Last December, I send around a forum topic that said the following:
What if we used the CCC Forums to inspire one another in our pursuit of art?
Here's my proposition: When one of us comes across an inspiring thought--either one from something we've read or heard, or from our own musings--we post it to this forum and ask others think about it and respond, if moved to do so.
I'll start things off with something from Susan Sontag and her book On Photography:
"There can be--and should be--art in every photo, no matter how mundane the subject. Add something--anything--of yourself to the image."
We got only one response to this posting. So, determined as I am, I'll give you something else to think about, with hopes that you share any thoughts that you have as a result. Here goes:
Philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, in a footnote in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea--Evolution and the Meanings of Life, said this: I overheard a guide at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, commenting on the Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington: "This may not be what George Washington looked like then, but this is what he looks like now."
My question to you, is, does this have any relevance to your photography?
Gerry
The wonders of post processing!
Yes! And I'm wondering how far our members think it's "proper" to go with post-processing (whoever came up with that awful term?), i.e., photo editing (better, yes??).
And to continue in a philosophical vein, here's what Immanuel Kant has to say about it: "Where the question is whether something is beautiful, we do not want to know, whether we, or anyone else, are, or even could be, concerned in the real existence of the thing."
As one who enjoys portrait photography, it's very relevant. As we age our memories fade, or worse, morph into something that never happened. For example, I have no clue how bratty I was as a two-year-old, or as a teenager. Was I bratty? No clue. Eventually our memories may be dominated--or completely eclipsed--by the photographs we have of ourselves way back when. A photographer friend pointed out, when we look into the lens (as a subject) we are looking into the future. We are looking at our future selves and others who will be looking back at us.
Photos of people we never knew at the time the photos were taken become the Truth. That's what they looked like as far as we're concerned. What they "really" looked like no longer exists.
Love it, Rob.
The George Washington comment is funny. All sorts of portraits from the before photography era were, let's say, kind to the subjects. I think there are some pretty well documented examples, but thinking about GW... my family went to Mt. Vernon a year or two ago and of course heard the story about his ongoing dental issues which are somewhat captured in the portraits by way of the closed mouth and somewhat lumpy jawline. I have wondered how well I would recognize any of the famous faces from back then if I were to go back in time and meet them in real life.
It’s one of the reasons I really love early photography. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve certainly erased a zit or two in my day, but the ways in which wet plate photography captures a subject is really so beautiful. There’s stories in every scar after all!
Adam Savage of “Mythbusters” did a really interesting live tintype with the photographer Michael Schindler, which I enjoy watching every once in a while.
So, everyone, how does all this relate to how far you're willing to go in modifying your photos with software?