Is fashion photography art and does the digitization of fashion photographs spell the “death of photography”?
By De Wet Erasmus
1
Since the start of photography, the debate to have it recognized as an art form has been a struggle. Purists of art have always debated the issue of photography as an art form, but recently, purists of photography - those true to the use of film - have now debated whether the digitization of photography can be classified as true photography. Digitization is seen most clearly in fashion photography, which, aside from advertising photography, is the most popular and influential genre amongst audiences.
Fashion photographers will surely see themselves as artists, especially the masters such as Richard Avedon and most recently, Patrick Demarchelier. But would using film rather than digital means to produce the work constitute the photographs as art? Could the digital revolution mean that the art of photography is dying?
This is very argumentative; to say that Fashion is art is one thing, but to put photography as art is to join two distinctly different means and call them one. It is also true that fashion photography influences commercial photography in the same way that commercial fashion is directly influenced by catwalk fashion. High fashion is the art of clothes and Michelin-star restaurants are the art of food then it stands to reason that fashion photography is the art of the photographic industry.
Most great artists such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Mozart and Dickens had “commercial” day jobs as many fashion photographers might consider their fashion work. If one would look at fashion photographer David LaChappelle’s work, one could not begin to tell you where fashion ended and art had began (www.whatseanwrote.com; viewed on 28 October 2009).
A lot of fashion photography is actually exhibited in galleries as paintings and sculptures would. Examples of this would be the great retrospective exhibition (fig. 1.1.) of Patrick Demarchelier in Paris, which was the major photographic event of the last quarter 2008. (www.pbase.com; viewed on 29 October 2009)
2
There will always be a debate on whether or not a photograph becomes art after certain manipulations are performed and loses its integrity as a photograph. That is the miracle of digital media and, since so much can now be done outside of the 'digital darkroom' to enhance photographs in fashion or in any means calling Photography 'Art' will stimulate extreme and heated debate. Fig. 1.1. Shows an old lady viewing the Patrick Demarchelier exhibition in Paris. http://www.pbase.com/alain_boussac/the_pat rick_demarchelier_exhibition_in_paris_
Examples of this would be the great retrospective exhibition (fig. 1.1.) of Patrick Demarchelier in Paris, which was the major photographic event of the last quarter 2008. (http://www.pbase.com; viewed on 29 October 2009)
What one could argue is that digitalization and extreme editing of fashion photographs could give it an artier feel. For instance, Nick Knight, one of Britain’s most renowned fashion photographers, tries to compose his images as a painter would, using all the design elements as an artist would. One can see this in fig. 1.2., where he attempts to edit his fashion image with digital paint added in with the help of Photoshop. (Hint Magazine 2009; viewed on 28
Fig.1.2. Image by Nick Knight
October 2009)
http://www.hintmag.com/shootingstars/nickkni ght/nickknight01.htm The digital age has brought with it a whole
bunch of new photographic techniques, and 3
with that, a new breed of professional photographers being blamed for the ‘death’ of photography. There is a distinction between photographs of real subjects, and computer-manipulated images of unreal or even hyper-real subjects. Some fine art and fashion photographers have, for creative purposes, found these techniques liberating, whereas the purists find highly stylized imagery going against what photography is about: Recording the world around us. About conventional photography, Nick Knight has said, “it’s dead on its legs” (Peter Rentz; viewed on 30 October 2009).
Around the early nineties, there was a major stylistic break between highly stylized retro images, such as use of ring flash which was started by Nick Knight, and experiments with computer-manipulated images as that was when Photoshop started becoming more useable. Photographers and art directors came to recognize the attraction of “larger than life” imagery, taken out of its historical context and found something new. One must understand that the nature of fashion and fashion photography is impermanent, it is ever changing and shifting trends, generates and exudes a perpetual ‘in-process’ quality. (The Counterfeit Body: Fashion Photography and the Deceptions of Femininity; viewed on 29 October 2009)
This quality is delusory however, as images and styles repeat themselves in carefully calculated and timed increments. What could also be said on photographers’ parts about manipulation of images is, those who can, do and those who can’t, complain. (“What Sean Wrote” Blog Article: Fashion In Mirror Self Reflection ; viewed on 28 October 2009)
Some have even talked of a crisis of representation in photography. However, what I want to argue in this essay is that the manipulation of photographs tells us a lot about our society's standards. The new digital procedures cannot simply be reduced to a matter of technological improvement. Today, photographs on the cover of almost every magazine have been retouched using computer technology. (Size zero debate; viewed 28 October 2009)
4
For most fashion and beauty photographers, to retire to their computers, after a photo shoot, to rearrange digitally their pictures has became an integral part of their work. Critics of digitally enhanced images are often not even photographers, but average people worried that a too-perfect supermodel on the cover of a magazine portrays something impossible, if not, at least, politically incorrect. If retouching has always been around, even during the prime of film photography, the new digital technology makes it so effortless and fast, that its use is becoming systematic. What used to be a privileged treatment, reserved for the cover and a few selected photographs, is now so widespread that virtually every photograph one can see in a magazine has undergone some digital alteration. (Size zero debate; viewed on 28 October 2009)
Perhaps digitally manipulated photographs are acceptable, as long as they mutate their subjects for artistic purposes and not just to further exaggerate the expectations of feminine beauty. Some cultural critics have even talked about "the power of the image" and have studied the effects of visual images on individuals or groups. (The Impossible Image: Phaidon Press Inc; 2000; viewed 28 October 2009)
Other theorists have often observed that the representation of women in the mass media is based on imagery defined by social and cultural forces which erase any trace of reality. Critics of digitally enhanced images are often not even photographers, but average people worried that a too-perfect supermodel on the cover of a magazine portrays something impossible, if not, at least, politically incorrect. How trustworthy is an image in today’s visually based media? This and other questions concerning photographic objectivity are as old as the camera itself, amplified and made more complex with the advent of digital technology. (The Impossible Image: Phaidon Press Inc; 2000; viewed 28 October 2009)
Nick Knight, a highly influential British fashion photographer, remains at the forefront of so-called hyper-real photographic experimentation. About conventional photography, he has said, “it is dead on its legs� (Hint Magazine 2009; Viewed 28 October 2009).
