Subjective and Objective Perspectives of Photography - Essay Example

Subjective and Objective Perspectives of Photography Comment: ‘No matter what social role an image plays, the creation of an image through a camera lens always involves some degree of subjective choice through selection, framing, and personalization. All camera-generated images, be they photographic, cinematic, or electronic (video or computer-generated), bear the cultural legacy of still photography, which historically has been regarded as a more objective practice than, say, painting or drawing. This combination of the subjective and the objective is a central tension in camera- generated images.’ [MaritaSturken and Lisa Cartwright (2001), Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p.16.] This quotation mentions a highly debated argument of the twenty-first century- the challenge associated with the reliability of camera generated imagery and its contrast with paintings. Photographs have the tendency to mould our thinking in a way we never dreamt of. Following is a critical analysis of this comment about subjective and objective perspectives of photography. In recent years awareness about the nature of camera imagery made people change their stereotypical views regarding the issue. In order to support my essay I have quoted references from related literature to further elaborate this viewpoint. “Photographic images have historically enjoyed, in our societies, a unique role, based for the most part on their supposed credibility. They have been acknowledged to offer a truthful visual representation of the world and our societies accept it as truth sentences such as "Photographs don't lie," "A picture is worth a thousand words," and "Seeing is believing" (Garvard, 1999). Camera generated images experience a subjective overtone together with automatic and mechanised actions involved in photography. Over the years images have played a unique role in different societies because of the evidence that they are real representations of the events being captured. The main criticismis againstthe idea of believing what you see in a photograph as the images are not logically true. Rather, they are treated according to the aspiration of the photographer in order to assimilate certain meanings to them. With the passage of time and with technological advancement photographers manipulate the photo with subjective elements like personalisation and framing. There is also a personal touch to photographs, as photographers project their own opinions into the image from choosing what to shoot to managing the picture’s background. They adjust the photograph the way they consider appropriate, not how it should be randomly shot. Creation of images through lens of a camera is a somewhat subjective process being interpreted by the photographer himself. Let’s first discuss the general authorised view of camera imagery. Camera generated Images - Still photography: All images produced by a camera whether electronic or cinematic fall under the cultural domain of still photography. It is the branch which enjoys the privilege of having an upper hand to paintings and sketches in terms of objectivity mainly due to the reason that the images are captured, not perceived by a person’s mind. Cameras are self-adjusted to focus a particular area by the user. Other manipulative contents included in still photography are the adjustment of light and shadowetc.Even aesthetic appeal can also be introduced in a photograph by setting the frame in focus. However the sole responsibility of altering the original phenomenon lies completely on the photographer. He is the final decision maker to initiate biased results in rendered images. Precedence of camera imagery over paintings: By historically contrasting a painting and camera imagery we are able to deduce that images generated by camera had higher value in terms of being specific. The advent of photography resulted in a major setback in the on-going visual circle of imagery prevalent in society.All camera generated images are considered objective in comparison to paintings and drawings.Over the passage of time images have been used to convey different types of emotions. Images represent our abstract concepts and imagination better than any language or text. In past, most feelings were expressed in the forms of paintings. So what made people put a higher value to photography as a mode of expression? Twentieth century critic Bazin makes a comparison between photography and painting in his essay, “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” by commenting: “Originality in photography as distinct from originality in painting lies in the essentially objective nature of photography. For the first time, between the originating object and its reproduction there intervenes only the instrumentality of a non-living agent. For the very first time an image of the world is formed automatically, without the creative intervention of man” (Gavard, 1999). Another characteristic embedded in the comment that distinguishes photograph from a painted canvas is its haphazard recording of the events that appeared in front of the lens of camera whereas in painting an artist is free to choose whatever he wishes to include. A criticism associated with still photography is that it limits the viewer to capture only what is visible within the confines of the camera’s frame. “Since the early days of the new medium, critics have remarked on the photograph’s un-selectiveness or all-inclusiveness and linked it to the seemingly authorless quality of the photograph”(Horstkotte&Pedri, 2008, p.15). Photographs help to draw our attention to marginal details, the automatic inclusion of mundane activities within a photographic film often changes the way we perceive the world. It makes us realize the presence of items that usually gets unnoticed by the eye (Horstkotte&Pedri, 2008). In