Unoriginal Originals: Implications of Photography in the Digital Age

          

The concept of the "original" has been drawn into question ever since the invention of photography, particularly with the invention of the positive negative process which made it possible for the photographer to create many exact or near exact copies of the same image. An "original" did not exist in the same way that there is only one original Mona Lisa or one Pietá and everything else is just imitation.

In analog photography one might ask which is the original: the negative or the print? And if there is more than one print, which one is the original? Are they both originals? What if someone besides the photographer prints them? Questions such as these have worked against photography being considered a fine art from the time of its inception, yet another question should be considered: what is more important, the final image or the process by which it was created? My opinion is that the image is tantamount and the process, while also of importance, exists primarily as a tool to aid in the creating of an image.

With the invention of digital output and digital photography the same questions are cropping back up again in full force. What is the original? Is it the digital file which can be exactly duplicated an infinite number of times? Is it the print which can be mass produced from the photographer's printer or any of the multitudes just like it? Surely these are ideas which must be considered, but they are by no means an indication of the death of photography.

The medium is expanding and growing in new and exciting ways that would have never been thought possible by our photographic predecessors. Again, it is not about the process or ability to reproduce images, it is about the image itself. If an image is great, why shouldn't it be reproduced? The Mona Lisa has been reproduced more times than it would be possible to count and can be found almost anywhere in the world from art museums to convenience stores; does this make the image itself become worthless? Certainly not; this painting's place in art and history can not be disputed and thanks to its mass reproduction even if the original were lost the world would not have to be left wondering what it ever looked like.

The most reproduced image of the 20th century is Dorthea Lange's Migrant Mother which quickly became iconographic and synonymous with the Great Depression in America. Yet through its reproduction over time the image of this woman has transformed and become greater than just a face of the Depression, it has become an image which represents the suffering of all of humanity. And let us not forget that it was through reproduction that it was able to get its original message across and helped the Farm Security Administration improve life for poor farmers in the wake of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. Reproduction in this case heightened the importance of the image and because of this aided in bringing about social change.

The ease of mass reproduction of images can bring about many positive outcomes. Why should art be a premium only to be experienced by the wealthy or upper class? The answer is that it should not, and it is not. Inventions are borne out of need. There has always been a need and want for access to images, media and information and technology has developed over time to bring us the printing press, the newspaper, the magazine, and the internet to fulfill these needs. The latest of these, the internet, has made it simpler and quicker than ever to access more information than any one person could imbibe in a lifetime. It has also allowed artists and non-artists alike to distribute their work and ideas to a much greater audience than would have ever been possible without it. The internet has given a voice to the individual and digital photography has given voice to many that would be otherwise unable to create or share images. This can result in the discovery of new talents in the world as well as empowerment of the individual.

Some might fear the encroachment of the amateur on the art world, but this type of "competition" is overall a net gain since it forces the "serious" artist to refine his or her craft that much more and the result is more highly refined artwork for society as a whole. Not to mention the fact that just because one is not an artist by trade does not mean that one does not benefit from making art, or that others do not benefit from viewing it.

The days of one original and all else being imitation are fading. Photography is the sincerest form of imitation as it can accurately record details of real life, though the fact that it can only capture one tiny set of things via the vision of the photographer and his/her camera puts great limit on what can be conveyed in any single image. The advent of digital photography makes it that much easier to mass produce images and thus convey that much more of the story of our life, times and society as a whole.

Monday, June 23, 2008 - 1 Comment