On the tightrope Pedro Meyer
We are all doves © Pedro Meyer
“Mexican photographer Pedro Meyer is as renowned for his powerful and provocative photographs as he is for his pioneering work with digital imaging. Meyer’s photographs consistently test the limits of truth, fiction and reality. With the advent of digital photography in the early 1990s, Meyer evolved from a documentary photographer who created so-called “straight photographs” into a digital-documentarian who often combines photographic elements from disparate times and places to arrive at a different or higher truth. Meyer’s oft- expressed contention that all photographs — digitally manipulated or not — are equally “true” and “untrue” has been labeled “heretical” in the orthodox documentary photography community. Hence the title Heresies.” www.pedromeyer.com/heresies/heresies.html
Discuss the following quote:
"All photographs - digitally altered or not - are both truths and fictions." Pedro Meyer
Make 2 intelligent comments. The comments cannot be back to back. Someone must comment after your comment, before you comment again!
This is an online discussion. Respond to other comments, pose questions, research, provide pertinent information, feel free to rebut the opinions of your classmates – kindly.
DON'T FORGET TO TYPE YOUR NAME AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR COMMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Discuss the following quote:
"All photographs - digitally altered or not - are both truths and fictions." Pedro Meyer
Make 2 intelligent comments. The comments cannot be back to back. Someone must comment after your comment, before you comment again!
This is an online discussion. Respond to other comments, pose questions, research, provide pertinent information, feel free to rebut the opinions of your classmates – kindly.
DON'T FORGET TO TYPE YOUR NAME AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR COMMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMeyer’s photographs show truth in the depiction of something real, while at the same time they demonstrate fiction. This is shown through the use of perspective, which effectively presents us with the view of the photographer. I feel that just because the reality captured is altered and not “real”, it doesn’t mean that his photographers are any less genuine or valuable. I think that most people would believe that these photographs are more valuable because Meyer has intentionally chosen all aspects to shoot to efficiently portray what they want to, instead of capturing a setting that was already there.
ReplyDelete-Jackie Prange
The quote is true because in a non-photoshopped photo you have the subjects of the photo as they were when the picture was taken, this is the truth of the photo, in the photoshopped photo you still have the original "truth" but you have altered the truth, which makes it fiction, because it is not what was actually happening when the photo was taken. In the non-photoshopped photo there is also fiction, it fiction in that the person who has taken that photo has taken it in their own world, the message that they were trying to capture may not be the truth to another person and therefore becomes "fiction".
ReplyDeleteHis photos show the truth through the portrayal of something that is real, or living, yet at the same time they demonstrate fiction, especially through the use of perspective, which can effectively show us the view of Meyers. What we see isn’t necessarily what it appears to be, the ‘reality’ of the photo is fictitious. The fiction is demonstrated through something fake but then the truth is established through the perspective and various other techniques he may use to make it real to the audience.
ReplyDeleteI think that elements of each photo show truth, but combined in the way that they are, it becomes a fictional composition. However, the photos message still portrays truth in a manner on a higher and deeper level. The intent also plays a big part, as Laura said, "its fiction in that the person who has taken that photo has taken it in their own world, the message that they were trying to capture may not be the truth to another person and therefore becomes "fiction"." I think the decision of truth or fiction is all up to interpretation, as many aspects of art are.
ReplyDeletePhotos that are altered are giving us an image of what the artist wants us to see, what they thought of when taking their picture. They thought of ways to enhance it or make the viewer feel as if something amazing is happening. But the thing about unaltered pictures is that there is something amazing, you get to see life for what it is, and it better captures what, who, where, why we are. I agree with Jackie about the view of the photographer giving us a view into what he wants and what he is seeing. I still think that the unaltered photos are more genuine and true. Although the although the altered photos aren't completely true it is why it is art, it is what the artist wanted to depict and thats why we like it.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably a very unpopular opinion, but we are, in fact, NOT "All Doves". Pedro Meyer has my go-ahead to create whatever kind of surrealistic work he wants, but to label them as being the "truth"crosses the line. By editing these photos he is changing the situation as it was when he photographed it, thus "altering the truth". You cannot alter the truth.
