Posts Tagged ‘edgar martins

18
Ago
09

Como eu leio o ensaio do Edgar Martins…

“You and i know that while photographs may not lie, liars may photograph.”
Lewis Hine (1874-1940)

Reconheço algum debate ‘interno’ sobre se deveria ou não comentar o ensaio do Edgar Martins, que o próprio escreveu e divulgou como resposta à monumental trapalhada que se seguiu à exclusão por parte do New York Times de um ensaio fotografico seu.

Decidi fazê-lo sobretudo porque acredito que não é com peças sobre-intelectualizadas e incompreensíveis que se explica algo tão simples como responder à pergunta: se Edgar Martins admite agora a manipulação porque é que em várias circunstâncias o negou? E o ensaio responde ou não a essa pergunta fulcral em toda a questão?

Após uma leitura atenta do ensaio (que podem ler neste mesmo blogue ou no sítio do próprio Edgar Martins) consigo detectar algumas falhas subtis na argumentação que o fotógrafo apresenta para se defender, a mais óbvia não pode deixar de ser a falta de resposta à pergunta ‘porque mentiu Edgar Martins’.

Whilst it is true that my work is mostly defined by the use of non-computer assisted processes, it is not however accurate to state that I have always taken a purists stance towards Photography.

Mas as próprias palavras de Edgar Martins desmentem esta afirmação:

Though my images are minimal in tone, they do not pare down my experience of place. In my work there is scope for so much more. What seem like highly controlled and manipulated photographs are but a product of illusion.
(in The Morning News)

When I photograph I don’t do any post production to the images, either in the darkroom or digitally, because it erodes the process. So I respect the essence of these spaces.
When you become a perfectionist, the perfection takes over, you know? And that really skews the overall meaning of the image. So that ‘s why I try to make the images as organically as possible…But I don’t have anything against digital photography,(…)
(in ARTmostfierce)

Esta última afirmação é desmentida no próprio ensaio que o Edgar agora publica:

Such is the case with projects like Parables of Metaphor & Light, Reluctant Monoliths, amongst one or two others. That is not to say, of course, that the works are entirely digitally processed. Analogical means still lie at the core of the production process.
Moreover, I have always resorted to digital technology to restore or repair images.
Those who have truly looked at my photographs, especially the larger, darker, 3m works, will know that they are dust or scratch free, a condition, which is unattainable in analogue Photography. This implies some kind of mediation.

Parece-me a mim, mas posso estar enganado, que apanhado em falso (não queria dizer a mentir mas nada lá perto…) Egdar Martins tenta a fuga para a frente e pelo caminho desmente o que disse, ainda por cima numa época em que nada se perde tudo se arquiva.

Mas dentro do próprio ensaio Edgar Martins lança questões a que não dá resposta e entra em algums contradições.

Was I fully aware of the context the work would be presented and understood in? Had this been previously communicated to me? Were my actions a gesture of provocation, exploitation of an unclear brief or naïve idealism? Was I aware of the ethics guidelines for journalists? Furthermore, do the constructions contribute to or invalidate the photo story?
I realize that this project and recent turn of events have raised many ideas well… about ideas and various other questions about boundaries and parameters.
However, I would like to clarify two important misconceptions.
I do not believe I have misrepresented The New York Times or the work I produced, moreover, my oeuvre…

Aqui EM faz as perguntas que todos gostariam de ver respondidas mas acaba por se desviar delas com uma ‘clarificação importante’ que acaba por não responder às perguntas que ele próprio coloca. Seriam apenas retóricas? Provavelmente…

Whilst my contractual arrangements with The New York Times have solicited much scrutiny and conjecture, of greater importance is the need to renegotiate the terms of the wider contract between author/newspaper/reader.

I recognize that when the contract between author/newspaper/reader is broken it negates the newspaper’s raison d’être and alienates its public.

Pura e simplesmente EM vê a necessidade de alterar um contrato mas dado que o mesmo ‘contrato’ ainda não está alterado, a sua quebra nega a razão de ser do próprio jornal e quebra a lealdade com o seu público, como ele próprio reconhece.

