The Art of Reduction

Posted by Valerie, Senior Editor

When I recently received a review copy of Ed Freeman’s Desert Realty, my initial reaction was a delighted gasp. The book showcases photographs of dozens of abandoned commercial and residential structures throughout the Southern California desert, each one isolated and often eerily lit under ominous, surreally colored, or sunset-burnished skies.

I was reminded of the (LONG) road trips from Oklahoma to California and back that I took as a child/teenager, through the amazing scenery of the desolate Southwest. I was fascinated by the many vacant buildings in the middle of nowhere, from corrugated tin shacks to roofless adobe houses. I dreamed about squatting in one (although I’m not sure I knew what “squatting” was), and living out my days in solitude, writing overwrought teenage poetry and perhaps tending some chickens.

Anyway, I flipped through the book’s pages, not reading the text, and not realizing that the photos had been digitally manipulated, a point that was spelled out in step-by-step how-to fashion at the end. Call me naïve, but I was shocked. Neighboring buildings had been removed, paint colors changed, skies erased and redrawn: The final product was a fabrication. The book jacket explains, “Freeman’s pictures blur the line between reportage and fantasy, slyly challenging the notion of realistic photography,” and Freeman himself there states, “I am never content merely to observe, and it is just not in my nature to leave well enough alone.”

What do you guys think about all of this? In a time when half the computer-literate world has mastered photo editing to some degree (at least enough to retouch photos for their MySpace profiles or to create funny Evite graphics), is this kind of work as meaningful as work done the old-fashioned way (like seeking out the exact thing you want to photograph, and then waiting for the light and conditions to be right)? Do we have any photographers or Photoshoppers out there who’d like to weigh in?

Comments

[Jeannette]

photojournalists consider even cropping a photograph to be a form of lying. bad form, certainly.

[marshall]

Photography is a medium that manipulates reality all the time with lenses, lighting, exposures, etc. To digitally manipulate a photograph is only a more sophisticated way of going about a very common practice. For me, the fact that Freeman is taking so many liberties with the photographed image is exciting and pushes photography into the realm of painting. His images seem romantic, idealized, poetic... all the things that I associate with the American West. Why would he want to repeat what Ansel Adams (or anyone else) has done when he can make his own compelling images?

[Lee]

I would consider what Freeman does to be art, but not necessarily photography.

As Rachel discusses, there is a level of skill and time required to create images like Freeman's...a degree of training and cultivation that could easily equate with the time other artists (using oils, watercolors, etc.) spend in honing their own craft. What Freeman creates is art, hands-down.

However, I view photography as a more fundamental form of art, one that's less about the post-shutter click manipulation and more about the pre-shutter click preparation and foresight. It's about knowing your camera, and using that knowledge to capture the moment in such a way that the image will reflect what you valued about that moment in the first place. My favorite photographs - artistic or otherwise - are those of such good quality - in content and in technical detail - that little to no editing is required.

So while Freeman must be a good photographer to create his pieces, the photograph itself plays a small role in the bigger picture of his art.

[TeenSleuth]

"Enticing." Oops. You'd think I'd be a better speller.

[TeenSleuth]

Totally depends on the context under which the photo will be viewed. As Xander said, the "archive in the real" is an important, inticing element in photos.

Obviously, serious photojournalists bristle at the idea of digitally or otherwise "enhancing" or manipulating their photos ... it's dishonest to present that as "truth." Though I work at a magazine and know full well that photos get retouched all the time ... bring up the color here, add a little blue in the sky there ... I've always found the absolutist position that says "this is just as it was, I am presenting the truth in this image" pretty debatable. You can't take the photographer out of the image, ever. The very act of choosing what to shoot/not shoot "manipulates" what the reality of the situation was.

That said, I like this as art, and find it only appropriate to present it that way. It's a natural evolution of the photograph as artwork.

[Kim]

I don't understand why so many people discredit digitally produced images with the argument that they are not real.

There's so much that happens in the darkroom with the light exposure and color balance and chemicals...half a second more or less makes such a difference. Granted, you're not erasing trees and creating entirely new landscapes or anything, but an old fashioned photograph still has our hands all over it.

The artist is creating the image in his/her own mind and that is a gift to see. Don't you like getting to see how someone else views the world? I think it's kind of amazing and am very excited for the technological frontiers to change. The more ways to comment on our existence, the better!

[amy]

Thank you for bringing this issue, that even after 10 years or so of the popularity of consumer end digital photography, still bothers some people.

