Faking It: Manipulated Photographs before Photoshop.

[Kirk Gittings]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/seeing-is-unbelieving/2013/02/21/a624591e-79dd-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html

[Michael Alpert]

Kirk,

There is a world of difference between Carleton Watkins doing what he could to overcome the limitations of ortho film and Jerry Uelsmann's surreal images. Neither artist was "faking it" in the usual sense of that term. They each were striving to realize their artistic intentions within the limitations of the medium.

What I think ties all the photographs in this exhibit together is photography's endless obsession with process. I guess that obsession is okay as far as it goes; but beyond technique there is, of course, the matter of actually having something to say. I think great photographs have mastered necessary technique and have left it behind (so to speak). Great photographs, like great paintings, present a world that contains thoughtful and heartfelt content.

[Kirk Gittings]

Agreed in large part except your differentiation between Watkins and Uslemann. Both were trying to realize their artistic intentions by expanding the limitations (single capture to multiple capture and image blending) of the medium.

[BarryS]

This is a very good show that makes a case for the malleability of photography from its earliest origins. I saw it at the Met in January and I agree the show had the space to breathe (plus additional materials). Although it's a little cramped at the NGA, it's still worth a trip. Some very iconic images are included--notably Steichen's lovely The Pond--Moonrise. BTW, the Carleton Watkins photograph was manipulated by the publisher, not Watkins.

[Michael Alpert]

Agreed in large part except your differentiation between Watkins and Uslemann. Both were trying to realize their artistic intentions by expanding the limitations (single capture to multiple capture and image blending) of the medium.

Yes, they were using similar means. I just meant that their artistic ends were not similar.

[paulr]

I saw the show at the Met. Lots of great examples, famous and obscure. I wish I'd had a chance to attend the talks associated with the show; I suspect some of the speakers would have gotten into the philosophical issues raised by the show. The wall text was pretty superficial.

[ScenicTraverse]

I went today to the National Gallery of Art to see this exhibit. It was well worth the trip - amazing the things these guys came up with and how good and bad some of their "fakes" are. I was particularly amused by the ones of Stalin where his comrades were slowly edited out of the photos as they fell out of favor with him.

[Jac@stafford.net]

And then there were much less sophisticated types.

90476