Pessoalmente acho esta explicação extremamente codificada e confusa e que continua a não dar respostas concretas a algumas questões que se levantaram inicialmente e que continuam a aguardar uma resposta. Lançar para o público uma prosa filosófica, com citações de autores reconhecidos não é suficiente; no meu entendimento seria preferível (e talvez mais razoável) Edgar Martins explicar-se de outra forma, utilizando as suas próprias palavras com um resultado final que se pudesse entender. Assim temos um ensaio enfatizado e sem sentido nenhum mas talvez seja esse exactamente o seu propósito…

Anúncios
31
Jul
09

Edgar Martins: o ensaio intitulado ‘How can I see what I see, until I know what I know?’

O fotógrafo Edgar Martins que se viu recentemente envolvido em polémica com o Nwe York times por causa da manipulação de algumas fotografias da sua autoria e que foram publicadas num ensaio que posteriormente foi retirado pelo jornal da sua página online escreveu-me algumas palavras no sentido de explicar o que se passou. Preferiu fazê-lo através de um ensaio (exclusivamente em inglês) e, segundo as palavras do mesmo no email que me dirigiu, que – e passo a citar – na sua opinião “tornará algumas questões bem claras, no entanto terá de ser o próprio leitor a tirar as suas conclusões. Pelo menos por agora.”.
foi esta a forma escolhida pelo Edgar Martins fazer chegar ao público as suas explicações e acho que cada um deve ler atentamente o texto e tirar as suas próprias conclusões.

How can I see what I see, until I know what I know?

“‘Everything straight lies’, murmured the dwarf disdainfully. ’All truth is crooked, time itself is a circle.’” 1
In June this year I completed the fist stage of an artist-in-residency program at one of the most unique natural habitats in the world, in Florida. It was at this time that Michael Jackson’s untimely death (or imminent – if you believe the rumors) and subsequent saga started monopolizing all air time.
Having wrestled with mosquito infested lands for the best part of ten days, I finally succumbed to the idiosyncratic demands of a city boy turned anthropophobic and booked myself into a Miami Beach hotel.
Whilst quietly and reticently watching CNN, in an entirely unconnected part of my brain I realized that history was no longer linear.
In the pulsating world of binary number systems that we live in, history is made, negated and reinvented, all in the space of one minute.
Modern media no longer just report events and communicate ideas. While doing so, in real time, they also inadvertently expose the processes, which underpin all communication and human condition. As fraught and as contradictory as much of the information being portrayed often is, it reveals a polymorphic and multiform reality, a world of flux and flow that is in a perpetual state of uncertain transformation and where the constant search for answers only leads to more questions.
I can’t help but draw parallels between this observation and the work I produced (and perhaps, on a different level, to some of the reporting and blogging surrounding this issue).
The images and constructions I created allude to processes that define real time response mechanisms to the spaces I am photographing. But this is not about asserting artistic authorship.
To look at these photographs is to rehearse one’s own exclusion. To understand how they are produced is to call into question the complexity of a collective unconscious.
The work, itself, points to photography’s inadequacies, its insufficiencies.

.

Whilst this is how I would prefer to contextualize my decision making process, I suspect it may not be enough for some.
The truth is that at the core of this issue lies not a debate about deception or misrepresentation, nor one in which Art and Journalism exist in ‘febrile rivalry’, to coin Susan Sontag. After all, as Peggy J. Bowers observes in ‘Through the Objective lens: The ethics of expression and repression of high art in photojournalism’ 2 despite the ontological, epistemological and moral chasm concerning truth, verisimilitude, and authenticity, Art and Journalism have been using the same methods for artistic expression for many years (except in one context they are done explicitly, in another implicitly – and no, I am not referring to the use of Photoshop).
Was I fully aware of the context the work would be presented and understood in? Had this been previously communicated to me? Were my actions a gesture of provocation, exploitation of an unclear brief or naïve idealism? Was I aware of the ethics guidelines for journalists? Furthermore, do the constructions contribute to or invalidate the photo story?
I realize that this project and recent turn of events have raised many ideas well… about ideas and various other questions about boundaries and parameters.
However, I would like to clarify two important misconceptions.
I do not believe I have misrepresented The New York Times or the work I produced, moreover, my oeuvre.
I acknowledge that digitally altering photographs, in itself, does not constitute a problem when presented in a non-indexical context. However, aside from illustration, fashion and the occasional portraiture based project, how often are social/politically driven issues conceptualized and understood outside the scope of the canonical photo-documentary?
Whilst my contractual arrangements with The New York Times have solicited much scrutiny and conjecture, of greater importance is the need to renegotiate the terms of the wider contract between author/newspaper/reader.

