I have long been a bit envious of painters and often find myself wishing I had skill at it. What I admire about painting is that painters have the choice of creating work that readily confines itself to documenting reality, or as is often the case, venturing off into territory wholly in the painter's mind or heart. In short, painters paint the world as they see it. Ever since the invention of photography, the art has struggled with the question of what is photography's intent? Is it to document, to collect "truth" and "reality"? Is it art or is it science? It is this deep, central question that leads to the mindset that many photographers or viewers of photography struggle with. Whenever I hear comments about "cheating" or manipulation or truth in photography I think of this. I don't spend a lot of time in the world of painting but I wonder, do painters have to deal with questions of manipulation? Or do they abashedly admit that the painted they created involved a bit of cheating? Does anybody stand in front of a painting and elbow the person next to them and whisper, "this isn't real you know"?

 

And I am curious as to why we do this with photography. Why do we have this expectation? I guess it is because we convince ourselves that somehow photography is capable of seeing the world "as it is". But is that even true? Or is that a mistaken assumption on our part that has given birth to over a century of at least partially incorrect expectations? After all, which part of photography is truly objective? I think you'd struggle to point to any of it as being objective. And yet we allow ourselves to be shocked every time we realize that the hand of the photographer once again manifested itself in the creation of an image.

 

I don't want to go far down this rabbit hole, and yes I realize that their is a large part of this discussion/argument that deals with intent, context and presentation. And their are several important points to be made in those areas.

 

Really though I meant to write a bit more about me and how I operate within the realm of these swirling questions. Because even though I don't possess any skill with paint and brush, I seem to have found a way to, on occasion, photograph like a painter both in deed and in thought. I readily admit that I am less interested in photographing what was objectively there in the world as opposed to what I subjectively thought, felt or experienced. Sometimes that requires sharp images, sometimes that requires soft, sometimes that involves fractions of a second, and sometimes it is a matter of minutes or hours. I try not to shackle myself with unnecessary expectations of what my photography should be and instead focus on what I want it to be for myself. I think a lot about perception and how its nature is unique to each of us. That fascinates me. Three of us stand on this grass knoll at sunset and experience the end of the day and three of us will have a unique experience of the moment, either overtly or subtly.

 

I am in no position to say how photography should be for anyone else. For some, objective reality might be a primary goal and to them I wish luck. For me, I enjoy being a bit of a painter... albeit with silver halide and glass instead of acrylic and bristles.

 

Hasselblad Flexbody

Kodak Ektar 100