What I loved about your post, and the exercise and pleasure of reading it, was the honesty and transparency of engaging the question from different points of view. The photographer or artist must always engage their own questions in the process of making. Thinking, while critically important, is not as important as how each author, artist, or photographer moves towards their personal finish or result.
I would not think Jerry Ulesman considered his work unprocessed. With five enlargers and pin-registered processing of the combination of objects, landscape, and the meticulous arrangement of everything, Jerry always had a sense of humor as well.
I am all about the questions. For me, it's the deep, honest integrity of the specificity of the inquiry. Ask the right question, and respectfully listen to a response, and the discussion will be transparent. Institutions must show the courage of their convictions. All those different institutions are interrogating image-making from different points on the same compass.
At the school I used to work at, a respected colleague and I were asked to write a new policy about plagiarism in contemporary practices. We looked at a moving needle in the explosion of media and digital processing and a blending of criticisms across new works and traditional practices.
We decided to try to author a new approach to the old problem and define a core of honesty and transparency in practices. After weeks of discussion, research, and word-smithing, we came up with a pretty good inquiry into the problems and some ways to interrogate character, meaning and include new media opportunities and responsibilities.
Our work was rejected by the college as not being direct enough, and in the end, they just plagiarized another institution's document.
Thanks for making my Friday morning more interesting than I thought it was going to be...
Thanks so much for this thoughtful reply, Dennis — it's nice to hear from you. We'd love more folks to see this link. Please share it in your photo networks. Take care!
Interesting breakdown of categories, but at least in the world I see (which is likely flawed as anything else) these competitions aren’t really the arbiters of much these days. So I’m not sure how much weight we should give them and their rules. Even World Press - likely the most recognizable and impactful on the list - I would say carries a significant cultural weight to only a small sample of the photo world.
Exceptions pop up now and again but when I think of the most impactful and lasting works from the last few decades they mostly are represented in galleries and in monographs - mediums in which they tend to be contextualized more transparently or according to the photographer’s real intent - and are not even the kinds of pictures that win these things.
What is more interesting to me is how the definition of a photograph stands in relation to AI imagery and where that very significant discussion is happening the most vigorously. It’s the right question for sure - I wonder where besides contests is it being seriously scrutinized.
Thanks for an informative piece. As a long time photographer who started in the darkroom at age 9, I cannot understand why on earth HDR files would not qualify. As an analogy, if a film was invented with a 20 stop dynamic range it would certainly be acceptable. HDR is the same functionally. It doesn’t add anything to the scene, it just holds more detail and is closer to the human eye in the way it processes dynamic range. I am all for authentic photography but sometimes the new rules simply don’t make sense.
Thanks, Andy, for the thought-provoking post, and to Ziad Mnif for writing his piece. As I was reading, my first thoughts went to the birth of Impressionism, the competing shows, and the arguments of what constitutes painting as art. Then, of course, the “Examining Pictures” mentions impressionists and cubists. I thought of Jerry Uelsmann, of course, and couldn’t remember how to spell his name, but Dennis and Derrick bailed me out.
The world of contests and judging is beyond my experience, and after reading this piece, I am glad and will most likely keep it that way. The desire for external approval of one’s art and creativity cannot seem to be denied, I suppose, but it does add more baggage to what, for many, is a difficult process at best. How many wonderful, truly artistic works are out in the world, unknown because they have never been submitted? Does it matter?
As for all the public trials at the speed of the post-quote, more reason to stay away from the crowds, just a small circle of friends.
The four-room taxonomy you've constructed here is, without question, the most direct institutional representation of this argument I've seen.The four-room taxonomy you've constructed here is, without question, the most direct institutional representation of this argument I've seen. All of the ambiguity surrounding degrees of strictness is eliminated, and instead we can focus on the fact that these represent four different responses to a previous question. Describing them as four different responses to a single question, rather than four degrees of strictness, actually does more justice to the argument, because that question has existed and continues to exist in the practitioner tradition well before anyone has written, or dare I say ever will write, contest rules about it.