.

I accept the probabilistic nature of the universe as a fact. Just as in Physics Uncertainty broke down the movement of particles to probability functions, in Photography my starting point any project is that all reality is manipulated; all facts are a construction, shaped by those who record them.
I have long expressed concern at how a vast majority of Photojournalism is incapable of representing process; whether it be the process leading up to or underpinning the event being covered or the process of assimilation, appropriation and communication of the real by the photographer. Perhaps this has something to do with Photography or the single-frame’s inability to represent time. Perhaps because for journalists objective reality is not only attainable but can manifest itself through the veracity of the lens – the ‘incontrovertible’ photograph. Or perhaps because in process there is no real end product… just a set of propositions.
I have always believed that even in an editorial context there should be an attempt to raise ideas about communicating ideas. This taps into the latent potential of Photography’s failings.
These photographs are no more commentaries than observations. They are meta-photographs.
They deploy the metaphor of struggle between poetic failure and the promise of success to suggest a place uncertain of its future.
However, as Peggy J. Bowers correctly argues, metaphors are closer to fiction than reality, thus inviting a line of questioning at odds with Journalism’s preferred figure of speech: the metonymy.
Bernardo Soares (one of Fernando Pessoa’s many heteronyms) wrote ‘some truths cannot be told except as fiction’ 3. Perhaps it may also be the case that some truths are better told as ‘fiction’.
Photojournalism has never felt the need to challenge or contravene certain rules, aesthetic or ethical. Yet, within this framework there is a perpetual search, not to mention a real need, to find new ways of assimilating and representing the real.
Though I do not subscribe to the notion that it doesn’t matter what the photographer knows or believes, what matters is that he creates images which will help others articulate or challenge what they believe, my intentions with this work were not to deliberate on the condition of Photojournalism nor on the need to claim artistic authorship over pictures.
Was I aware of how the story would be presented to the readers? Are some of the constructions not sufficiently self-evident to have opened up a line of questioning much earlier than they did? If the constructions were conceived to incite debate, how and when would this have come about? Do I understand the New York Times’ decision to pull the slideshow? Could there have been a different way of dealing with this issue? Do these constructions expose a previously unannounced way of working by the artist? Was this the right platform to invite any kind of debate?
I believe it is more pertinent to ask: can we look at an image at one and the same time as a fact and a construct and be aware of the processes that underpin it?
I believe we can.
And does this invalidate its journalistic purpose?
I don’t know.
Whilst I welcome some of the debate that is taking place, I did not envisage that it would be mostly centered on polarities such as ethical/unethical, right/wrong, real/unreal.
Photography is a simulacrum. In reconstituting its subject, argues Barthes, it creates a new world, not seeking to duplicate it but to make it visible. 4
Each and every construction serves this purpose. As does each and every factual image. Together they form a synthesis of sorts.
Factually and metaphorically they permeate one another to create a wider temporal reality. One, which we cannot fully identify, nor deny.
And let’s not forget that an observation is also a synthesis between what we identify and what we conceptualize.
In a society where visual communication prevails, the transparency of the camera promotes unattainable expectations. As Peggy J. Bowers rightly observes, this does a disservice to the public. ‘And it contributes to a voyeuristic culture who use and view images carelessly and gratuitously.’ 5
It is my view that this attitude towards Photography also does a disservice to Journalism.

.