ReplyDeleteI agree that his works are interesting and powerful, but I do not agree that they are the truth, as they have been altered until they merely fit his perception of the truth, not the truth as it truly exists.
In today's day and age any digital image can be altered to create truths and fictions. Pedro Meyer's first photo is genuine and not altered, that we can see, and the second photo is. I believe that each individual photo is genuine for its own reasons, real or fake. Artists will almost always alter their work in some way and most people don't even know it.
ReplyDeleteEmily Marshall
I agree Jason his work is powerful and very interesting, but labeling them as truth isnt real. It is giving us a false sense of imagination. Truth is something that today as a society we rarely stay true to. We lie and deceive so that we can look out for our best interests. When something is altered and not true anymore I dont think that it can be what he sees as truth because we are all viewing his work but it is not true to us, it is fake and altered.
ReplyDeleteI think that photographers that dont alter pictures are much more proffesional than photographers that do, to get a photo that looks perfect with out any editing at all is much more talented than someone that just takes it and alters is to make it better. I feel as if no one should photoshop photos because people shouldnt have to, no one should have to edit their photos to make them better.
ReplyDelete^Theo Laan
ReplyDeleteAny photograph that is taken has to have some aspects of truth in it. You cannot take a photo of something that doesn't exist, so therefor whatever it is you're taking a picture of is real in some ways. I think that the best type of photographs are the ones that are not editied and alterned. Meyer's photographs seem to demonstrate a lot of fiction, and show things that can't be true. However it has to be true because it is a photograph and you can't take a picture of something that doesn't exist. Meyer still finds a way to make these real images seem fake, and places them in situations that would never exist. His photos are not necissarily untrue, however they show sides of things that are not common and usually seen.
ReplyDeleteI think that Pedro's photos portray both truth and fiction because of the fact that he takes real objects and occurrences (truth), and alters them so that they are to his liking (fiction). Its arguable that he would say all photographs "are bot truths and fictions" because of the fact that he has altered his photos some people may find there is no truth in it. I find that it is a truth because of the fact that they are actual objects and occurrences, just altered
ReplyDelete-Madi Grant
I strongly agree with Conor on this one. Labelling both of his works truth would not be correct. Pedro Meyer created a picture from other pictures so yes it is a real photo but it is a bunch of images merged together not showing the real truth behind the image but a false viewing of it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily's comment when she says, "Artists will almost always alter their work in some way and most people don't even know it." Though Meyer's photos show this more, most photographers, with the use of either enlargers or digitally, alter their photos in some way. It could be more obvious like in the case of Jerry Uelsmann, or it could be as subtle as a change in contrast to enhance the photo as a whole. So technically, many of the photos are not necessarily "true," but portray some kind of higher truth through their end product. The fact that Meyer does not try to hide this fact, and claim truth, is commendable.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly to what Jason said when you alter a photo it is someone else's perception of the truth, so in a way a photoshopped photo is not the "ultimate truth" but rather a perception of what someone wants the truth to be. I do admit that photoshopped photography, or anything for that matter, can go either way, it can create a completely different truth but at the same time it can create an unwanted fiction that just makes someone say "Why would they do that?". It just goes to show you that dependent on how you photoshop it a photo can either be made more magical or make you want to vomit at the sight of it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with emma. I believe that both of these photographs have a fake feel to them, especially the second one. Although, it is impossible to take a 'fake' picture. You cannot take a picture of something that does not exist. I don't understand how you can take a fictional photograph. 'we are all doves' does not even look like a photograph to me. It looks more like a photogram.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these photos seem very natural and unalerted at a glance, but once we look closer, they hold a different meaning. In his first work, the tightrope walker is floating above the rope, which seems to be edited or altered. The second shot is composed of many others, providing a sense of false truth. It seems whimsical, but real at the same time. Both images, though altered, give the viewer somehting natural and 'truthful' to look at.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how much truth you want to see in a photo, as soon as you digitally alter that photo it becomes false and lacks integrity. Fiction is fiction and truth is truth. A real photograph depicts a scene that has happened in a specific, non-altered way previous to the photo being captured. I think that a true artist does not need to digitally alter his or her work to portray the vision he or she wanted, patience is a virtue that is slowly disappearing from the world, to achieve truth, patience is required. I'm not saying photoshopping photos is a negative undertaking, but it does in-turn make your work of art "fake", whether it be aesthetically pleasing or not. So in conclusion there is a huge difference between truth and fiction and no picture can be both.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Haley in the sense that there will be different opinions as to what truth or fiction is and what's seen as "crossing the line." It is very much so up to interpretation as most photographs and artwork are. I agree with Meyer, and think that as long as there are aspects of truth to his photographs while also showing things you would not normally see. I don't see any problem with this.
