| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/21/2003 02:25:42 AM · #1 |
Due to the very interesting "conversation" taking place in the comments of my photo "Butterfly Fantasy," I felt it beneficial to bring this enlightening and valuable discussion to the forums where more folks could join in.
The nature of the discussion deals with the "ethics" of positing fake butterflies as if they were real in nature. In Paganini's words: "there is that ethics question of shooting nature photographs and present it as a nature photograph even though it's fake." I encourage you to read his entire set of comments in conjunction with my photo. He makes a good point.
One of the reasons I called the photo "Butterly Fantasy" was that I thought that they looked real enough to be plausible, but fake enough for people to see that they were "fantasy." Indeed, I really thought that most people knew that Monarch Butterlies came only in a reddish orange, not blue or red or yellow. Still, the fact that several of you were deceived does not displease me very much.
But now you'll either have to pardon my lecture, or move to a different forum topic!
The essence of the question is simply one of truth. How does one show the "truth" of nature? In artistic terms, this has throughout history been called "verisimilitude" or "the appearance of truth."
In Shakespeare's day, for instance, it was generally felt that the artist's role was to communicate a heightened vision of truth. In other words, the artist was to show the ideal of a given subject, whether it was nature or some other subject. It was generally thought that by so doing, the artist could inspire others to try to obtain this ideal, thereby bringing the art recipient closer to God. At least that's the way it was in England.
In France and most of Europe, you may be familiar with the Neoclassicists, who felt that through establishing specific and codified rules about art, the artist could best portray the world, including nature, in the most plausible way.
Later, in the mid 1700s, certain (mostly German) artists began revolting against the Neoclassicists, claiming that emotion and instinct were better ways at revealing truth than a bunch of silly rules. Thus began the Romantic movement, that still exists in some form today. The Romantics felt that the artist should show the emotional workings of nature with all of its passion, guts and feelings. For without feelings and emotions, one is not getting the whole picture, so they felt. We still hail many of the poets of the day: Lord Byron, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, Longfellow, Thoreau, etc.
By the mid 19th century, however, science was a really cool thing. The Industrial Revolution was going on. Science was on the front pages of newspapers all over the world. New technology and fancy new machines seemed to prove the scientists correct. Artists also felt that science had something to offer. Some began to see the world as a scientific wonderland to be cooly observed and studied, as if through a microscope. One philosopher of the period, Emile Zola, called works of art, "case studies," indicating this scientific detachment. These artists soon began to be called Realists and their hyper real cousins were called the Naturalists.
But this new movement also caused reactions, all having to do with the communication of "truth." The Expressionists felt that "truth" was to be found in dreams and in the subconscious, and their works reflected this dreamlike feeling. Symbolists felt that truth was to be found in the communication and deciphering of symbols. Dadaists felt that art was silly and should not communicate anything at all. Later in the century, the Surrealists appeared, and the Absurdists. Today, Postmodernism is rampant, in which truth is so elusive that it can never be discovered, yet facets of truth are so prevalant, that nothing can be really false.
Sorry for that bit of art history. You may correct any inaccurate statements, but I think I got most of it right.
If you feel that putting three fake butterflies in a picture and positing that picture as a "truthful" communication of nature is not a good idea, you are probably, at least in part, a Realist. Yeah, they're still around, and that's an okay thing.
If you feel that putting three fake butterflies in a picture and then you discovered some other interesing truths about nature, or felt that such could be discovered if you thought about it long enough, you are probably some other kind of "ist." That's okay, too.
I personally feel that as artists, photography is a wonderful tool through which we can communicate our interpretations or reactions of the world around us. By selecting a representative subject or object, choosing a point of view, selecting the ways in which our composition will work, deciding on the depth of field, selecting the direction and quality and value of light, and using the other tools of photography, we are making subjective decisions that communicate how we feel the world is, should be, or shouldn't be.
My friend works in a museum and records objects and texts through photography as part of scientific record-keeping. His kind of photography approaches the Realists, as the only interpretation he seeks to capture in his photos are of the lowest common denominator, opening the object to the widest possible interpretation. He sometimes mumbles, "taking these pictures is a art!" and I nod, but deep down, I don't believe him.
What do you think?