Whilst it is true that my work is mostly defined by the use of non-computer assisted processes, it is not however accurate to state that I have always taken a purists stance towards Photography.
Earlier projects such as ‘The Rehearsal of Space’ (05′-06′ Portuguese and European forest fires), ‘Landscapes Beyond: The Burden of Proof’ (06′ Icelandic glacier regions in recession) and ‘Approaches’ (06’ airport series) deal with a more conventional approach to the medium. Reality is treated less like a construction, but as the title names might suggest there are other issues at play beyond the visible.
As an artist I have increasingly made more use of varied and experimental analogical and even digital techniques to both convey ideas and simplify my overall visual language.
Such is the case with projects like Parables of Metaphor & Light, Reluctant Monoliths, amongst one or two others. That is not to say, of course, that the works are entirely digitally processed. Analogical means still lie at the core of the production process.
Moreover, I have always resorted to digital technology to restore or repair images.
Those who have truly looked at my photographs, especially the larger, darker, 3m works, will know that they are dust or scratch free, a condition, which is unattainable in analogue Photography. This implies some kind of mediation.
The same goes for many of the photographs, which exemplify impregnable symmetry (and no… I am not referring to projects such as The Accidental Theorist).
These images are present in many past projects. However, one does not have to look to truly see that these works employ some kind of construction (digital or otherwise).
These works are quite clearly distinguishable from the rest.
They serve the same thematic purpose as the first images of fire, which I ever produced (though not the forest fires series, referenced above).
In Bachelard’s The Psychoanalysis of Fire, the phenomenon of fire is presented as the prime element of reverie, an object of consuming essence where one is able to see oneself mirrored. A metaphor for performance, fire is also associated to the process of change – Bachelard maintains that ‘all that changes quickly can be explained by fire’. 6
The fires published in my first ever monograph ‘Black Holes & Other Inconsistencies’ (and contrary to the rest of the work from this series) were staged – something that I have always publicly stated. As ambiguous and as otherworldly as the remaining work is, these images stand out for their visual prowess. They are as distinctive a construction as the mirrored photographs included in the online slideshow pulled by The New York Times. They are hyperbolic statements.
These images are defined by a gnawing absence. Something, somewhere, seems to screech in despair for its lost symbolism.
They evoke a disturbing elegy of a reason at the point of exhaustion. Meaning is rendered fugitive. One is no longer able to identify or understand the signs and codes that contemporary space yields.
However, whereas the fires (like many of the subtler constructions created for this commission) function as allegories – representing the metamorphosis that each and every reality undergoes every time it is observed (could this be another Romantic appropriation of Heisenberg’s UP?) – the doubling/mirroring of certain images serves another function. Reality is fragmented, repeated and polarized. The doppelganger is introduced.
The doppelganger has become ever more prevalent in recent bodies of work.
The symmetries at play in my images operate not only on the visual level but also beyond the surface. They are intricately woven into the philosophy, which underpins the work.
In Notes on a Visual Philosophy, the artist Agnes Denes refers to symmetry ‘as a way to give form to invisible processes such as evolution, changing human values, thought processes, human contradiction.
It helps to map the loss that occurs in communication, i.e. between viewer and artist, between giver and receiver, between specific meaning and symbol, between nations, epochs, systems and universes.’ 7
I concur with these observations.
Human beings spend their lives seeking to achieve wholeness when this goes against our perceptual systems and their cognitive counterparts, certainly language.
For Lacan, it is the mirror phase, an early constituent for identity (and best understood as a metaphor for subjectivity), which provides an imaginary sense of “wholeness” to the experience of a fragmentary reality.
For this Neo-Freudian psychoanalyst the mirror stage establishes the ego as intrinsically dependent on an Other.
The concept of lack, as essential to human consciousness and behavior is therefore pivotal to Lacan’s work.

Symmetry helps to map the parameters of human existence and communication, moreover its inconsistencies, its dialectic impetus.
For me it also highlights that ‘the camera’s rendering of reality must always hide more than it discloses’ 8 and that in the presence of the lens the photographic subject ‘instantaneously adopts another body, transforming itself in advance into an image’. 9

.

I have highlighted the importance of found scenario in my previous works, of adhering to a strict set of rules and self-imposed parameters concerning when and how to photograph. I have highlighted the importance of dealing with the serendipitous aspects of Photography and of developing a binding and continuous relationship with the spaces I am photographing. I have also spoken of my intention to relinquish some control over the physical process of photographing in order to make it visible. I stand by these statements.
Working in series poses many challenges. The most pressing of these challenges is to find ways to break up the flow of the work whilst alluding to the dichotomies, which underpin it. The fires, the mirrors, the constructions, all assume this function.
Articulating, questioning and challenging this process is the viewer’s role.
I do not believe I have inadvertently contributed to an erroneous perception that there seems to exist concerning my views on digital technology.
I realize I have cultivated the experience of illusionism (some ask if I have taken it too far), omitting precise labels, using heteronyms, purposefully creating singular and highly symmetrical constructions in otherwise fairly conventional photographic bodies of work, using long exposures to portray mundane phenomena and landscapes or found scenarios in such a way that it borders on magic.
Is it possible that even the artist can start loosing track of the real and the boundaries between objectivity and fiction, reality and its image start blurring and overlapping?
I can only hope so.
Photography is not merely a primitive kind of theatre. At its best it is a spectacle for the gaze and mind.
‘Believe not what I say’, ushered a strangely dressed man, as I stepped into the theatre. ‘For I say what I say to invite you to look closer’.
Notably, this is my sole recollection of the only magic act, which I have had the misfortune to see. Notably, the act started even before the curtain was raised and the public took to their seats.