ReplyDelete-Jackie P
I agree with what Laura said. With all photographs, they each have a subject, whether it is digitally manipulated or not, and it will always remain the same. When it is photographed as it is and unchanged, the subject remains the same which is the truth, but it can also be a fiction if it is made to look differently using something such as manipulation of the angle. In photoshopped pictures, they still have a truth to them because the subject remains unchanged even if the colours or look to the photograph are altered. They also have a fiction though, because the image can be completely warped to make the subject look almost unrecognizable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Haley's comment when she says that the fact that Meyer does not try to hide that he alters his photo is the truth. Other photographers alter their photos whether it is on photoshop adding things, or taking things out, or whether they are upping the contrast or cropping it. Meyer alters his photos in such a way that it is obvious to everyone, he is not trying to hide the fact that he has altered his photo like other photographers do, therefor it is the truth
ReplyDelete-madi grant
The debate about manipulating photographs is a difficult one and ultimately is down to the individual. Truly there is no right or wrong, it's a matter of your perspective. Personally, I appreciate photos that are no manipulated for the fact that a photographer was able to make an excellent photo with his own efforts, imagination, and creativity to give the viewers a chance to see these photographic wonders from their creative eyes. When photos are manipulated they are not true, and obviously it takes skill to manipulate a photo enough to make it appear real to the viewer, and make them question whether or not it is manipulated, but I am more amazed with photography that is real but still you question whether or not it has been manipulated because the art is outstanding and doesn't seem like it could possibly is real.
ReplyDeleteI feel like it's actually pretty arrogant and facetious for him to claim that his perception of truth is unequivocally the truth. This statement blatantly implies that his work holds some kind of higher knowledge that takes precedence to what is the actual truth. It seems to me that by saying all photos are both "truth and fictions" he is merely trying to dull the belligerence of his statement.
ReplyDeleteSure, the bias of a photographer can skew a photo to some extent, but by no means to the extent to which his work is distorted.
His photos are not reality, they are a composite photo of what was originally reality, not a photo that can realistically claim to be a depiction of the truth. Claiming that his photos hold the same kind of truth as, say, those of photojournalists, is an affront to every genre of photography, but his own, surrealism.
Meyer feels that from altering his photos to the extent that people right away notice his photos were photoshopped is a good thing. This is his style, and he wants people to get this strange idea of the truth from his photos. He doesn't necissarily want the truth the be completely gone from the image, however to amplify what it is he believes is true, he feels the need to edit his images to better get his idea across. It is true that the majority of photographers edit their work. People feel the need to do this to bring out the truth in the image even more then it is already doing so. I don't think this is a bad thing as long as the main focus is on the acutal image, not the photoshopping. Meyer's sense of fiction in his photos is too strong for my liking. Most of the truth in his picture is gone, and it feels to forced. However, this is his style of photography and it makes him feel good about his work, and feel like its the best way to get his desired message across.
ReplyDeleteI am sure we can all agree that no two people perceive anything in the same way. For instance, one person may see a financial building and experience a feeling of power and wealth. Another person, however may see the same building and experience a feeling of intimidation, or disgust. This can be because of past experiences, different views/opinions, or simply seeing the building from a different angle. Can it be argued, then, that Meyer's quote could simply mean a photograph is not necessarily a "true" perception of the subject matter within the image for any two people?