David
Message edited by author 2003-05-21 02:31:14. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 06:13:29 AM · #2 |
| OK. So you got a ribbon. Congrats!! The idea, in my opinion, is that the challenge was primary colours, and not a "truthful" representation of nature. I think the idea was brilliant. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 06:30:24 AM · #3 |
I think its a brilliant shot. If it was me, I wouldnt be wasting my time even responding to such remarkable suggestions that that YOUR picture has to be the truth. You even put a hint in the title that it is a FANTASY. Because the butterflies are not real does nothing to take away from this picture. The challenge was color, not absolute real life.
Enjoy the win, let the others have their sour grape wine.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 06:37:36 AM · #4 |
My take on this is that if people are stupid enough to think it is real and vote accordingly, then whatever!!!! To me it is obviously staged, but it is a good job and it fit the challenge well, so I say good job.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 08:09:00 AM · #5 |
Looks like somebody has a new hobby ... pick on the 3rd placed entry (not 1st or 2nd, that would be too hard) and find something st00pid to take offense at. Keep it in the comments so that not too many people will see it and argue back, and see if you can upset the photographer.
FWIW I saw that this was 'fake' straight away and gave it a 9, kinda blows the 'fooling people into giving high marks' theory away dunnit?
Thanks for the interesting write up David and congrats on the *well deserved* ribbon : )
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 08:19:29 AM · #6 |
I hadn't been following the comments on that shot until this post came up....
All I have to say is that some people can't simply judge a photograph for what they see... they want to get involved in the judging of how it was done. Photographers are the worst. Show this photograph to any non photographer and they will probably like it quite a bit and never think twice about it. It's a photograph... a contrived photograph... brilliant adaptation to the challenge in my opinion...
Why is it that we, as photographers, sometimes can't 'see' a photograph? Why can't we let ourselves look at what is presented? Why do thoughts run through our mind about 'how' it was created?
In recent times, I have been reading a bit... I just completed a book called "How to Look at Photographs". It was quite enlightening in many aspects.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 09:00:34 AM · #7 |
I find this whole contreversy very interesting. I was also surprised anyone thought they were real at all, especially when David told us it was a "Fantasy". It's too bad, as some said in the comments on the photo, that people would have voted differently had they known the butterflys were fake. I do believe photography is art, and much of art is perception. In the theater and in movies much of what we see in the way of scenery and props are fake. Does that take away from our enjoyment of it? How 'bout all those beautiful paintings of plastic fruit? Has anyone watched a documentary about nature photography? 90% of those photos and films are done in controlled environments, not in the "field" so to speak. If David had gotten 3 real primary-colored Monarch butterflies (hmm) and put them in a glass box and taken the picture that way, would that have been ok, or would they have to have been in the "wild" for some to appreciate the photo? Let's not be so literal here people, let's enjoy some freedom of expression.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 09:12:12 AM · #8 |
| Being a "realist" wildlife biologist, I would have voted it fairly high. (I was gone last two weeks, so missed voting) My father, who was an artist interpreted nature as being abstract and the artist bringing it into their focus (real or not). This worked in your case. Your did okay in my book. I would have looked for the real thing, but that's me. Van |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 10:06:53 AM · #9 |
.
Message edited by author 2003-05-21 10:09:39.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 10:11:32 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
I think its a brilliant shot. If it was me, I wouldnt be wasting my time even responding to such remarkable suggestions that that YOUR picture has to be the truth. You even put a hint in the title that it is a FANTASY. Because the butterflies are not real does nothing to take away from this picture. The challenge was color, not absolute real life.
Enjoy the win, let the others have their sour grape wine. |
Sorry if my posting came off as sounding like some kind of defense. I thought it was a fun theoretical debate that arises from time to time and was worth discussing. Sorry for the length of it! I guess I was feeling philosophical at the time! |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 10:21:26 AM · #11 |
I actually thought the grass was fake too - the butterflies were pretty obviously not real and I didn't really think you were trying to pass it off as realistic though it is a good shot for the challenge.
I've been doing a lot of nature shots recently and I'm actually starting to move towards taking pictures of the nasty reality rather than searching for a 'perfect' flower which ends up its self being a mis-representation of reality, because most flowers are not perfect. My secondary colours entry was taken in this mode and got voted down/ comments against it because the flower I selected wasn't perfect - even though that was largely the point of the shot.
So the question is - if you want realistic nature photography, should you search for prefect examples or be more sympathetic to your subject and present the reality rather than trying to pretend that everything is idealistic ? (I feel this meandering into platonic forms so I'll stop)
Message edited by author 2003-05-21 10:21:53.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 10:38:08 AM · #12 |
@David - same person, same thing last week. Ignore him.