Discussions about process are all but irrelevant in today’s world.
I see Photography as a complex medium that concerns wide latitude of processes and mechanisms.
I, for one, am happy that my images will once again be viewed with a degree of ‘skepticism’. Perhaps now the focus may shift from ‘how’ to ‘why’ (…eventually anyway…).
.

I respect The New York Times as an institution and its staff and regret any confusion that this may have caused its readers.
I particularly regret the strain that this situation has inevitably placed on the relationships, which I have recently forged at the The New York Times and on the editorial staff themselves.
To paraphrase a critic who recently commented on this issue, I do not believe The New York Times commissioned me because my work is defined by the use of ‘ long exposures, but no digital manipulation’, but because the strength of the work resides precisely in the illusion of photographic transparency.
I recognize that when the contract between author/newspaper/reader is broken it negates the newspaper’s raison d’être and alienates its public.
Regardless of whether our starting points may have differed, regardless of whether I may or may not have embarked on this project with intentions to produce a completely factual approach, regardless of what my decision making process may have been throughout the production and post-production phases of this work, regardless of whether I may have been the right person for the job, the question which I believe to be most relevant to ask is this: in the same way as journalists derive their authority from a binding relationship to truth, would it have been possible for an artist, such as myself, to render his views obsolete and tackle this project in any other way than its present form?
I suspect that, if I had done this, I would surely have misrepresented my work, moreover the viewer.
I fully understand the need to protect journalism and its ethics.
However, just as the ‘transparency of the camera can represent the honesty of those who wield it’ 10 so too can its ambiguity.

As I have always described this work: In a study that goes beyond pure formal investigation and documentation, this work catalyses and reunites new experiences of a new form of American architecture: the ruins of the gilded age.

Edgar Martins
19.07.2009

(to view a wider selection of images from this project, please visit http://www.edgarmartins.com)

1 (Nietzsche, Friedrich, Thus Spoke Zarathustra Part 111: Of Vision and the Riddle in ‘A Nietzsche Reader’, Penguin, London, 1977, p. 251)
2 (Bowers, Peggy J, Through the Objective lens: The ethics of expression and repression of high art in photojournalism in American Communication Journal, Vol. 10, Issue S 200)
3 (Pessoa, Fernando, The Book of Disquiet, Penguin Classics, 2002 [first published in 1983])
4 (based on a statement by Barthes, Roland, The Structuralist Activity, Kursbuch, May 1996, p.190)
5 (Bowers, Peggy J, ibid)
6 (Bachelard, Gaston, The Psychoanalysis of Fire, Beacon Press, January 1987)
7 (Denes, Agnes, Notes on a Visual Philosophy, Published in Hyperion: On the Future of Aesthetics, a web publication of The Nietzsche Circle: http://www.nietzschecircle.com, October 2006)
8 (Sontag, Susan, On Photography, London, Penguin, 1977, p.11)
9 (based on a statement by Barthes, Roland, Camera Lucida, Reflections on Photography, London, J. Cape, 1982, p.10–11)
10 (Bowers, Peggy J, ibid)

31
Jul
09

A verdade da mentira.

Should photojournalistic standards of “truth” be applied to architectural photography?

Alex Fradkin, Tim Griffith, Mark Luthringer e David Maisel discutem no Critical Mass o recente incidente de Edgar Martins com o New York Times.

Realistically though, images that are less than flattering to architecture are simply not viable these days. They are potentially damaging commercially. They are less likely to get published by the design press that relies heavily on funding from advertisers with vested interests. No-one wants to see aluminium panels rippling badly in raking light. No-one wants to see the awful concrete rubbish bins along a facade because the developer/client was too cheap to purchase the ones suggested by the architect. No-one wants to see “For Lease” signs in a supposedly bustling retail center.

