Some Aspects of Photography in Digital Times Interview with Pedro Meyer Pedro Meyer (b.
1935) is one of the first photographers to
successfully make the transition from analog to
digital photography. He has won numerous awards for
his work which is included in permanent collections
of more than 20 of the world's finest museums, and
has appeared in more than 125 exhibitions. As a
founder of ZoneZero.com - perhaps the most
important website dedicated to promoting digital
photography from around the world - the Mexican
artist has published, among other things, two
interactive CD-ROM titles, the ground-breaking "I
Photograph to Remember" (1991) and the
much-acclaimed "Truths & Fictions" (1995) which
is also available in a print version (published by
Aperture). Jörn
Glasenapp
talked to Pedro Meyer about the manipulative
aspects of both analog and digital imaging, Paul
Strand's alleged 'purity', the weakness of the
medium to transport the artist's statement, the
forthcoming death of analog photography and the
internet as an important distribution
platform. |
|
dd:
New technologies alter, rather than simply extend, the
resources of art. Accordingly, many critics argue that the
creative freedom provided by digital manipulation is bought
at the cost of photography’s distinctive power, which,
rightly or wrongly, we tend to see in its documentary
quality, that is in its close connection with the observable
reality or its adherence to a referent. What do you think
about this point? PM: As you correctly
state: namely the option that photography is being
considered wrongly for its inherent documentary quality as a
result of its close connection with observable reality. The
critics are confused and shortsighted at best, they lack
memory. If they did exercise such a skill, they would
remember that photography was accused at the outset of its
existence of all that today they accuse digital photography
to be. Remember how photography was frowned upon for being
the by-product of a mechanical instrument which denied any
possibility for individual expression? Yesterdays shame for
using a camera is replaced today by a computer being the
source for banal creativity as produced by such evil
machines which take the "truth" out of
photography. Ask any one of those critics
for a good example of a documentary picture, and, more often
than not, they will refer you to a black and white image. As
if reality resided any where in the world in black and
white. They seem to forget that this abstraction is solely a
convention and nothing more, which we have incorporated into
our visual language without any further critical thought.
Now if we speak of color pictures, the distance between fact
and fiction is no better off, as it is anyone's guess what
"true" colors really are. It is much too complex to enter
into this theme in these few questions and
answers. dd:
Could digital photography, simply because everybody knows
how easy it is to manipulate a digital image, function as a
means to undercut the common belief in the trustworthiness
and authenticity of photographs in general? Seen that
way, digital photography might fulfill a sensitizing or
didactic function by calling attention to the fact that
every image is manipulation, that photographs are not
neutral containers of reality. PM: Precisely, that
is my point. dd:
In pre-digital times, Paul Strand, pleading for the purity
of photography as a distinct art form, claimed that
"manipulation is merely the expression of an impotent desire
to paint." Indeed, one could describe, and many critics do
so, digital editing as the photographer‘s means of
gaining the painter’s authorial control of meaning.
What do you think about the fact that the digital image
threatens to blur the customary distinctions between
painting and photography? PM: Let me first take
issue here with the assumptions about "purity" as Paul
Strand would describe photography, in order to be considered
as such. I will quote my good friend Esther Parada:
So much for the so called
authority on the "real"...or the pretense that there was a
total absence of manipulation. One only needed to be a
photographer in order to manipulate. Not a painter. I sense
therefore that the question you pose leads us into a trap.
Needles to say that as photographers we have done bloody
well manipulating reality without having to consider
ourselves as painters. It is not that I have an issue with
being considered a painter, but doing so removes the
challenge on photography by allowing the issue to be
explained away so conveniently as photographers don't
manipulate, painters do. Observe how manipulative you
questions actually are. You see text can do that very easily
also, you don't need to be considered a painter in order to
do so. Do you? dd:
You once said that digital editing "enhances your position
from being just a button-pusher to being a creator." This
statement gives me the impression that you are a bit envious
a) of the painter’s freedom to create and control, and
b) of his reputation as an
artist. PM: If pushing the
boundries of ones' medium is synonimous with envy for other
mediums as you pose the question, then I think we should
re-examine what envy means. The dictionary tells us that
envy is: resentful awareness of another's
advantage. Why should I be resentful
when today we can only celebrate that as photographers we
have a whole new world of opportunities in front of us. So
who is supposed to have the advantages ? And then about the issue of
reputation, I can only say that I have a reputation that at
times is larger than that of some painters I know, which
makes the issue not one of medium but one of
individualities. No, I do not envy anyone,
nor do I envy any other medium. This one will do for my
lifetime. I can hardly keep up with all that it has to offer
to even think in terms of being envious of other
options. dd:
As you mentioned in "Truths & Fiction", digital editing
gives you the possibility "to convey your message, your
intentions, with much greater clarity." Isn’t the prize
of freeing yourself from the constraints of reality the
stronger restriction of the viewer’s scope of
interpretation? I ask this question because digitality in
literature, that is in hypertexts is supposed to undermine
the author’s control of the reader’s
interpretation. PM: You introduced
into the question some of what I suspect might be your own
prejudices. You ask: "Isn't the prize of freeing yourself
from the constraints of reality...." first of all I am
freeing myself not from reality but from the limitations
that the tools had in the past. BIG DIFFERENCE! The larger issue is that
photography never had any control of anything, being that it
is a weak medium to begin with, it can not communicate any
specific thoughts or ideas. To be specific it always
required text or other forms of communicating in order to
deliver a precise messages. Susan Sontag already dealt with
this almost 20 years ago. I as an author using
photographs have control over the image in direct proportion
to the tools that allow me to fine tune the image, yet at
the end of the day, it is the viewer who will deliver to the
image the specificity that she or he feels that the image
conveys. At best I can come closer to making my statement
with the tools at hand today, but the photograph by itself
is a medium fraught with limitations. Some of these can even
work to ones advantage at times, from a narrative point of
view. But they are there never the less. dd:
Will digital imaging be the death of analog
photography? PM: If you mean that
by that, the death of the chemical process, I would venture
to say yes. But Photography aside of how it is produced is
certainly not going anywhere but up. I would venture to say
we have moved from the "dark room" to the "light room". That
is certainly an optimistic view, wouldn't you say? I have
not stepped into the dark room in more than a decade, and
yet I have never produced more images than at present.
