How did the development of digital tools and CGI allow film makers and/or photographers to create post-modern, hyper-real worlds?
Digital tools encompass a wide range of technological advancements. From software such as Adobe Photoshop to hardware including digital cameras, graphics tablets, and remote-controlled lighting, these tools have changed the way photographers construct their images. The ease of manipulation allows artists to create worlds evocative of Jean Baudrillard’s idea of the simulacrum – that is, a representation of reality. These representations place us somewhere between real and not-quite-real, leading us to question not only the authenticity of the world in the photograph, but also the world we live in. Where is the line between reality and fiction? If a world is hyperreal and the simulation is indistinguishable from the reality, hasn’t the simulation become the reality? As Melissa Schwartz states in her thesis, “it is possible that these ‘almost reals’ have become our ‘real?’ At the very least we have to long for these ‘reals’ and to covet them to be our own.” (Schwartz, 2011, pg55) Postmodernists take the view that we all have individual truths which are equally valid. It is our belief in a world that makes it real, even a constructed one. These concepts of postmodernism and hyperreality, of creating our own reality, can be found in photographs throughout history, although digital tools have enabled a wider range of photographers to craft their own worlds.
From the playful innocence of the Cottingley Fairies to the sinister Soviet deception of Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Yezhov, photographs have been manipulated by their creators since the birth of photography itself. In the analogue age, artists would use darkroom techniques to burn or dodge images, distort the negatives or the positive prints, and expose multiple negatives to merge several pictures into one. This was labour-intensive and would usually serve only for artistic expression, as was the case of the Cottingley Fairies, where two girls posed with drawings of fairies and claimed they were genuine. On occasion, photographs were altered for more nefarious purposes, such as the removal of Nikolai Yezhov from an image of him and Joseph Stalin. Yezhov was one of Stalin’s top officials but fell out of favour with the Soviets. He was subsequently executed and silently airbrushed from the photo. Both examples provide a glimpse into hyper-reality – photography was seen as irrefutable truth and the image manipulation was done so well, especially for that era, that the images were readily accepted and believed to be genuine. However, society now accepts that most images will have been purposefully constructed or retouched.
“The reception of photography by the masses has moved from that of acceptance of the image as recorded objective fact ‘as standard visual currency in the legal, medical, and journalistic professions’ to the current state of skepticism regarding the photograph and all of its digital and analogue incarnations.” (Schwartz, 2011, pg8-9)
As photography evolved from analogue to digital, so too did the image manipulation process. 1987 brought the world Adobe Photoshop, a pioneering computer program dedicated to editing images. This was the most comprehensive editing software of its time, and it has continued to evolve into the program we know today. Features of the original Photoshop included being able to remove or add parts of the image, rotate, resize, change the transparency, and even adjust the colour balance. This was a huge step forward from physical image manipulation in the dark room, and when it was ported to Windows in 1993, it surged in global popularity. The ability to digitally edit images became accessible to the masses, firstly through the film and photography industry, and then to the everyday consumer’s home computer.
Gregory Crewdson is a well-known fine art photographer, famed for his take on the ‘tableau vivant’, or ‘living picture’. Every detail in his work is purposeful, indicated in his interview with NOWNESS when he said he “started thinking about light as something you could choreograph”. (Photographers in Focus: Gregory Crewdson, 2017) Utilising entire film crews and vast sets usually seen in big-budget movies, Crewdson carefully sculpts a scene that is often beautiful and mysterious, almost too beautiful to be real, yet still familiar. A model is usually featured in a small part of the image, sitting or standing with a vacant, emotionless expression, creating a sense of unease in the audience. The way the surrounding scene engulfs them is symbolic of the concept that we exist in a rich, beautiful construct that isn’t quite authentic, but real enough to ensure we are kept oblivious to the truth. The extravagance of crafted realities has become so normal to us that they have become as mundane as the core reality they purport to represent.