Tim Griffith

His comment about not employing post-production techniques was made over a year ago and to my knowledge has not been restated. Change and experimentation are an artist’s prerogative and part of the recent controversy surrounds that statement he made in 2008. Clearly he has changed this policy, but has made an unfortunate choice in the wrong venue to show his new methodology. Comparatively egregious, the alterations degraded the final works and were somewhat amateurish and easily spotted. At least if you are going to fall on your sword, make it for a truly worthy cause and do it well.

Alex Fradkin

Entretanto continuo(amos) à espera das respostas do próprio Edgar Martins sobre o assunto, em resposta a um email que lhe enviei Edgar Martins gentilmente respondeu que em breve me daria a sua versão dos acontecimentos. Continuo pois a aguardar.

(via Fernando Guerra / Twitter)

11
Jul
09

A suprema ironia… (follow-up na história de Edgar Martins).

Espelho meu, espelho meu há alguém mais verdadeiro do que eu?…

Esta imagem foi publicada pelo New York Times num slideshow intitulado ‘Worrying Signs for Post-Withdrawal Falluja‘, uma peça jornalística sobre a procura de agitadores na zona de Falluja no Iraque.
Imagem 1Nota algo de errado? Não?…
Imagem 2Então vamos à descoberta do que está errado na imagem…
1) zona A: o canto foi desfocado com um blur nitidamente digital, o canto nunca poderia estar assim com um desfoque selectivo efectuado na câmara. Provavelmente foi efectuado para esconder algo inestético ou que distraía demasiado.
2) zona B: toda a zona que estava na sombra foi ostensivamente aberta com um ajuste no slider Shadows de um programa de edição, o contraste foi exagerado de modo a que a superfície metálica do veículo sobressaia.
3) zona C: aqui é onde se nota a edição desastrosa. Reparem nas calças do soldado, apesar de ser um dia com bastante luz as calças practicamente não têm sombras e na zona indicada pela seta deveria existir uma sombra pronunciada (reparem na direcção do sol…) que foi eliminada.

A intenção não é apontar o dedo ao fotógrafo, a intenção é mostrar que por todo o New York Times existem imagens jornalísticas editadas, e de forma ostensiva, e o jornal publica-as sem sequer verificar o que publica de forma crítica e objectiva. E, talvez o pior na minha opinião, é que apenas reage de forma reactiva e não proactiva, no fundo se ninguém descobrir e/ou denunciar uma imagem editada está tudo bem para o New York Times; o que me leva à pergunta seguinte: como se faz a edição de imagem no jornal?

Suspeito que isto ainda vai fazer correr muita tinta…

10
Jul
09

Edgar Martins e o New York Times…

Imagem 1(slideshow retirado pelo New York Times por, alegadamente, conter imagens digitalmente retocadas e da autoria do fotógrafo português Edgar Martins)

Era expectável que um dia o New York Times teria o mesmo problema ético que muitos outros jornais: o que fazer quando descobrem que uma imagem, um ensaio, que lhes foi vendido como não editado digitalmente o é de facto?

A caixa de Pandora da fotografia foi literalmente aberta com o advento da tecnologia digital e é esse o principal factor de uma mudança radical no entendimento da fotografia como ‘verdade’, como se uma fotografia fosse sempre uma representação insofismável da realidade colocada diante dos olhos do fotógrafo e captada num suporte para mais tarde ser visualizada. De facto nunca o foi…, desde as imagens grandiosas de Ansel Adams a preto&branco – um desvio da realidade a cores que todos nós experimentamos – às imagens encenadas de Gregory Crewdson, a distorção mais ou menos assumida da realidade faz parte do legado histórico da fotografia.

Entenda-se desde já a minha repulsa pelas imagens editadas digitalmente de modo a ocultar ou a acrescentar elementos que foram captados no ficheiro original mas é um paradigma da ‘nova’ fotografia, facilitado pela brutal evolução das ferramentas ao nosso dispor, que vindas do mundo da arte digital – onde tudo é permitido – entraram no quotidiano de fotógrafos, editores de imagem e jornais. Se num contexto puramente artístico tal facto não choca frontalmente com a minha percepção da arte e da criação artística, num contexto puramente jornalístico a situação, e a minha percepção da verdade, muda radicalmente. Num ensaio cuja validação depende mais da verdade dos factos apresentados do que do mérito artístico das fotografias existe uma linha ténue que separa a manipulação para eliminação de pequenos ‘defeitos’ próprios da captura digital da edição corte&costura de muitos estúdios digitais onde esconder um sinal de trânsito é feito com a mesma leveza que se tornea um corpo real num outro, mais desejável, mais utópico e mais apetecível.