As for the debate - who said it has to be 'true to life?' Advertisements aren't. Nat. Geographic marks up their shots, saturates, colors, everything they can.
Oh, and while we're on it:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=11694 This didn't look like this in nature. Give us a real shot, next time, Pag.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 11:28:20 AM · #13 |
it's one thing to saturate colors as through Velvia film, it's another thing to put elements into a nature photograph and PRESENT it as a nature photograph when they aren't even real (we aren't even talking about putting real butterflies into a nature photograph)
National Geographic has gotten nailed several times for things such as cutting and pasting models to a scene that they are not originally there. The "average" readers complained because it wasn't real. In fact if you work for NG and you submit something that is fake, you won't get another contract again.
The photograph I complained about presented a photograph that is about nature and it is fake. I don't see the challenge as "Illusion" either, do you? Thus, people that saw the photograph would automatically assume it's real unless they look closely at it. The voters voted it high because they believe it is real (and amazing too, wow, three butterflies with three different colors at the same time).
It's an integrity issue -- next time people saw a genuine photograph, they'll dismiss it as fake because "oh, the guy must have put that poster of the leopod in the middle of the field."
Originally posted by mavrik:
@David - same person, same thing last week. Ignore him.
As for the debate - who said it has to be 'true to life?' Advertisements aren't. Nat. Geographic marks up their shots, saturates, colors, everything they can.
Oh, and while we're on it:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=11694 This didn't look like this in nature. Give us a real shot, next time, Pag. |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 11:31:59 AM · #14 |
The hard part in "real" nature photography is to find something perfect. That's the hard part... otherwise no one would do it. What's the challenge if you just cut down a perfect flower and put it into the studio to photograph it? YOu have to find scenes that you can photograph and present it nicely. You can find nice and perfect flowers out there, but it's just really hard to do.
Originally posted by Gordon:
I actually thought the grass was fake too - the butterflies were pretty obviously not real and I didn't really think you were trying to pass it off as realistic though it is a good shot for the challenge.
I've been doing a lot of nature shots recently and I'm actually starting to move towards taking pictures of the nasty reality rather than searching for a 'perfect' flower which ends up its self being a mis-representation of reality, because most flowers are not perfect. My secondary colours entry was taken in this mode and got voted down/ comments against it because the flower I selected wasn't perfect - even though that was largely the point of the shot.
So the question is - if you want realistic nature photography, should you search for prefect examples or be more sympathetic to your subject and present the reality rather than trying to pretend that everything is idealistic ? (I feel this meandering into platonic forms so I'll stop) |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 11:35:44 AM · #15 |
I think the picture is about paper butterflies, I have never in my life seen a Blue Monarch butterfly. There is no misrepresentation here in this photo. It is not the same as submitting a photo to National Geographic and implying it is truly a nature shot. It is a paper butterfly submitted to an amateur photography website for a color challenge. Nothing more, nothing less.
Great picture David, once again. :)
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 11:35:58 AM · #16 |
Real shots?
I think the example you gave already shows it's not a real photograph, but a digitized one. No viewer would be confused by that.
But here are some real nature shots:
shots
shots2
Originally posted by mavrik:
@David - same person, same thing last week. Ignore him.
As for the debate - who said it has to be 'true to life?' Advertisements aren't. Nat. Geographic marks up their shots, saturates, colors, everything they can.
Oh, and while we're on it:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=11694 This didn't look like this in nature. Give us a real shot, next time, Pag. |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 11:41:04 AM · #17 |
I'll also comment that my comments are for David. It's up to him whether he can take the criticism or not. I have written similar comments to other nature shots that are misrepresented (such as the wild flower shot that had the STEM of the flowers shifted to blue). It's an ethical question for me, that's all. If you don't like my comments, you don't have to respond.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 11:41:32 AM · #18 |
David - Call it Zen of Butterflies next time. ;)
M
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 11:42:29 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by paganini:
The hard part in "real" nature photography is to find something perfect. That's the hard part... otherwise no one would do it. What's the challenge if you just cut down a perfect flower and put it into the studio to photograph it? YOu have to find scenes that you can photograph and present it nicely. You can find nice and perfect flowers out there, but it's just really hard to do.
|
All I'm saying is that it is just different levels of deception. Finding the 'perfect' flower and photographing it in nature is still a misrepresentation or distortion of the reality.
