Constructed Realities
Invariably when we speak of constructed realities in photography, most non-specialist consumers of photography are inclined to think that composited images are the invention of digital photography, however this couldn’t be further away from the truth as manipulation in camera (for example double exposures) or in the dark room (‘cut’ and ‘paste’, literally) were (and still are) widely used instruments by film photographers. But there is still a degree of belief that film photography captures reality more authentically than digital, and that images that are ‘photoshopped’ (which has become a dirty word) are somehow less valuable.
It is interesting, with this in mind, to read Michael Kohler’s ‘Arranged, Constructed and Staged - from Taking to Making Pictures’ and go back to times when the ‘objectivity’ of photography first became challenged. Kohler notes that as early as the 1920s - many decades before digital photography would become widespread - ‘ an avant-garde in camera art had managed to undermine the “realism” and “objectivity” of photography so successfully that the sense of viewing an authentic reproduction of a certain segment of reality was fully suspended.’
Man Ray Kiki de Montparnasse 1924
Indeed, once photography became more accepted as a form of artistic expression and less an indexical cataloguing of the apparent world, there was equally a diversification of the subjects depicted through imagery, and an attempt to capture not just the surface of things but what lies under the surface and is potentially more meaningful.
Duane Michals Dr Heisenberg's Magic Mirror of Uncertainty, 1998
Duane Michals says: ‘I believe in fantasy. What I can’t see has infinitely more meaning than what I can see... Everything is the subject of photography, but especially the difficult things in our lives, our fears, childhood traumas, drives, nightmares. The things one cannot see are the most significant. (“Real Dreams”, 1976)
I would argue that as photographers we do actually begin to ‘see’ what is ‘unseen’ just like reading between the lines when faced with sensorial information. But we also ‘see’ in our minds, visualise to some extent what we will eventually create and try to communicate.
It is also important to ask ourselves: are we as photographers still preoccupied with conveying authenticity through our constructed images?
Anna and Bernhard Blume Kitchen Frenzy 1986
Blume says: ‘The medium of photography has always interested me only because the way photos are perceived makes it easier to make the pictorial ideas formed in the mind look authentic.’
We certainly are. All photographs are not constructed equal. We are still very much concerned with conveying the message, the emotion, the ambiguity, regardless of the medium that we choose, albeit it may all fall under the vast categorisation of photography.
Whether we try to convey meaning by inviting the viewer to see beyond the apparent surface or we use entirely abstract forms of communication to depict something nonetheless real, the challenge becomes one of coding and decoding, regardless of our choice of channel of transmission.
A master of constructed realities, Gregory Crewdson’s says: ‘My hope is that my pictures, although elaborately staged, convey an experience that is intensely real’ (Crewdson in Barnes & Best, 2006, p.54). However, in this particular example, It is interesting to observe how the roles have almost been reversed when we look at Crewdson’s interpretation of Ophelia next to Millais’ original rendition in the context of Sontag’s belief that ‘the painter constructs, the photographer discloses’. Both are constructed realities using Shakespeare’s fictional character Ophelia as the central figure, yet contrary to traditional comparisons of the two art forms, could one claim that the painting may be perceived to look more real than the photograph?
Gregory Crewdson Untitled (Ophelia) 2001
John Everett Millais Ophelia 1851-2