Neither Fan Ho nor Uelsmann would pass the World Press Photo verification process. Both represent the spirit of photography we are trying to capture here. The practitioner case for why goes back further than most contest rule writers have looked: The Negative Was Never the Photograph (https://dbucknerphotography.substack.com/p/the-fine-print-and-what-it-cost-me).
What your taxonomy helps identify, and I believe best explains the pile-ons, is a contract issue. A photograph presenting itself as a witness statement carries a different understanding with its viewer than one presenting itself as a pictorial construction. The record and witness rooms are there to accommodate that understanding. The pile-ons are the result of a group of people attempting to enforce a single understanding on an image that presents itself as something else, and that is the best part about it, with absolutely no common terminology or negotiation to indicate which understanding should be enforced.
You conveniently leave out the deception question, and it is the hardest question of all. The photographer who removes a power line from a photo and submits it as documentary is doing something categorically different from Fan Ho, not because of the manipulation, but because of what that photo claims to be. Fan Ho was honest. The pile-on target may not have been. That distinction is where the contract between image and viewer either holds or breaks: The Contract Nobody Read (https://dbucknerphotography.substack.com/p/the-negative-was-never-the-photograph?r=2jp7zg).
Your four rooms are attempting to make that distinction apply, but the problem is that the people making that distinction in a quote-post thread are not working from any room. They are working from an assumption.
Your piece shows that the rooms exist. The history of practice shows that they were necessary. What no one has built is the referee.
Andy’s text reads like he wrote it. The subsequent content reads more like AI or at least AI-edited content. But perhaps that is just the style these days, influenced by so much such content that I t’s infecting even real writers’ prose.
What I loved about your post, and the exercise and pleasure of reading it, was the honesty and transparency of engaging the question from different points of view. The photographer or artist must always engage their own questions in the process of making. Thinking, while critically important, is not as important as how each author, artist, or photographer moves towards their personal finish or result.
I would not think Jerry Ulesman considered his work unprocessed. With five enlargers and pin-registered processing of the combination of objects, landscape, and the meticulous arrangement of everything, Jerry always had a sense of humor as well.
I am all about the questions. For me, it's the deep, honest integrity of the specificity of the inquiry. Ask the right question, and respectfully listen to a response, and the discussion will be transparent. Institutions must show the courage of their convictions. All those different institutions are interrogating image-making from different points on the same compass.
At the school I used to work at, a respected colleague and I were asked to write a new policy about plagiarism in contemporary practices. We looked at a moving needle in the explosion of media and digital processing and a blending of criticisms across new works and traditional practices.
We decided to try to author a new approach to the old problem and define a core of honesty and transparency in practices. After weeks of discussion, research, and word-smithing, we came up with a pretty good inquiry into the problems and some ways to interrogate character, meaning and include new media opportunities and responsibilities.
Our work was rejected by the college as not being direct enough, and in the end, they just plagiarized another institution's document.
Thanks for making my Friday morning more interesting than I thought it was going to be...
Thanks so much for this thoughtful reply, Dennis — it's nice to hear from you. We'd love more folks to see this link. Please share it in your photo networks. Take care!
https://www.flakphoto.news/p/how-does-a-photograph-differ-from
Interesting breakdown of categories, but at least in the world I see (which is likely flawed as anything else) these competitions aren’t really the arbiters of much these days. So I’m not sure how much weight we should give them and their rules. Even World Press - likely the most recognizable and impactful on the list - I would say carries a significant cultural weight to only a small sample of the photo world.
Exceptions pop up now and again but when I think of the most impactful and lasting works from the last few decades they mostly are represented in galleries and in monographs - mediums in which they tend to be contextualized more transparently or according to the photographer’s real intent - and are not even the kinds of pictures that win these things.
What is more interesting to me is how the definition of a photograph stands in relation to AI imagery and where that very significant discussion is happening the most vigorously. It’s the right question for sure - I wonder where besides contests is it being seriously scrutinized.
I agree, photo v. AI is a fascinating discussion. I hope to publish more on this subject here soon. Thanks for reading, Peter!
Thanks for an informative piece. As a long time photographer who started in the darkroom at age 9, I cannot understand why on earth HDR files would not qualify. As an analogy, if a film was invented with a 20 stop dynamic range it would certainly be acceptable. HDR is the same functionally. It doesn’t add anything to the scene, it just holds more detail and is closer to the human eye in the way it processes dynamic range. I am all for authentic photography but sometimes the new rules simply don’t make sense.
Thanks, Andy, for the thought-provoking post, and to Ziad Mnif for writing his piece. As I was reading, my first thoughts went to the birth of Impressionism, the competing shows, and the arguments of what constitutes painting as art. Then, of course, the “Examining Pictures” mentions impressionists and cubists. I thought of Jerry Uelsmann, of course, and couldn’t remember how to spell his name, but Dennis and Derrick bailed me out.
The world of contests and judging is beyond my experience, and after reading this piece, I am glad and will most likely keep it that way. The desire for external approval of one’s art and creativity cannot seem to be denied, I suppose, but it does add more baggage to what, for many, is a difficult process at best. How many wonderful, truly artistic works are out in the world, unknown because they have never been submitted? Does it matter?
As for all the public trials at the speed of the post-quote, more reason to stay away from the crowds, just a small circle of friends.
Very clarifying. Thank you. Explaining these guidelines is an excellent way to provide insights into the broader discussions taking place today.
Thanks for reading, James. Please share with your photo friends! Here's a link: https://www.flakphoto.news/p/how-does-a-photograph-differ-from
The four-room taxonomy you've constructed here is, without question, the most direct institutional representation of this argument I've seen.The four-room taxonomy you've constructed here is, without question, the most direct institutional representation of this argument I've seen. All of the ambiguity surrounding degrees of strictness is eliminated, and instead we can focus on the fact that these represent four different responses to a previous question. Describing them as four different responses to a single question, rather than four degrees of strictness, actually does more justice to the argument, because that question has existed and continues to exist in the practitioner tradition well before anyone has written, or dare I say ever will write, contest rules about it.
Neither Fan Ho nor Uelsmann would pass the World Press Photo verification process. Both represent the spirit of photography we are trying to capture here. The practitioner case for why goes back further than most contest rule writers have looked: The Negative Was Never the Photograph (https://dbucknerphotography.substack.com/p/the-fine-print-and-what-it-cost-me).
What your taxonomy helps identify, and I believe best explains the pile-ons, is a contract issue. A photograph presenting itself as a witness statement carries a different understanding with its viewer than one presenting itself as a pictorial construction. The record and witness rooms are there to accommodate that understanding. The pile-ons are the result of a group of people attempting to enforce a single understanding on an image that presents itself as something else, and that is the best part about it, with absolutely no common terminology or negotiation to indicate which understanding should be enforced.
You conveniently leave out the deception question, and it is the hardest question of all. The photographer who removes a power line from a photo and submits it as documentary is doing something categorically different from Fan Ho, not because of the manipulation, but because of what that photo claims to be. Fan Ho was honest. The pile-on target may not have been. That distinction is where the contract between image and viewer either holds or breaks: The Contract Nobody Read (https://dbucknerphotography.substack.com/p/the-negative-was-never-the-photograph?r=2jp7zg).
Your four rooms are attempting to make that distinction apply, but the problem is that the people making that distinction in a quote-post thread are not working from any room. They are working from an assumption.
Your piece shows that the rooms exist. The history of practice shows that they were necessary. What no one has built is the referee.
Andy’s text reads like he wrote it. The subsequent content reads more like AI or at least AI-edited content. But perhaps that is just the style these days, influenced by so much such content that I t’s infecting even real writers’ prose.