Why Digital?

THE DIGITAL CORNER  

[no updates needed on this article - it is all still true]

People often ask me (either directly or through inquisitive looks) why I use digital imaging technology.  There are many possible reasons, and mine are perhaps not typical.  From a financial perspective, the best use of digital imaging is to increase productivity in such areas as catalog production.  People whose interests are more artistic might find the creative freedom attractive.  For myself, I have given a lot of answers to this question, but in the final analysis it probably just comes down to comfort.  We all do better work when we are familiar with our tools, so while one could argue indefinitely about what tool is best in the general case, the best tool for each individual is usually the one with which he or she is most familiar and comfortable.  Computers, and especially CRT displays, are very familiar to me.  I prefer to work on images in a nice office setting rather than a cramped, darkened room filled with a variety of chemical odors.

Many people assume that digital photography is all about manipulating images to create surreal worlds or comical juxtapositions.  I'd have to agree that a lot of that sort of thing is done.  Every medium imparts a certain quality to its products, and this sort of photo-montage is probably a fair characterization of digital photography,  but it is certainly not universal.  And there is probably less commonality of look to digitally processed images than to most media.  In contrast to heavily manipulated images, the work of Stephen Johnson, for example, consists largely of "straight" nature and landscape photographs done with a scanning digital camera back.  He uses it because he believes it produces a higher quality image than a film camera.  But if he is right, it is only true for the most expensive and constrained digital systems.  Such systems go to incredible technical extremes in an attempt to match the quality and appearance of conventional photography.  At the other extreme are artists who "embrace" the characters of the medium, using low resolution digital cameras and accepting (even exaggerating sometimes) the pixelation that results.  This might be done to use the medium as part of the message, or passively accepted as a trade-off for the positive attributes of the technology, such as instant access to the image, light weight, nearly silent operation, and virtually no cost for failed shots.  That can be quite liberating!

I suspect that the majority of Photoshop users are not photographers, and many of them seldom deal with truly photographic images.  They create images using a variety of tools and techniques, the only common attribute of which is that the image elements are "bit maps" rather abstract descriptions of objects.  But they may well be computer-generated images, reproductions of images from various sources, even fragments of an image created by others.  This is where the question of ethics meets the values of aesthetics.

When an image is meant to depict reality, such as in journalism, it seems clear that most "manipulations" of the image are improper.  The case of Time Magazine's cover photo of O.J. Simpson is a classic example of the boundaries of ethics in digital imaging, although the same processing could easily have been done otherwise.  The original photograph was darkened to create a more sinister impression.  The effect was sufficiently subtle that the typical viewer would not be aware of any manipulation, and no textual notice was given to that affect.  Considering the racial overtones of the story this manipulation was a poor choice on the part of Time's editors.  Since then a great deal of discussion has taken place on the issue and there seems to be a consensus that such manipulations are acceptable, but only if notice is given to the viewer that the image has been altered.

The question is different, and perhaps more complicated, in the case of artistic images.  In the proper context the viewer has no reason to question whether an image is "real", or even to care.  Obvious non-reality can be quite effective artistically, and questionable reality creates a mystery that captures attention, if not appeal.  (If I may refer to my own work for example, I think my "Two Worlds" which you have all seen, demonstrates this principle).  But what are the ethics involved in using images created by someone else as an element of one's own work?  It is easy to say that such cases are always unethical.  On the other hand, the law allows considerable latitude in use of copyrighted material, and interpretation of this law is often disputed.  Consider Warhol's well known painting of cans of Campbell's soup.  It is likely that more effort went into the original design of these can labels than into the subsequent painting (alright, maybe not as much talent, but a lot of time and commercial interest).  The naive (and especially those who are anti-technology) might say that mechanical reproduction of an image is unethical, assuming that Warhol's efforts were righteously creative.  Personally, I have no idea what technique he used for this particular painting, but he did often use silkscreen reproduction.  The point is not how the image was acquired (for that is a hopelessly complex, dynamic, and confusing issue), but what the image represents.  In this case the image is clearly a cultural icon, as are many of Warhol's pieces, including the portraits of Marilyn Monroe.  In the same way that "Kleenex" has become an ordinary English noun rather than a trade name, the people at Campbell's would have a hard time trying to defend their copyright on can labels in this case.

I also believe that use in parody should be staunchly defended because it is one of the most effective ways we have to communicate an idea or emotion (which is, after all, the purpose of art).  It's hard to generalize as to what is ethical use of another's work and what is not, but one easy test is simply whether a major element of an image would generally be recognized by the viewer as a reproduction of another's work.  If the image is known or if it leads to confusion over the identity of either artist it is probably unethical use.

Copyright (C) 2004 Greg Marshall

No portion of this web site may be copied or reproduced in any manner without express written consent.