and printed opens even more possibilities.

What is porn? Here we go, another incredibly slippery argument and one with no right or wrong answer as it is the viewer alone that applies that label - and most often without an understanding of why. Whilst I'm not sure that I've figured it all out for myself, todays thought process is thus:
First - what is the typical emotions that an image that is classified as porn evokes? Well... shame, disgust and revulsion seem to be some obvious choices. So what evokes that - in me, show me a picture of a murdered body, someone getting killed, someone who neglects to care for themselves - obesity, indulgence in drugs/alcohol/smoking... heck, even show me a politician and I'll feel those things - but maybe I'm the only sane one here?

So, if we can't go by the emotions invoked by an image, perhaps we can find some other way - porn is quite often associated with the depection of genitalia, however showing any part of anatomy is no more right or wrong than any other - a nose is no different than a nipple is no different than an elbow is no different than a penis or labia is no different than a finger - what you can see is all the same organ - skin. Further the depiction of genitalia alone is not sufficient to get an image classified as porn - not even the depiction of human genitalia, as there are a great many images out there in publication which depict these things that are not so labeled. So what is showing is obviously not the answer, at least to me.

Ultimately though, attempting to judge the intent of the photographer through mere viewing of their work is akin to attempting to judge the intent of a plastic surgeon.

Is a black and white image more artistic than a color one? Please... no. Nor is a color image intrinsically more artistic than a black and white one.

Thanks again,

Norm