Pretty much means the same thing. When as I child I was accused of fibbing, the punishment was no less than if I'd been accused of lying.Originally Posted by Dakotah Jackson
I've fibbed a few times myself in my life, so I've learned to tone such language down, lest I convict myself too harshly for comfort.
Rick "sometimes too quick to judge" Denney
What is more blameworthy
The unartful lie of
sloppy digital manipulation
or the critique of the
critics in pretentious
blank verse?
The indexicality of the photograph is a big (and well discussed) concept in photographic theory. The indexical nature of photography being (loosely) a 1:1 stamp between the reality when the photograph was made to the photograph itself. So a "non-indexical context" would be a context for receiving the art where there is no assumption of photography replicating reality--Martins's point is that there is nothing wrong with digital manipulation when there is no expectation of relation between the photograph and reality. The crux here is that there was the expectation of indexicality for this work (just as I would argue there is with any photograph, but this is beside the point right now) according to the standards of the Times and in the manner it that Martins has appeared to represent his own work in the past.
I subscribed to Aperture for many years just to support a supposedly high-end photography publication. I found maybe two issues a year that contained something of interest to me, the rest was mostly artspeak/BS IMHO. I finally became fed up and stopped subscribing. I think Ansel Adams, Minor White, and the other photographers who founded "Aperture" would be appalled if they could see what it has become.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Ok, so maybe this one has an explanation, but the rest is double-speak.
--Gary
No, it is still double-speak. He is just trying to use artspeak to wiggle out of the fact that he lied. We all know, my children know, that photographs in certain contexts may not represent any sort of reality. We all know, my children know, that pictures in newspapers should roughly depict something real.
And we all know, and my children know, that if you say "my work isn't photoshopped" and the are caught making large photoshop alterations then you have NOT demonstrated any sort of philosophical issue, nor have you revealed any sort of conflict in the idea of photography or representation. You have simply lied, and lied for personal gain.
--Darin
put simply and plainly: Edgar Martins is a liar, Edgar Martins is a cheat, Edgar Martins is a fraud.
if he hadn't made that he refused to manipulate his photographs "out of respect for the process" a linch pin of his career and his reputation none of these things would be true or even matter (mostly because no one would have likely given his photos a second look). But the facts are that he clearly did heavily manipulate his photos even while claiming he did not - and he did so deliberately to make a reputation, further his career and line his pockets. And that is what makes him a liar, a cheat and a fraud.
And he is not very good at using Photoshop either.
The use of technical jargon when talking to a public audience to weasel out of blame for breaking the rules of the publisher and then lying about it seems to me the classic definition of double-speak.
Did I essentialize that correctly?
Rick "an engineer who hates the way language is corrupted to make jargon whose purpose is usually to exclude the non-technical from the discussion" Denney
In other words, an "indexical" photograph is what a normal person would call a documentary photograph if he or she wanted to be understood?
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
No, they would call it a documentary photograph.
Every photograph is indexical because that is the nature of photography--it is a word also used in philosophy and linguistics. Just as in the hard sciences, there are, in the arts and humanities, words to mean very specific things and ideas. As a retired lawyer I would expect you to understand the intricacies of language quite well and acknowledge that discussions taking place at a more intellectual level in a very specific field will require a vocabulary not used in the mainstream.
Edgar Martins is a very, very poor example to hold up as he used a dictionary and thesaurus to talk around and try to obscure the fact that he has misrepresented himself within the artistic community and is trying to salvage any hope of a reputation--even if it's as an erudite jackinapes. As Ellis has so eloquently said:
"put simply and plainly: Edgar Martins is a liar, Edgar Martins is a cheat, Edgar Martins is a fraud."
In the end, though, I do not understand why you are so negative on the discussions of photography in terms you refer to as "artspeak/BS IMHO". Have you read the books and articles written by Minor White (you refer to him) or those by Stieglitz or Steichen? Not their discussions of technique, but those of theory and criticism? They too use very similar language to that in Aperture magazine because that is the language required so as to not be continually [re]defining the very broad and blunt words used in everyday interactions.
This isn't me attacking you, but defending my own theoretical interests in photography as being more than "BS" and is meant as an earnest attempt to understand why using language outside of the common vernacular is so galling for you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks