Author: James Powell

In this piece of text, Derek Conrad Murray explores the idea of “The Selfie” and how modern day commercialism and society as a whole have allowed a generation where selfies, and one’s online presence, are the dominant “traits” of who they are as a person, and not simply who they are in real life. As time has passed and the world has become much more image based in terms of the sharing of feelings, news, and ideologies, the more recent generations of children will be exposed immediately to a world where everything is judged by what images you share online. I remember when Facebook had just been made public, rather than requiring a University email to be a member, and how very few people I knew actually signed up, and yet now everyone seems to have an account, with some parents even making family accounts, or pseudo-accounts for their children or pets. To what end will this continue then? Where ones personality, looks, and life experiences are worthless unless posted on social media. With the availability of cameras everywhere, and modern phones having a dedicated camera on the front specifically for selfies, the selfie has become almost a secondary “currency” in a capitalistic sense, where one’s worth or value is based not on stocks/assets, or their personality or themselves as a being, but is based solely on their online presence, where viewers care more about the good photos uploaded than the actual person behind the photos.

In this weeks’ text, Joan Fontcuberta discusses the idea that photo manipulation, namely through Photoshop, blurs the line between fiction and reality. Thanks to modern technology, any flaws or undesired areas of photographs can be edited in post-production. While this is a great thing overall, and Photoshop is a great tool that “does not in itself deserve moral judgement” because of what it is, the idea of ethics or moral judgement comes into play when intent is analysed. Photoshop may be a great tool for fixing or enhancing images, but it is possible to use it for a somewhat “positive” use that has unforeseen negative effects. Altering a person’s body, such as the example he used of Keira Knightley’s breasts, shows a potentially negative message overall. Not only does it show the message that in order to be attractive, you must have a more curvy figure than an athletic one, giving the idea that women who see the image aren’t as attractive unless they too are the same shape, but it also negates the value of decent diet and exercise. Why would one bother to exercise and diet if you can simply cut away areas of fat after taking the photograph? Since the common public is more likely to see the photo in magazines than they are the actual subject of those photos, they’re gaining a false sense of how that person looks, so this “totally normal portrait photography” of celebrities who are “normal just like you and me” has an immediate layer of deception to it. Breasts and stomachs will be altered, spots or freckles will be removed, and skin will be smooth and flawless, despite none of these things being present during the actual taking of the photograph. He goes on to mention that “the body and face have ceased to be the mirror of the soul, and are now the currency of exchange”, as the editing of celebrity photographs is so normalised now that people just accept whatever they see, and it is becoming more and more common for young women to have a false view of what they “should” look like, or of what the “ideal” body forms are if you want to be accepted or taken seriously in life.

Alexandra Moschovi writes about how Photography alone was excluded from the definition of “art”, at least with regards to the standards that art museums and collectors held. Creating a piece of art and then taking a photograph of it was becoming fairly popular, where the photograph would then be what was displayed; The photograph itself being in a sense a “frame” for the actual artwork. A snapshot of the art itself frozen in space and time, but the photograph itself is not the main focus of the “art” definition. A photograph alone would not have been considered art, as it was considered a state of “fact”, of scientific accuracy, and an objective truth of the subject of the photograph. With paintings, they’re often based on an original subject or thought, but if everyone is painting the same thing, such as in a life drawing class with all artists drawing one model, each individual image is going to be subjective, with the viewer themselves then taking their own interpretation of the image. With photography, it was not considered art, if only because while the original subject still existed, the photograph itself would be easily replicable and therefore lacks the aura of the artist’s (or photographer’s) personality. A photograph is a snapshot of something. It just is. How can it be considered art, when it’s an emotionless image of the things we see everyday, and therefore must have no creativity or individuality behind it? Ultimately, Photography “became an art form” after it was discovered to be a great medium to use within art pieces, and people began experimenting with the things that could be done with just a camera. Like how the great painting masters of old had perfected their perception and portrayal of light, photographers such as Ansel Adams sought to control the exposure and framing of their photos, so as to best portray the form and power of light as this raw, universal thing that made art what it is. All art, and sight, is our perception of light interacting with objects. To take a photo of the sun itself would usually just leave a blank white frame; But to capture the way it reflects off of mountains, the sky, the valleys and trees etc, that is what it means to capture beauty and create art. Ansel Adams, to name but one of the many pioneers of photography as art, showed that art and beauty are always subjective, and that photography is merely modern day painting, whereby the camera is the canvas, and the light is the paint. His photography alone changed how we see photography and “art” as a concept, as well as defining what it meant to be a landscape photographer. For all that photography used to be excluded from the definition of “art” unless used merely as a tool in a larger piece, over the years many artists have pushed the boundaries of both what the camera is capable of, and what our beliefs and views of beauty are as a whole

Robert Adams’ “Beauty in Photography” discusses the themes of aesthetic, of form, and what makes a photograph truly “beautiful”. He writes about how photography, as an art form, is in a sense broad and limitless, yet at the same time relies on the photographer themselves being able to see and love the idea they wish to convey, and the practices through which they intend to capture their desired image. He goes on to mention how photography is an imitation of form, and how a beautiful photo can be fairly simple, and not shocking, but it must do so with the respect of its predecessors, and that one must take inspiration from existing works, whilst still creating something that feels inherently different. He makes an interesting case for how a good photo usually appears simple in its design, as if the camera was simply picked up and immediately a perfect representation of life was captured, and that there is an underlying question about why photographers go to such effort to create what is, in essence, a lie; One that takes a lot more effort than could ever be known simply by looking at the image. While I appreciate his views and reasoning, I believe that art being subjective means that one cannot simply define art, nor beauty, as a truly defined idea. With so many people producing and engaging with art, it is hard to agree that a blanket definition could ever be agreed upon by everyone, as art is meant to be appreciated differently by each individual. For this reason, his piece is an interesting look into his view of photography and its portrayal of beauty, but it does not merit being considered fact, as I myself as an artist and a reader did not truly identify completely with his ideas of what defines beauty.

Welcome to University of Lincoln Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!