the “World Viewed”, Stanley Cavell (1971) repeated the same philosophy by saying: "Photography overcame subjectivity in a way under dreamed by painting, one which does not so much defeat the act of painting as escape it altogether: by automatism, by removing the human agent from the act of reproduction" (Garvard, 1999). But according to me, by thoroughly analysingthe progress and advent of photographic software, photography is nothing but the improved version of painting, as both aim to represent a moment. The only difference between the two is that a photographer can capture any moment almost immediately that he wishes to represent however a painter takes a much longer period of time in portraying a scene he wishes to signify. Photographs are thought to bring a closer synthesis of representation and reality than that of drawing, or painting, because the ability of camera lens to capture the point in time before it takes for the moment to pass, makes it in some way more believable. It becomes clear to us that photography is objective unlike other art mediums but what are the findings when we observe it in a broad spectrum? If we are to see everything in limelight than there will be no curiosity to search for facts. Photographs will fulfil our curious nature to know the truth but in a real world imagery may become a deceiving factor. By highlighting the subjective aspects of camera imagery we will likely be able to analyse this predicament further. Subjectivity involved while taking a photograph: Manipulation of photographs challenges the essence of photography as being objective.Camera generated images are constructed the way we wish to remember the world and how we would like to perceive it. “Through the act of stepping behind the lens of a camera and selecting how to structure one’s visual world, one is often, whether or not she is aware of it, being governed by specific expectations, including personal preferences, aesthetics and social conventions, of what is appropriate to be photographed, and in turn what is worthy of being reinforced in the ongoing creation of memory and self” (Anwandter, 2006, p.7). Sometimes the photographer makes changes in the original image to invoke interest of the viewers but stylised pictures cannot be an alternate for the truth behind an image. Photographer manages the subject matter, filters the scene before taking picture thus allowing changes in the nature of image. The creditability of camera images has suffered a great deal with the introduction of subjective and qualitative changes being made (Mullen, 1998, p.8). Sometimes events do not occur as planned; therefore the image generated from a camera is not self-explanatory. It does not give the vivid idea behind the plot. Therefore instead of adding a caption the photographer might be ironically compelled to manipulate the image to make the subject of the photograph easy to understand (Mullen, 1998, p.9). Were camera generated images always subjective? Although it is true that electronic cameras and newly developed software for editing images played a major part in image manipulation, we cannot ignore the fact that such manipulation was always there, it even existed in traditional methods. It is not something that emerged with the passage of time, it was already there but lay men were not aware of its existence. “Traditional, silver based photography has always been seen as a way to represent a “photographic truth”, yet even with long, tedious work in the dark room alongside the chemicals of the developer, stop and fix, darkroom photographers have the power to alter an image from the negative to the actual image projected on the photographic paper or surface. Photographers that work in the traditional form can flip, change the image to the negative, doge, burn, overexpose, underexpose, double exposed and even use colour tinting to adjust photographs”(Digital Camera, 2010). With the progress in technology, computer generated images have yielded a dual status (objective and subjective) to the imagery in general. This transfer in nature of imagery is a highly discussed debate which is as yet unresolved. Debate over the objectivity of Photography: How have camera generated images gained the privileged belief that they are the most authentic representatives of the facts? On what grounds does photography claim to be an objective mirror of realism? Advancement in digital imaging is a challenge to the objectivity of imagery. Therefore it is important to consider the answer to these questions if we are to deal with the current debate presented by the advanced technology itself (Garvard, 1999). Assumed as a separate entity, completely detached from human manipulations, camera imagery whether computer generated or video based became an argumentative issue in the middle of the eighteenth century when people began to question its reliability in the real world. The concept that “photograph is an unmediated copy of the real world, a trace of reality skimmed off the very surface of life” suddenly became vague with the preamble to processes of digital imaging” (Sturken and Cartwright, 2001). Let us take an example of a photograph being presented in a courtroom as a valid proof that certain event did happen at a particular time. Being the only voice of truth to be heard in mysterious and crucial circumstances, camera images were regarded a safe option to be trusted. Similarly visualising a particular event in a family photograph is actually evidence that it happened. A birthday party did take place; a person was present at a specific place sometime in past. Therefore by analysing the above mentioned predicaments we cannot totally deny the fact that photographic pictures are somewhat objective as well. “It has been widely acknowledged that some aspects of modernity have played a primary role in shaping photography as an objective representative medium. For