Art Vs Technology
Has the manipulation of art diminished the intrinsic value of its existence?
"Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be." “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” [1]
The raw essence of art is the fundamental element of its aura. An artwork is not always perfect which is why the piece can be so beautiful in the first place. From manipulating photographs that end up in a magazine to replicating a Picasso and selling it at the price of an original; is all this altering subtracting from the ‘art’ and beauty of the subject? More importantly, is the act of manipulating pictures simply to alter the image or are there social alterations linked to it as well.
The ‘art’ of photo manipulation has evoked a cultural and ethical response as the act of altering an image can portray many messages. One might look at a raw image of a model next to a digitally manipulated version of the picture in a magazine and assume that the message being portrayed is that this person’s raw beauty was not beautiful enough. This creates the desire of perfection, in all its unobtainable elements. From this we provoke a social response; with more and more young women and men being diagnosed with eating disorders, it is difficult to not look at the media and their portrayal on an impossible ‘beauty’.
“Unmistakably, reproduction as offered by picture magazines and newsreels differs from the image seen by the unarmed eye. Uniqueness and permanence are as closely linked in the latter as are transitoriness and reproducibility in the former. To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose “sense of the universal equality of things” has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction.”[2]
An aura can not be replicated. Digitally manipulating a snapshot in time of beauty diminishes the original aura all together. With new technologies changing the way we perceive the world and specifically, art, it seems almost sad that copious amounts of hours that were once put into an artwork is now downsized to a few clicks of a mouse. Although;
“Artists sometimes need to work with the mundane. We have to take the bad photographs that our clients give us and make them printable.”[3]
Technology however, has always evolved with the idea of making our lives simple and less complicated. This has improved the medical aspect of humanity, however the social side of life has been damaged. Not only through digital manipulation and the effects this has had on society but through the internet; cyber bullying, emailing instead of writing a letter or even face to face communication. With the lack of human interaction, misleading information, manipulation and persuasion can occur even if it is only from one individual. This means that our society could be conforming to the narrow minded idea of one person; just as one person alters the images being placed in a magazine; we are all being subconsciously told to conform to an inflexible blueprint of ‘beauty’.
“When we change the way something appears, we perform a social action. An image manipulation may accuse, misrepresent, persuade and entertain depending upon the audience, illustrator, and whom is depicted.’ ‘These actions and their relationship to the state of affairs in the world help better conceptualize the ethical impact of altering imagery.”[4]
Although digital manipulation can be seen as a subtraction from the ‘art’ of the subject, is there still ‘art’ in digital art? Can an artwork composed digitally still have an aura? I believe it can. If there is symbolic meaning behind the piece then it is possible to appreciate the talent one person may have for creating art digitally. Could we compare the talent of a painter to the talent of someone who is able to create an image digitally using the same colours, shapes and lines? I think this depends of the person viewing the artwork. For example I know my grandmother – a very talented painter – would not see the art in an abstract digital image simply because technology is very new to her and sometimes we are afraid of what we don’t understand. Whereas, having grown up with technology and having studied every aspect of art, I can definitely appreciate different types of art no matter what media they use.
“How far can we take digital image manipulation and still maintain photographic integrity?”[5]
To an extent, digital art can be placed with photography, painting and sculpture. When famous artworks are digitally replicated however, the aura of the original is not passed on to the replicated. Da Vinci; Dali; Matisse; Monet; Picasso; Van Gogh. These artists have created timeless masterpieces that in nowadays can be replicated and sold for the same price. Thinking you own an original masterpiece from one of these brilliant artists can be liberating. You could see yourself owning a part of history. To find out that it is simply a copy with the same price tag as an original would make you question the integrity of this new found technology that allowed this to occur.
The ethics of photo manipulation is questionable and actions need to be taken to make society aware that the image one is looking at has been altered.
“Any images that are staged or fundamentally altered will be prominently labelled as Photo Illustrations”[6]
Although;
“The advent of computers and digital photography has not created the need for a whole new set of ethical standards. We are not dealing with something brand new. We merely have a new way of processing images and the same principles that have guided us in traditional photojournalism should be the principles that guide us in the use of the computers. This fact makes dealing with computer related ethics far less daunting than if we had to begin from square one.”[7]
Photo manipulation should be cut down. Isn’t it about time we started looking at beauty in imperfections? Why is there a need to change the way a photo looks in the first place? The art is simply being stripped of its aura. Technology will always have pros and cons. It is important to not loose ourselves in the ‘simplicities’ of technology. Art is only seen in original pieces. Auras are only present in the individuality of an artwork. This concept must always be prominent in our society in order to no let technology and narrow minded views of individuals, run our lives.
[1] Walter Benjamin (1936) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.
[2] Walter Benjamin (1936) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.
[3] Bonnie Meltzer December 1995/January 1996 issue of Leading and Learning with Technology ©1996 all rights reserved.- DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY; A Question of Ethics
[4] Image Act Theory. C.J Renolds
[5] The Ethics of Digital Photo Manipulation; ©2008 About, Inc., A part of The New York Times Company
[6] Lillian Bassman- Webster University Journal- Policy for the Ethical Use of Photographs (2000)
[7] John Long NPPA Ethics Co-Chair and Past President September 1999