I think some people that have a strong disgust in digital manipulation, have it so because they believe it is a cheap way of improving an image, a quick exit. When in fact, it is not so. While it is true that many people have their basic Photoshop skills (it is sometimes required for some jobs), few can master it as this artist does. Or as photographer Loretta Lux (http://www.lorettalux.de/) does. She takes months in finishing one single image and the result is just as astonishing as a 12x15 canvas painted by a Master of days of yore. Photographic manipulation has existed for years. As someone mentioned above, the editing you do in the darkroom, the dodging, the choosing of contrast filters, the kind of paper you print on, the temperature and time of the chemicals, the film you choose at first, it is the same type of editing done in the computer (just digitally, der).

So I believe we need to acknowledge these digital artists and applaud them for their intricate work. They are not trying to fool us, theyre just using this "new" technology to make wonderful art.

[Isabelle Missbach]

I don't like manipulated photography, period.

If you are going to take a beautiful image, and the photo doesn't quite turn out so you brighten it up a bit, ok, I understand that.

But to change everything about the image? To turn something real and beautiful into a piece of digitally mastered graphics? I hate that. I believe that a photography does just that: take photos.

The manipulated "artwork" takes away from the value of the photos.

[mauri]

I love art that crosses boundaries like this, but I must admit that I find it a little disappointing. There is so much grandeur and intrigue in photographs of the American West--especially early photography. As interesting as this art is, I don't think I would consider him in a league with Dorothea Lange, Ansel Adams, C.R. Savage or George Edward Anderson who all portrayed the 19th century West in a raw, beautiful, and real way.

I suppose his purpose was different--in portraying the scenes in a surrealistic way, but I personally prefer the real grandeur of those early photographers.

[Valerie]

Note: It is spelled out on the book jacket and in the introduction that the photos were digitally manipulated (and then the manipulations are shown with step-by-step images in the back), I just didn't READ that at first because I was so taken with the photos. Freeman definitely wasn't trying to pull a fast one.

[Liz Cadorette]

I think photography, in all its forms, is like any other art form. If you like the result, and presuming that the artist TELLS you they manipulate their images -- it's still art, and still lovely. The same debate raged at the introduction of digital photography into the world of film; was it still art, when the artist could delete and alter at will? But really, Photoshop does what folks have spent years doing in darkrooms; the difference being that now it's painstaking work done by mouse and tablet, rather than by hand and x-acto with chemicals and exposure tricks.

If it makes you gasp with delight on seeing it, and the artist isn't trying to deceive anyone into believing the image was taken on-site as it is, I think it's marvelous. Had the artist NOT admitted the images were manipulated is where it becomes an ethical issue for me and less a question of whether it's art.

[FAIRFAX]

I think it's slightly deceptive to have the information about the manipulation at the end, rather than spelled out at the start. However, knowing how difficult it can be to do photoshop and make it look realistic, he did a good job.

[Rachel]

As an art director who has to use Photoshop on an almost daily basis to do professional work, I have two view points. This photographer's type of photo manipulation, the kind that caused you to have no idea it had happened until it was spelled out the end, is tedious, skilled, and beautiful work. It is part of his art, and I think it should be respected and appreciated, just as a painters technique would be observed and appreciated. Although it is true that many people now have some sort of photoshop skills, I doubt that they could create something like this artist.

My other thought though, is that certainly, if these images were as beautiful naturally as he made them, that would be wonderful. But if he's trying to create something that doesn't truly exist like this, you wouldn't have the same feeling looking at his work. He is trying to create a certain mood. Just as a photographer who catches an abandoned farm house that is isolated naturally is trying to create a feeling and mood.

In other words, I appreciate both kinds of art equally and think both deserve the same kind of appreciation and respect from the viewer; both the manipulated photo and the untouched one.

[kealoha]

Interesting comments. In class, we've recently talked about photography historically receiving less "street cred" in the art world due to perceptions that it didn't create anything new or original. Personally, I adore good photography, and feel that as long as the photographer is honest about how they made the image, digital manipulation should be fair game. After all, you can change analog images in the darkroom too!

[Xander]

I suppose there is something slightly disappointing in the work, since one pleasurable element of photography is that it usually has an archive in the real. On the other hand, photography is an art, and I think it should be able to include a wide range of approaches, from direct recording of the world to high levels of manipulation.

On a different note, I'd like to check this book out. Exploring abandoned buildings was one of my favorite activities on my recent roadtrip around the Southwestern US. The strangest thing I experienced was the number of abandoned motels I encountered- from old salty resorts along the Salton Sea, to mod 60s desert getaways in Arizona. -X

[ash]

I think knowing that they are fake is a disappointment. I wish that this solitary house actually existed, and that I could move in and sit near that tree. Maybe it is old fashioned to wait for the perfect photograph, but that is what I would do.