Terá Edgar Martins ido longe demais ao editar de forma radical as imagens que vendeu ao New York Times? E se as imagens não tivesse a legenda ‘sem edição digital’ ou seja se o jornal as tivesse comprado como editadas, a reacção dos editores teria sido a mesma? Desde a edição em papel no suplemento de domingo do jornal que de imediato se levantaram vozes de que algumas fotografias teriam uma edição digital fora do campo meramente estético para entrarem no campo da alteração da imagem através da duplicação de alguns elementos. Em reacção a uma denúncia de um leitor o jornal decidiu retirar o slideshow da seu sítio, substituindo-o por um aviso em que brevemente explicava as razões da sua retirada. No blogue ‘Lens‘ David W. Dunlap explica as razões do jornal em retirar as fotografias de Edgar Martins, sem ouvir no entanto o fotógrafo que entretanto ficou de se explicar nos próximos dias.

Não sei quais as reais repercussões na carreira de Edgar Martins desta embrulhada mas os efeitos a curto prazo já se fazem sentir: vários leitores apontam esta imagem de Martins como manipulada, colocada num livro que no seu prefácio fala de Martins como um fotógrafo que usa exposições longas mas sem recorrer a edição digital da suas imagens (ênfase meu). Após alguma análise da dita imagem percebe-se que existem umas rochas duplicadas no canto inferior esquerdo, dentro do rio. Não me parece grave, nem sequer é para aqui chamada dado o contexto de cada situação – ensaio e fotolivro – ser totalmente diferente, a edição num livro que é um ensaio pessoal mas isto espelha bem o sentimento que rodeia a polémica, a roçar já o extremismo e em alguns casos a xenofobia, com comentários no blogue da PDN, Pulse, onde alguns leitores fazem a pergunta se nos EUA não existem fotógrafos em número suficiente para ser necessário ir buscar um português residente em Londres.

Saber como interessa pouco mas o importante era saber, pelas palavras do próprio Edgar Martins, o porquê. Porque Martins vendeu as imagens como não editadas digitalmente se sabia que na realidade o eram, quem as editou e porque as imagens estão editadas como estão? Porque, e olhando de forma crítica para a forma como as imagens estão editadas, não me posso deixar de perguntar como um fotógrafo de renome aceita vender ao New York Times este trabalho final, acho que neste caso Edgar Martins apresentou uma edição que deixa a desejar e efectuada exactamente num trabalho que estava apresentado como não editado digitalmente.

Será necessário esperar pelas declarações de Edgar Martins para se verdadeiramente descobrir as razões do porquê desta situação e acho importante que o fotógrafo apresente um discurso inteligente e coerente para não correr o risco de se embrulhar mais numa polémica que não acrescenta valor nenhum à sua carreira promissora.

(Procurei obter de Edgar Martins o seu lado da história, que publicarei se o mesmo reponder à minha solicitação para o fazer neste blogue).




mário venda nova

contactos:

tlm 965 275 830

skype: elogiodasombra

"eu não quero saber se sou o primeiro a dar a notícia, só me preocupo em ter a informação correcta e fazê-lo bem. Essa é uma pressão diária."

larry king

trabalhos pessoais


mariovendanova.com
[este é o meu sítio pessoal onde estão os meus projectos já consolidados e acabados]

in every kind of light
[aqui estão os rascunhos dos meus projectos correntes e inacabados]

publicação de fotos

todas as fotografias pertencem aos respectivos autores assinalados e são publicadas apenas no estrito interesse do comentário e crítica sobre fotografia.

recursos


Loja 'o elogio' na Amazon
[larga variedade de livros de e sobre fotografia. se comprar via este link recebo uma pequena percentagem.]

Loja 'o elogio' na Amazon.com (EUA)
[igual ao link acima mas para a loja da Amazon EUA, de todas as compras continuo a receber uma pequena percentagem.]

Monochrom
[loja boutique, com artigos que não se encontram noutras lojas. os pápeis de impressão fine-art são bons.]

arquivo

stats