Читать книгу More Than a Rock, 2nd Edition - Guy Tal - Страница 21

Art is not a study of positive reality, it is the seeking for ideal truth.

—John Ruskin

After teaching an image processing class, in which I articulated my thoughts on the validity of deviating from the reality of a scene in the name of creative expression, a fellow photographer commented that despite my acceptance of such techniques my images still appeared “natural.” Why wouldn’t they? I intended for them to appear natural.

I realized, however, that there was a greater issue at play. With so many easily applied computerized shortcuts to aesthetic appeal at our disposal, many people have come to associate their use with obvious, often egregious, visual effects and gimmickry.

I take no issue with any method of creating images, so long as the artist’s purpose is fulfilled. To me, an image should encapsulate a state of mind and a deeper meaning than just aesthetic appeal, and I use whatever tools I need in order to convey in my work the moods, sensations, or “stories” I am after. In so many other cases, it seems, the goal simply is to command visual interest by shock value—surprising or jarring the viewer, with no other intent or greater purpose than to satisfy the artist’s craving for attention and popularity. It would be futile for me to challenge anyone’s personal taste, methods, or motivations, but as one who is also a consumer of art I do make the distinction between images carefully crafted by an artist to express a personal visual message, and with the goal of enriching and inspiring their audience, and images created merely for popular appeal.

In my own work, I wish to reflect something of the mood, the romance, and the experience of discovery I felt at the time of creation. It therefore seems obvious to me that my images should look natural, regardless of any tool used or creative license I allowed myself. I create images in order to satisfy my desire for significant experiences, both immersive and expressive, and also with the purpose of sharing such experiences with others who may be similarly inspired by them.

Various methods and tools sometimes lumped under the term “manipulation” can be effective in overcoming limitations imposed by the capabilities of cameras and lenses, or by undesirable qualities of subject and light, that may obscure what an image is about—what I sought to express and the impression I hoped for my work to impart. In my work, I use various processing methods to enhance and sharpen the essence of what I want the viewer to feel, just as my own brain does when I experience such things as fascination, joy, peace, or any other emotion emerging out of a transcendent experience.

The source of my inspiration may at times be inherent and obvious, but it may also be implied or nuanced; it may be something common to many people or unique to my own way of thinking. As such, my work is rarely a simple objective representation of what was in front of the lens. My goal as an artist is to focus viewers’ attention and inspire certain emotions. In some situations, I may be able to accomplish these effects using visual composition alone, without the need for further adjustments, but not always.

Do not confuse what is visible with what is real: despite a degree of overlap, they are not the same. What’s real about an expressive image is never its objectivity, but how it is subjectively perceived.