dd:
What’s your view of the internet concerning the
development of digital photography as an art
form? PM: It will be an
intrinsic part of the medium of photography. A platform for
delivery with whole new opportunities for publishing and
sharing images. dd:
Critics like Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin maintained
that some of your works might be characterized as visual
equivalents of the magic realism of Latin American authors
like Gabriel Garcia Marquez and others. Do you consider this
comparison an appropriate one? PM: I am not sure
that even Gabriel Garcia Marquez would fully see his work in
that light. After all what is "magic realism" ? At the heart
of this, as I see it, is cultural diversity, and how the
translations work between one and the other culture. I might
see as magic realism some of the things that go on in
Europe, and to your eyes they are simply normal. See what I
mean? dd:
In an interview you said that Robert Frank’s "The
Americans" was a reference that no one (including yourself)
would let you forget when you took the pictures for "Truth
& Fiction". Are there any other photographers the work
of whom you would name as special points of orientation for
your own work ("Eye Bar, Los Angeles", for example, reminds
me of Susan Meiselas)? PM: Hmm! never
thought of that, she is a good friend of mine, but I have
never ever seen an image of hers that would even remotely
send me in that direction. I have a huge library of
books on photography, as a curator, editor, publisher,
teacher, etc. you can well imagine that my brain has been
populated by a lot of very exciting and good work over time.
Have I received any influences from all these sources? I
would hope so, otherwise I would have been a moron staring
into the void. Now does that translate into
me picking a specific photographers' work as a role model?
no I never did that. Since I never went to school to learn
about photography, I had to sort these issues out on my own,
and I probably never felt confident enough to settle on any
one role model for fear of possibly going down the wrong
path. Aside from the fact that I
was educated with the idea that to imitate or copy anyone
was not done if you had any interest in developing you own
character, it was also not very moral to do so. I also was
brought up with the notion that you ate all that you had on
your plate. Old fashioned? yes! dd:
Do you use digital altering as a means to evade their
example, to cope with your anxiety of influence? PM: It is interesting
you ask this, as it resembles very much the question of envy
you asked earlier. Sorry to disappoint you, in that I am
less neurotic than you might suggest. I am not at all
envious or anxious of others. As a matter of fact I am quite
content with the opportunities that I have had in my life,
and I have done as best as possible within what ever real
limitations I surely have had. I am neither competing with
others, or even looking out as to what they are doing. Which
brings me in closing to tell you a little
anecdote. As I was working in the US,
at the end of the eighties on all that I produced over those
five years, 1988-1993, I made incredible innovations which
only in time I would realize what they meant and what they
were. I produced the first CD ROM with photographs and
continuos images, ( I Photograph to Remember), I produced
one of the first books that were ever done over the
internet. I produced what was at the time, the very first
photographic exhibition of images not only digitally created
but also printed, and so on, and so on, but at the time, as
I saw no one around me, doing anything, I thought of myself
of being hopelessly behind everyone and imaging that surely
it was only due to my ignorance that I did not know of all
the accomplishments of others, but I did not have any time
to find out if that was true or not, I just plowed along
with my own things, exploring and enjoying every moment of
it. When I finally came out of that period, I realized that
indeed what had happened is that I wasn't behind everyone
but instead quite ahead of the curve. My motivations were never to
be ahead or to prove anything, I simply wanted to be
creative and enjoy it. I was, and have always been, self
motivated. I do things because I like the challenges they
pose, not because I have to prove anything to anyone. Such
freedom is very important within this digital world which
can be very unsettling if you view the process from a
competitive point of view. dd:
Thank you very much for the interview. |