5
Additionally, he is not convinced that digitally manipulated images – those that go beyond the point of flattering a realistic looking image and actually warp it – are even photography. “I think imagery is what it’s about, and imagists will be the people who go into the next century. A camera will just be another tool to produce image – out of a range of tools,” he declared in an interview with Lumiere Magazine in 1996. (www.lumiere.com; viewed 30 October 2009)
In the last decade, photographers often responded to the never-ending demand for “new” imagery by re-presenting, or referencing, older styles and methods of photography. Whatever loyalty conventional photographers had to reality and time were completely destroyed by the incessant referencing that was popular in this time period. Only when Nick Knight and other high-profile fashion photographers began creating images bearing no relation to reality, did critics make their accusations about the manipulation trend (Fig. 1.3). (www.showstudio.com; viewed 30 October 2009)
Fig. 1.3. Image by Nick Knight shows excessive manipulation to produce this fashion image. www.showstudio.com/.../lg/speareoflight.jpg
Photographic manipulations can be considered as a kind of "editing" or "rewriting." Because of this very characteristic, these new age images, manipulated on purpose, can be read and can tell us a lot about our culture as they represent, with the appearance of reality, the real world around us in terms of a progressing and emotional 6
way. In a sense, these manipulations allow us to demonstrate the semiotics of photography. Photo-manipulation is more than just using a given technology, and the way it is used can help understand photographic representation as well as the values of our society. Photographer Nick Knight glides easily between the super-slick world of ad campaigns which includes Christian Dior and Yohji Yamamoto (fig. 1.4) and frank, humanistic portraits of those marginalized by society, he turned down a contract renewal from American Vogue, as he is now eager to concentrate on family matters and Fig. 1.4 shows an image done for Yohji Yamamoto by Nick Knight that could have only been achieved through manipulation
his online laboratory, Showstudio, where an assortment of fashion greats experiment with new ideas and images. Knight has found that the future with fashion lies more and more with technological advancements.
In conclusion, there is no death of photography, just adaptations and a progression towards an all new genre of art. Fashion photography is ever changing, just as styles in art, music, and literature change. The digitization of fashion photography is inevitable, and quite frankly, could make this genre of photography even more influential.
7
References: Size zero debate (2009) www.prlog.org/10372746-size-zero-debate-reignited-over-photoshoot-for-glamour.html
“What Sean Wrote” Blog Article: Fashion In Mirror Self Reflection (2009) http://www.whatseanwrote.com/2008/08/fasion-in-mirror-self-reflection.html
Nick Knight’s Showstudio (2009) www.showstudio.com
One Model Place (2009) http://www.onemodelplace.com
Science Direct (2009) http://www.sciencedirect.com
The Age (2008) www.theage.com.au/entertainment
The Impossible Image (Phaidon Press Inc; 2000) Phaidon Press, Inc.
“Knight Vision” by Stephen Todd, published June 1996
Peter Rentz http://www.peterrentz.com/1998-2003-Web-Type-Carlos/impossibleimage
The Counterfeit Body: Fashion Photography and the Deceptions of Femininity, Sexuality, Authenticity and Self in the 1950s, 60s and 70s [Page 2] www.daylightonline.com/thecounterfeitbody4.htm
Slate Magazine (2008) www.slate.com
Hint Magazine (2009) www.hintmag.com/shootingstars/nickknight/nickknight01.htm
8