nineteenth century people, the most valued representations were the ones realistic and objective in nature. Therefore, the apparently impartial eye of the camera happened to be the perfect instrument to achieve the naturalistic documentation characteristic of that era. Many early commentators of photography enthusiastically welcomed the invention and subscribed to the belief that photography was a medium of truth and accuracy, a guarantee of authenticity” (Gavard, 1999). The coherent understanding of camera generated imagery in the present era is mandatory. There is some hidden reality in the camera image presented. Photographs do help to document facts. They try to preserve moments of history to be viewed by the next generation. “Photographs are understood to be evidence of actual people, events and objects of the past, even though they are relatively easy to manipulate" (Sturken& Cartwright 2001, p. 362). General public normally considered camera generated images credible witness of truth because photos exposed the facts in true light, by capturing people’s moves without any prior rehearsal. In relation to this argument we can consider the ideas of Ralph Waldo Emerson who said, "Photography is distinguished by its immediacy, its authenticity, and the remarkable fact that its eye sees more than the human eye. The camera shows everything.” (Mullen, 1998, p.6) Camera Generated Images-a mixture of subjective and objective treatment: “Our understanding of reality depends on a knowledge and awareness of both the internal and external world. Photography, as both a reflection and a manipulation of reality, is likewise viewed and judged by that vision. It is only by understanding why photography is so closely aligned with truth that we can come to comprehend our own deep-rooted faith in its authenticity” (Mullen, 1998, p. 96). As camera based imagerygained wide approval, it became difficult for people to distinguish between reality and fiction. They had to rely on other evidences than photographs in order to satisfy themselves. Identification of falsified images appeared to become a serious issue. The subjectivity involved while using camera lens is not just a matter of forging the facts but it also questions the common practice of moral ethics. “With the abundance of manipulation, brought about by digital photography, there will always be a grey area that critics question as to whether it uses manipulation in a positive way or whether it falls in the area of abusing the technology”(digital technology, 2010) The stress is laid on the fact that when the image is captured by camera the relationship between the reality and representation can easily be altered, as the artificiality of the moment depends on the matters of intention, form and equipment of the photographer. Photographic images should not dictate our memories but try to preserve them the way they naturally occurred. Exerting control over photographs is not feasible especially when we are trying to document reality. “By consciously manipulating the objective gaze of the camera, through what we choose to focus on and how we choose to present ourselves (ex. posing), our photographs become fragmentedglimpses, only capable of suggesting, never capturing, the reality that existed behind the physical remnant” (Adwandter,2006, p.9). However in the modern world photography is still considered as the purveyor of truth and painting is just like an old man sitting on the log whosestories may be listened to but are never believed. Despite the fact that photography creates the world as much as it reveals it, yet there is no self-evident, objective and patently obvious yardstick that can make judgements about what is legitimate and what is not. Moreover in light of the above mentioned quotation, I assume that camera generated images will continue to have subjective elements that sometimes go unnoticed. Painting has a separate stature in terms of being the imaginative expression but objectivity gives photographs the due which drawings are unable to achieve. The truth behind camera generated images will remain a myth but a little awareness of the self-expression in camera imagery will help to lessen this argument to some extent. However, we cannot logically prove that in this case veracity is totally removed from the scene or thrown out of the window and photographers are free to shoot in whatever manner they choose but this ongoing debate changed my view that instead of criticizing how camera generated images are conceived or structured, we must transcend our thinking towards the role they play in providing evidence and highlighting issues. Camera imagery whether be digital or video generated is likely to extend its boundaries beyond the qualitative and objective confines yielding a technology that is recognized not for its nature but for the purpose it performs. References: Anwandter, P. Marcella (2006).Frames of Mind: Photography, Memory and Identity.CUREJ - College Undergraduate ResearchElectronic Journal.University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved at: http://repository.upenn.edu/curej/39 Digital Photography (2010).Retrieved from http://ccit205.wikispaces.com/Digital+Photography?f=print Horstkotte&Pedri (2008).Introduction:Photographic Interventions Retrieved from: http://poeticstoday.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/29/1/1.pdf Mullen, Leslie (1998). Truth in Photography: Perception, Myth and Reality in the post modern world. Retrieved from: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.26.832 Sandra Gavard (1999).Photo-graft: A critical Analysis of image manipulation. McHill University Retrieved from: http://sandra.oundjian.com/content/thesis/thesis.htm. Sturken& Cartwright (2001),Practices of Looking Image, Power and politics Retrieved fromhttp://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/bt/looking/pol-chapter01.pdf Read More