ReplyDeleteIn the event that an image is unaltered, in it's pure, original form, it does seem that the photograph is indeed "true", which it is. It is an exact image of an actual subject. However, considering the argument that no two people perceive anything in the same way, the photograph may not evoke the emotions that the artist intended, and therefore may not necessarily be as "true" as was originally thought.
In the event that an image is altered, the term "untrue" can be used in several ways. For instance, if an object is removed from the image (a tree, a bench, etc.), the photograph is no longer an exact image of an actual subject, therefore it is "untrue". However, the image is arguably still "true" in its own way. For example, a photograph that has had an object removed, or even added, is still "true" in that it evokes a certain emotion that may be enhanced by the alterations that have been made.
Anyhow, a slightly different take on that quote, but still valid(?)!
-SARAH HARDY.
Does a photograph need to tell you the truth? When?
ReplyDeletei agree with jackie. Meyer's quote in my eyes is very true because referring to the two photos show the truth through the portrayal of something real, yet at the same time they show fiction, especially through the use of perspective, which effectively shows us the view Meyer
ReplyDeleteanna servedio
I aomewhat agree with any comments stating that as soon as a photo is altered it becomes false and lacks integrity. however, at this time with so many advancements in digital photography, how many photographers don't alter photos? Whether theyre adjusting colour, brightness or saturation, the photos are still somehow being changed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Haley and Madi. If Meyer was to try and hide his altering then there would not be any truth to his photography, but he doesn't try to hide it, he is very open about it. I don't think that there is anything wrong with altering photos because in this case Meyer is the one taking the photos in his own way and is just "fixing" so to speak the photo by possible enhancements or whatever he has chosen to do.
ReplyDeleteI feel like a lot of photographers do alter their photos, they are just ashamed or worried what others will say about it.
Kelsey Rayner
In response to 'K'
ReplyDeleteI don't think that a photograph 'needs' to tell the truth as long as the viewer is aware that it is not supposed to. It all depends on how the photographer portrays it as well. If they want it to tell the truth then I think it should not be altered or atleast not a lot.
I completely agree with Jason's comment from a while back. I also agree that Meyer's works are interesting and powerful, but in order to make them he had to alter their integrity which therefor alters my opinion about them. Beauty should be all natural, that has been a fact for as long as we can all remember. Anything that has been added to make something better, although it may look great, it is just not natural and should not be viewed as so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Natasha's comment. The photographs each have a natural feel to them, but taking a closer look opens up your mind to see much more. I think that photographers should keep their photographs unaltered. It gives a more authentic feeling to the viewer, and also many photographers are great enough that they don't need to alter their photos because they can be beautiful as they are.
ReplyDeleteI very much agree with alis statment. Altering photos will make them better, however not natural. And im my POV not a photo anymore. photos to me should be taken with a camera and developed. the skill of the photographer and the beauty of the photo should be the star in the photo. not what has been changed and edited.
ReplyDelete^^^^^^^^^^^ Sam P
ReplyDeletePhotos have only as much truth as we will give them credit for. Without knowing exactly how these photos were taken and produced the integrity of them lies in how much one can believe in them. Each photo shown here is "possible", all the elements are real and the situations they are placed in are not so out of the ordinary. So I believe that it is the artist's goal to see how far the viewer will stretch their imagination to invest in the reality of the photo.
ReplyDeleteNessie Nankivell
i think this quote is very true because when you think of an idea of a photo you either set it up or it is taken in the moment there is some truth in the photo because the idea is real, but at the same time it can be fiction because you are setting up what you are taking a picture of.
ReplyDelete-anna
Like some people said before, you cannot take a photograph that is not true because then it would not be a photo. Sure people do alter their photographs but they are still all real and true even though some could think that altering could mean that is fiction. However, I don't think that. I think that if you take a photo it is real and making a few alterations will either make the picture better or worse, not changing the meaning of it to being fiction.