Individual details of Crewdson’s photos look fully believable, but when the image is viewed as a whole, it seems disturbingly inauthentic. It is hard to place just where this unease comes from, but this is the very essence of hyperreality. In the 2012 documentary ‘Brief Encounters’, Crewdson describes this feeling as “that sensation of looking at something that’s both familiar and mysterious at the same time… something that feels ordinary yet it’s tinged with a certain kind of beauty and terror.” (Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, 2012) The more we deconstruct the image, the more we realise that it is simultaneously real and not-quite-real. When the shutter was released, the objects were there in front of the lens and as such are real, but the scene was constructed like a big budget movie set, and so is not-quite-real. It is a representation of reality, a simulacrum, as Schwartz states:
Simple scenes of everyday life processed through a cinematic lens are thus imbued with dramatic atmosphere that oozes the melodramatic. It is this melodrama that produces the sense of the hyper or uber ‘real’. Although subtle, there is a recognizable artificial construct located within the almost ‘real’. (Schwartz, 2011, pg36)
It is not just the way Crewdson fabricates a scene before the shot that blurs the line between fiction and reality, but also how he removes things in post-production. It can be argued that removing an element from an image that didn’t fit the photographer’s narrative is removing authenticity – the reality is that the object was there. Schwartz suggests of any image that “we can never be sure that it is ‘right’ or ‘real’”, alluding to Baudrillard’s simulacrum. She also adds that when the objective reality in front of the lens does not coincide with the subjective reality of the artist’s truth, they will often manipulate some part of the scene to create a more truthful representation of the world than reality can do alone. (Schwartz, 2011, pg40) This notion of subjective truths roots itself in the postmodernist ideas of scepticism and the end of empiricism, and raises the question “how much is too much?” Whether using digital imaging software to manipulate an image, choreographing the light, building a large movie-style set, or using advanced hardware to craft an image, reality is inevitably going to be distorted. Whether that then precludes the product from being deemed a representation of the truth depends on the intention of the photographer and the response of the audience. For some, a highly constructed image can still be real but for others, the authenticity is lost.
“In full recognition of the postmodernist suspicion of authorial control, it is impossible for the artist to impose ‘intent’ onto the viewer.” (Schwartz, 2011, pg40)
While Crewdson and other photographers strive portray their truth, once the image is released to the public, they no longer retain control of how it is perceived. The viewer is free to interpret the work and the artists’ intention no longer matters. Image adjustment for personal use may be harmless but manipulating photographs for public consumption raises ethical concerns. In general, the public believe what they see in the news to be true, therefore news sources have a responsibility to ensure they are portraying an accurate representation of the facts. This standard is not always upheld, however, and photographs are often manipulated to further the source’s agenda. A key example of this is Time Magazine’s portrayal of the athlete O.J. Simpson on its front cover in 1994. Simpson was accused of murdering his former wife and her friend, and the trial was widely publicised. Unusually, cameras were allowed into the courtroom and the world watched with fascination. His guilt was a hotly debated topic. When Time used his mugshot for their magazine cover, they edited it heavily to fit their agenda – to make him look desperate and tragic.
The harshness of the mug shot – the merciless bright light, the stubble on Simpson’s face, the cold specificity of the picture – had been subtly smoothed and shaped into an icon of tragedy. The expression on his face was not merely blank now; it was bottomless. This cover, with the simple, nonjudgmental headline “An American Tragedy,” seemed the obvious, right choice. I have looked at thousands of covers over the years and chosen hundreds. I have never been so wrong about how one would be received. (Gaines, 1994)
While the intention was to paint Simpson as a victim of American society, the image was received in a very different way, particularly when displayed next to the Newsweek magazine which had used the original, unedited mugshot. There was outrage that Simpson’s skin had been darkened, with many suggesting that this perpetuated the societal bias against black people, as people of colour were often associated with crime and violence. The New York Times stated “Time gave him a more sinister appearance and was thus guilty of racism.” (Carmody, 1994) The case was already filled with racial tension and this insensitive edit only worsened the situation. Despite intending to remain non-judgemental, Time was perceived to be decidedly biased.
It is this subjective nature of interpretation that supports postmodernist ideas – that regardless of the intent imposed by the artist and no matter how carefully crafted the image, the audience will find their own meaning in a photograph. The digital manipulation of an image will lead the individuals to form their own opinions based on their experiences and values, with each perspective just as valid as another’s, even if they contradict each other. The author may set out to paint one picture of reality, but upon being viewed, this reality may fracture into a multifaceted reflection of the truth, with each individual reality being close to, but not identical to, the objective truth.
