Digital Fauxography
There as been much discussion lately on the APUG forum concerning the legitimacy of digital imaging to be classified as photography. One member of the forum commented that he had heard digital referred to as "Fauxography". My reply is in italics.
I think that this term really cuts to the point. Personally I have a tendency to reject anything that is attempting to pass itself off as something else. This goes for imitation wood grain, simulated leather, plastic Mr potato heads....(Ok that one might be a stretch).
I don't have trouble with the idea of imitation, as long as it is stated as such. Digital imaging is imitative of photography. Ink jet prints are imitative of silver gelatin prints. All of that is fine. But to want to be the same thing... I think that gives up a lot. Definition is important. It is a form of knowledge. It stimulates question. It initiates a further search. I think we lose much when we allow a definition to smear itself across such a broad range. It dilutes difference and that robs people of the richest characteristics (whether they are associated with vision or craft) of a particular medium.
I see this thread wander into areas that concern the definition of Art more than the definition of photography. Using any media (or combination)necessary to get the image that you wish, is about fulfilling a goal, not about defining a medium that by its nature incorporates an understanding of specific materials, and a working knowledge of their implementation. There is a certain craft required with the production of photographic prints. And it is not the same craft as that required for digital prints.
What bothers me the most are the arguments that simply acquiesce to a definition reached by an uninformed mass or dictated by clever and incessant marketing campaigns. Why should we allow this watered down version? When it comes to analog photography, I don't think anyone in this forum,(APUG)has a C- understanding. Just because I see people everyday who wouldn't much notice or care about the difference between a digital phone image and a gallery quality silver gelatin print, doesn't mean I should be expected to let them define what the term "Photography" is.
I heard on Leno the other night the following: "Americans are the stupidest people in the world....with the best marketing campaigns."
Being an American, I find this statement to be insightfully funny, and disappointingly true.
I think that this term really cuts to the point. Personally I have a tendency to reject anything that is attempting to pass itself off as something else. This goes for imitation wood grain, simulated leather, plastic Mr potato heads....(Ok that one might be a stretch).
I don't have trouble with the idea of imitation, as long as it is stated as such. Digital imaging is imitative of photography. Ink jet prints are imitative of silver gelatin prints. All of that is fine. But to want to be the same thing... I think that gives up a lot. Definition is important. It is a form of knowledge. It stimulates question. It initiates a further search. I think we lose much when we allow a definition to smear itself across such a broad range. It dilutes difference and that robs people of the richest characteristics (whether they are associated with vision or craft) of a particular medium.
I see this thread wander into areas that concern the definition of Art more than the definition of photography. Using any media (or combination)necessary to get the image that you wish, is about fulfilling a goal, not about defining a medium that by its nature incorporates an understanding of specific materials, and a working knowledge of their implementation. There is a certain craft required with the production of photographic prints. And it is not the same craft as that required for digital prints.
What bothers me the most are the arguments that simply acquiesce to a definition reached by an uninformed mass or dictated by clever and incessant marketing campaigns. Why should we allow this watered down version? When it comes to analog photography, I don't think anyone in this forum,(APUG)has a C- understanding. Just because I see people everyday who wouldn't much notice or care about the difference between a digital phone image and a gallery quality silver gelatin print, doesn't mean I should be expected to let them define what the term "Photography" is.
I heard on Leno the other night the following: "Americans are the stupidest people in the world....with the best marketing campaigns."
Being an American, I find this statement to be insightfully funny, and disappointingly true.
2 Comments:
You've lost me with the satement, "I don't think anyone in this forum,(APUG)has a C- understanding,"
Can you clarify?
BTW- *Very fine* work in your Galleries. Beautifully done.
Ed:
First, thanks for taking the time to view my galleries. I appreciate that.
The statement is a metaphor referencing the level of knowledge I expect the people in the APUG forum to have on the subject. It is based on the academic grading system most of us were familiar with in the US. (A, B, C, D, E or F)
A friend once told me that her mother used to say to her, "Most of the world is C-." Basically, it just means that most people know a little about everything, but don't expect them to be qualified experts or rise to your level of understanding on anything.
This rule applies for anything ranging from quantum dynamics (I would be a C- there), to the basic understanding of driving rules and courtesies (I'm probably only a B-... to many years driving in Boston).
My statement implies that I would expect the people writing in the thread to have a higher level of understanding (on the subject of photography) than the general public,(or most of the marketing executives toting the new definitions of photography and archivality according to the digital medium).
Therefore I question the argument that the definition of the term "Photography" should be democratic. In my opinion, most people are as qualified of defining the term as they are of defining the definition of a "quark".
To acquiesce shirks our responsibility as photographers and denies the general public of the opportunity to obtain a higher level of knowledge and appreciation of the differences between the digital and photographic mediums.
This is not to say that I think analog photographers should riot in the streets, but when opportunity arises, they should point out (or demonstrate) the fact that digital imaging is not the same thing as true photography. Just as painting is not defined as photography.
Post a Comment
<< Home