ReplyDeleteKelsey Rayner
In my opinion Pedro's art work is a great example of truth and fiction. In many ways any piece of photographic work is fiction in its own way. This is because it is to be interrupted by the viewer and the viewer may see it as something other then what the photographer meant. Also in his pictures it is a more literal line between truth and fiction because he actually edits them. I think that he i more focused on message that he is trying to convey and not weather or not the image is true or false because the messege is always true.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Klaudia, I think that he is not focused on weather or not the image is true or false. I think both photographs are beautiful, they both show beautiful shadows and depth that really catches my eye.
ReplyDeleteHanna
I agree with the statement "All photographs - digitally altered or not - are both truths and fictions." because taking a photograph is a way to capture a moment, when the moment isn't actually frozen in time which makes it a fiction. Yet, it is a truth because it is capturing that moment for what it is. If it's a digitally altered picture, then this especially stands true. All of the elements of the photograph are real, or true, yet combined they make a fiction, and tell a story. I agree with Klaudia that all photographs can be considered fiction because it all depends on how the viewer interprets the photo, and the story they think it tells. Like Nessie said, it is entirely up to the viewer to decide whether or not the photo is a truth or a fiction, it all depends on how much faith we have in whether or not the photo was altered. This statement also depends on what we consider to be truths and fictions. All photos can be fiction, because they can all tell a story, yet can all photos be considered truths?
ReplyDelete-Christina McLean
I agree with Kelsey with the point that all photographs are true, and there has to be some part of truth in the photo, no matter how small. Some people might not think for the photo "We are all doves" by Pedro could be real, but I could imagine it to be real. It could just be a good decisive moment shot, or a lucky picture, or it could even be staged. Not everyone has the same beliefs and ideals though, because we are all different, so we all take things differently. Though Pedro really believes that photographs are both truths and fiction, he also takes pictures with high contrast and a story behind them. He makes sure that his photographs are "worth a thousand words". His photographs are consistently black-and-white, and in "We are all doves", there are almost no grey, in-between colours from white and black. Pedro focused a lot on the message that he was sending, like what Klaudia said, and the composition of the photograph as well, not just whether he thought people would take his photographs as the truth or as fiction.
ReplyDeleteSarah Collier
I agree with Christina, taking a photograph is a way to capture and really hold on and remember a moment. I believe that the viewer can interpret the photograph any way that they want to, truth or fiction.
ReplyDeletehanna^
ReplyDeleteI believe that the quote applies to these pictures and makes sense because although the photos are altered and not entirely true, they make their own truths through imagination. Like Klaudia said, the message that the photo sends to the viewer, whether it's altered or not, will always be true. A photo will never send a fictional message, because thats not how people will interpret it. We always look for messages in photos that we can apply to real life. This is how pictures, can be both fictions through their subject matter, and truths through their messages. I think that this is the same idea that most people in this discussion have thought and I agree with all of them.
ReplyDeleteIm going to have to challenge Jason's opinion here. He stated that the photographer was being arrogant when he said his photos where true, Jason went on to say he has no right to say this and give himself a feeling to superiority. I happen to have interrupted the quote completely differently; I think what he was trying to say is that all pictures, his or others, have a right to be taken as the truth. No one can say how much an image is manipulated because the second it is taken it isn't a part of that reality anymore. The photographer has taken it and put it in it's own context and now how the right to change that context as much as he or she wants. By say that his photographs are true he isn't saying they are the most literal meaning of what that image was a part of, he is saying that the photos are true to them selves and t anyone who will believe it.
ReplyDelete-Nessie Nankivell
I agree with Kelsey's comment "...if you take a photo it is real and making a few alterations will either make the picture better or worse, not changing the meaning of it to being fiction." I also think that when altering a picture you are not changing the meaning. In fact in most cases the altering is done in order to make the meaning more clear. It is done to bring a certain part of the picture into the foreground. In altering pictures photographers intensify aspects of the photo they feel are important and/or add things that in their minds makes the photo better(many of these things they could not do with out the help of digital alteration).
ReplyDelete