Is photographic integrity dead?

[Marko]

Clearly, these rules reflect a particular aesthetic. Given that the competition started in 1964, it would be interesting to know how long the substance of the above has been part of the rules. Specifically, does the substance pre-date digital processing, or are the rules a reaction to it?

Clearly, those rules reflect organizers' bias, more than esthetic per se, otherwise they would exclude all over-saturated images, such as those made on Velvia or similar films, and not just digital. With all due respect to the organizers, the rules that pertain specifically to digital submissions read like they were written by someone with rather limited experience and understanding of digital workflow.

As an example, while it is nice of them to allow sharpening, it is also indicative of the very basic misunderstanding of the critical role sharpening plays in digital capture and processing. And then they immediately go on and get downright patronizing toward those who do use it regularly with that silly little lecture about "many images being ruined by over-sharpening".

These are just two examples, there are other rather prominent awkward constructs in there, such as the line about DNG files...

But that's their competition and they certainly have the right to set the rules as they see fit. Having personal integrity as a photographer in this case would mean either to ignore competitions with such clumsy rules OR to follow the rules to the letter once accepted by sending a submission.

[cowanw]

Now, what had no integrity has regained it.
http://www.globaltvbc.com/technology...133/story.html
Regards
Bill

[Merg Ross]

"Why I am wasting two minutes of my life posting this is a mystery even to me, but here goes"

Yeah I got sucked in too.

Should we have a special section for PHOTO THEOLOGY?

Or, perhaps you could have a "Lounge" section.

[Mark Sawyer]

Is photographic integrity dead?

No, but it's walking with a limp, and I'm pretty sure it has a really bad infection...

[r.e.]

Later this week I'n going to an exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan entitled New Photography 2009. For me, following this discussion has been useful as background. MOMA's description of the exhibit:

New Photography 2009 is a thematic presentation of significant recent work in photography that examines and expands the conventional definitions of the medium. Although the six artists in this installation—Walead Beshty, Daniel Gordon, Leslie Hewitt, Carter Mull, Sterling Ruby, and Sara VanDerBeek—represent diverse points of view, working methods, and pictorial modes ranging from abstract to representational, their images all begin in the studio or the darkroom and result from processes involving collection, assembly, and manipulation. Many of the works are made with everyday materials and objects, as well as images from the Internet, magazines, newspapers, and books. Some of the artists also work in other mediums and their pictures relate to disciplines such as drawing, sculpture, and installation. As traditional photographic techniques are being quickly replaced by digital technologies, the artists included here examine the process and structure of making photographs.

It might be interesting to go from MOMA over to the nearby Pace MacGill Gallery, which is exhibiting Bruce Davidson and Roy DeCarava.

[paulr]

"...recent work in photography that examines and expands the conventional definitions of the medium."

What's implicit here is that conventional definitions get examined and expanded all the time. The earliest definition, arrived at by consensus in Daguerre's time, had to be examined and expanded with the advent of paper negatives, and again with wet plates, and again with dry plates, and again with film, and again with kodachrome ...

This is the nature of most technological media, and most art media of any kind. The only constant, as the cliché goes, is change.

At any point in time, the work that is most interesting to a contemporary art gallery or museum is work that challenges old assumptions and definitions. If you want to see something you haven't seen, then that's the likely place to look.

[percepts]

Whether one agrees with percept or not, his views on nature photography are in fact pretty mainstream.

For example, the UK's Natural History Museum in London, together with an arm of the British Broadcasting Corporation, annually holds a major competition for wildlife and landscape photographers. This competition has has been running for 45 years (since 1964). For 2009, there were 43,000 entries. The judges are listed, with their biographies, here: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-...try/Judges.jsp In this forum, perhaps the most visible name is Jack Dykinga, who has also been a competitor. In 2007, the last time that I saw the exhibit arising from this competition, he received an honourable mention.

The results of the 2009 competition are curently on display at the museum, where they will be exhibited until next April. It is an extremely successful event, which is why substantial museum space is dedicated to it for six months, with lineups to get in. I'll be going next month, as I did two years ago, because both the photography and the presentation are of high caliber.

In January, they will be calling for entries for the 2010 competition. The rules say, in part:



Clearly, these rules reflect a particular aesthetic. Given that the competition started in 1964, it would be interesting to know how long the substance of the above has been part of the rules. Specifically, does the substance pre-date digital processing, or are the rules a reaction to it?

I'm kind of disappointed that no-one, other than Rick, has addressed the questions that I raised about Shepard Fairey's poster for the Obama campaign, because I think that that is very much where the rubber hits the road on the main issue that has been raised by this thread, which I think can and should be discussed without reference to integrity in the ethical sense of the word.

see what I mean...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8470962.stm

[Drew Wiley]

I'm probably stupid to weigh in on this thread at all. But one thing I've often noted is
how in the Far East you have an aristic tradition which frequently honors parameters
of tradition, yet excellence within it, while here in the West "modernism" and
"creativity" have run amuck. In the museum circuit in particular there is a trend
to push novelty for novelty's sake. After all, you have to shock or come up with
something radically new every few months if you want to generate talk and sell
tickets. Reminds me of back when the hippies all tried so hard to look different from
everyone else that they all ended up looking the same; same for the punk rockers
of the next generation. But one thing is certain, whatever is really cool and in vogue
in the museums today will probably seem boring tomorrow. And when the dust
settles, a very few individuals in each phase or genre will still stand out.

[Greg Blank]

The truth in what you say is a direct ratio to the work showcased in (Insertname) -X-changefinder magazine.

I'm probably stupid to weigh in on this thread at all. But one thing I've often noted is
how in the Far East you have an aristic tradition which frequently honors parameters
of tradition, yet excellence within it, while here in the West "modernism" and
"creativity" have run amuck. In the museum circuit in particular there is a trend
to push novelty for novelty's sake. After all, you have to shock or come up with
something radically new every few months if you want to generate talk and sell
tickets. Reminds me of back when the hippies all tried so hard to look different from
everyone else that they all ended up looking the same; same for the punk rockers
of the next generation. But one thing is certain, whatever is really cool and in vogue
in the museums today will probably seem boring tomorrow. And when the dust
settles, a very few individuals in each phase or genre will still stand out.

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm probably stupid to weigh in on this thread at all. But one thing I've often noted is
how in the Far East you have an aristic tradition which frequently honors parameters
of tradition, yet excellence within it, while here in the West "modernism" and
"creativity" have run amuck. In the museum circuit in particular there is a trend
to push novelty for novelty's sake. After all, you have to shock or come up with
something radically new every few months if you want to generate talk and sell
tickets. Reminds me of back when the hippies all tried so hard to look different from
everyone else that they all ended up looking the same; same for the punk rockers
of the next generation. But one thing is certain, whatever is really cool and in vogue
in the museums today will probably seem boring tomorrow. And when the dust
settles, a very few individuals in each phase or genre will still stand out.

Are you really knowledgeable about say contemporary Japanese photography? I am not but in architecture where I am more knowledgeable, I would say that Japanese architects are pushing the envelope as much or more than western architects. Japan is certainly as much a consumer society (trendy products and trendy ideas) as the west. I find it hard to believe that photography is any different.