Image has become a commodity to be bought and sold and, to the everyday consumer, a valuable currency. Appearance is everything in this postmodern world, and real wealth is in how we are perceived by our peers and the wider public. In addition to fine artists and journalists, another type of photographer has been able to create worlds through digital tools, particularly over the last twenty years. As cameras became cheaper and computers started to be found in every household, the everyday photographer emerged and the ability to create hyperreal worlds became more accessible. It is incredibly easy to take photos with a phone, allowing people to capture moments of their life and showcase their reality on social media, however, this reality is just as constructed as the images created by Crewdson. The everyday photographer wants to portray a perfect life on their Facebook or Instagram, and will upload only the images that illustrate the narrative they want their friends and family to see. They readily edit their images to appear more attractive based on society’s standards, using filters to smooth the skin, and editing software to slim the figure. Herein we witness the acceptance of the simulacrum that is Instagram. Models and influencers such as the Kardashians project an unattainable standard of beauty – unattainable, that is, unless image manipulation is involved. Thousands idolise these models and edit their photographs to match their beauty ideals. Social media becomes saturated with these not-quite-real images and the ideals are reinforced. What was once an unattainable beauty standard has now become the reality that consumers hope to be able to reach, or, as Schwartz suggests, “a real that is perhaps the hyper-real of Baudrillard and one that we can never expect to reach”. (Schwartz, 2011, pg20) The original form of a body and the concept of natural beauty has been shunned in favour of this constructed reality, this simulacrum.
The advancement of digital tools has enabled a wider range of photographers to play with reality, portraying worlds that are simultaneously real and not-quite-real. From the basic manipulation in early Photoshop, to the highly choreographed worlds of Crewdson, images have gained an unplaceable hint of hyperreality. From the bias of the news media to the currency of image on social media, the subjective truths of postmodernism are reinforced by the images we see around us. As consumers we have become more aware that images are routinely edited, and more sceptical of their authenticity, yet we are still taken in by the ideals of those same manipulated images. Hyperreal and postmodern worlds surround us, and whether with scepticism or acceptance, these have become our reality.
References
Bronx Documentary Center, n.d. Altered Images. [Online] Available at: http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org [Accessed 28 01 2021].
Carmody, D., 1994. Time Responds to Criticism Over Simpson Cover. The New York Times, p. 8.
Gaines, J. R., 1994. To Our Readers. Time Magazine.
Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters. 2012. [Film] Directed by Ben Shapiro. United States of America: Zeitgeist Films.
Photographers in Focus: Gregory Crewdson. 2017. [Film] Directed by Nowness. United States of America: Nowness.
Schwartz, M. A., 2011. Constructing the Real: The New Photography of Crewdson, Gursky and Wall. Kentucky: UKnowledge.
Literature Review
Bronx Documentary Center, n.d. Altered Images.
This website showcases several examples of famous altered images and the controversy surrounding them. I particularly focused on the images of O.J. Simpson and Nikolai Yezhov as these were high-profile cases that informed public opinion and shaped people’s perception of the truth. The public interest surrounding O.J. Simpson led me to the following two articles to explore the dialogue between the public and the press, highlighting the importance of intent.
Carmody, D., 1994. Time Responds to Criticism Over Simpson Cover. The New York Times, p. 8.
Gaines, J. R., 1994. To Our Readers. Time Magazine.
Both of these articles showed me that the artist’s intent and the audience’s RECEPTION do not always align. In matters of great consequence, such as the O.J. Simpson trial, it is vital that news sources remain impartial so as not to sway public opinion. It is thought that the high volume of media coverage may have influenced the Simpson trial, and the reliability of that outcome is debated to this day.
Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters. 2012.
This documentary was an enjoyable glimpse into the world of Gregory Crewdson. I was taken with how painstakingly precise he is when constructing his images and the lengths he will go to ensure the end product is exactly as he envisioned it. He uses large film sets and production crews, creating big-budget photographs for display in exhibitions around the world.
Photographers in Focus: Gregory Crewdson. 2017.
This short film provided me with a more rounded view of Crewdson and his work. It was helpful to learn other people’s opinions of Crewdson’s techniques.
Schwartz, M. A., 2011. Constructing the Real: The New Photography of Crewdson, Gursky and Wall. Kentucky: UKnowledge.
This Master’s thesis was my most important source as it addressed ideas of postmodernism and hyperreality in reference to Crewdson and two other photographers. Initially I found this difficult to read as the language is more verbose than I am used to, but I managed to find some very useful ideas to support my analysis of hyperreality within photography. It was this document that led me to research Crewdson to begin with.
Comments