It is a more honest depiction of nature to present it warts and all in a creative and atractive way. After all, if it wasn't so difficult to find the perfection, it would be more representative of the reality, now wouldn't it ? It comes down to a personal question of integrity and where you think the boundary between real and fakery is. Does moving a blade of grass that's ruining a composition count as cheating ? How about tearing/ sawing down branches that are in the way (like one fairly well known US B&W photographer has done in the past) The personal boundaries are just that - personal. They don't actually change the final product or the validity of it, unless (and this is the important bit) it is being misrepresented as something that it is not.
This picture doesn't claim to be real - the title even makes that pretty obvious. If it was in a book of real butterflies and someone was trying to pass it off as a real scene then that would be a different thing.
Message edited by author 2003-05-21 11:54:58. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 11:43:40 AM · #20 |
Paganini, the second I saw the photo, I knew it was staged, it is so obvious.
David did not try to represent it as real, his title gives it away and so does the unreal coloring and the positioning, this would never happen in nature.
Anyone who thought this was a real nature photo needs to reevaluate the way they look/see things.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 11:50:58 AM · #21 |
| Well I must say that if I was reading NG and I saw this shot I would be pissed off unless it was an advert, but this site is not NG, the subject was not wildlife, the subject was about colour, which this shot captured to perfection. Keep up the good work. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 12:06:10 PM · #22 |
I think anyone can see the difference of what you have just said. If you shot a scene but excluding other stuff out, that's fine, because you're still shooting a scene/nature that is there. I'd have just the same complaint if someone KILLS three butterflies and place them this way (in turn representing that they're alive), versus using fake ones.
The problem with photographers introducing elements and present it as such is that people are already complaining about how "fake" a photograph looks, even though it's a real scene and none of the elements are introduced artificially. It's like the famous Rowell photograph of the Rainbow out of the Lhasa palace, he got a lot of rude comments saying it's FAKE because, guess what, lots of other photoraphers in the past HAVE done fake manipulation of the images and present it like it was there before. Making fake images of nature is a real disservice. But hey, if you don't like my comments, you can just ignore it :) You don't have to bring it to a public forum.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
The hard part in "real" nature photography is to find something perfect. That's the hard part... otherwise no one would do it. What's the challenge if you just cut down a perfect flower and put it into the studio to photograph it? YOu have to find scenes that you can photograph and present it nicely. You can find nice and perfect flowers out there, but it's just really hard to do.
|
All I'm saying is that it is just different levels of deception. Finding the 'perfect' flower and photographing it in nature is still a misrepresentation or distortion of the reality.
It is a more honest depiction of nature to present it warts and all in a creative and atractive way. After all, if it wasn't so difficult to find the perfection, it would be more representative of the reality, now wouldn't it ? It comes down to a personal question of integrity and where you think the boundary between real and fakery is. Does moving a blade of grass that's ruining a composition count as cheating ? How about tearing/ sawing down branches that are in the way (like one fairly well known US B&W photographer has done in the past) The personal boundaries are just that - personal. They don't actually change the final product or the validity of it, unless (and this is the important bit) it is being misrepresented as something that it is not.
This picture doesn't claim to be real - the title even makes that pretty obvious. If it was in a book of real butterflies and someone was trying to pass it off as a real scene then that would be a different thing. |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 12:10:22 PM · #23 |
Comments posted on entries are not "private" - they are also public. To send a private message to the photographer, use PM.
If it's already public then why not discuss the concepts raised in the forums?
I don't like forum posts where people are simply slagging off others for negative comments on their photos but this is different IMO.
A statement was made in comments which does indeed lend itself to an interesting discussion between a wider audience here in forums.
Scab and Paige represent my own feelings on the issue very well.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 12:14:59 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Making fake images of nature is a real disservice. But hey, if you don't like my comments, you can just ignore it :) You don't have to bring it to a public forum. |
It was already in a public forum. It's just been brought into a more easily seen, just as public forum.
As for your argument: Anything but the real thing can be considered fake. ie. A photo is not the real thing in exactly the same way as a paper model is not the real thing in exactly the same way as a painting is not the real thing.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 12:31:22 PM · #25 |
| Well, I apologize to Paginini for making such a "to do" about this. I thought his comments were interesting and informed and worthy of sharing. However, I really enjoy the comments above as they relate to "reality" and "fake" and the role of the photographer in communicating such. This is what my post was all about--to stimulate such discussion. |
|
