Bethany Smith

In this text, Andreia Alves De Oliveira has explained how photography has moved on from analogue mediums, and how the advancement of digital photography and the internet has caused change amongst the photography world. Referring to this time as, ‘post photography’, Oliveira discusses how the digitisation of our images and the general accessibility to all, has changed the purpose of photography for many. Analogue forms were mostly used as a way to document events, however, once technology evolved, cameras were available to all, and nowadays there should be a distinction between what is art, and what isn’t.

With photographs being everywhere online, does post-photography theory seeks to distinguish between amateur and professional? Perhaps by maintaining the thought that general photography becomes meaningless if everyone can photograph the same thing. If, within art photography, there is a specific purpose to the image, then is it more relative to previous work created before the introduction of digital methods? I find it interesting that images stored on a computer are only seen through a screen, essentially a group of numbers and lines, however, I would definitely associate physical prints with being more ‘real’ photography. This is not something that I consciously do, as I see great work through online mediums, however there is something that feels a bit more traditional about seeing a print in the flesh. Personally, I think that you cannot define what photography is or isn’t based only on the way that it is presented. I don’t think we will ever be ‘past photography’ as I believe that it is something that will always be used as a way of documentation.

In this book, one of the first encountered problems is how to effectively describe what Documentary photography is. We can essentially call all forms of photography – documentary, as we are capturing and documenting every single image we take. However it is more commonly used to describe photography which shows an event or the effects an event has on the environment or, most commonly, the human race. It’s hard to pinpoint the exact characteristics of a documentary photograph, as it’s not a linear genre.

Documentary images can be largely seen as unethical, or potentially untrue. A photo only holds certain story, and the context outside the frame of the camera could be entirely different than the picture itself. Most photographers would say that in order to maintain their integrity, they only photograph what they see. Not changing or manipulating anything in the frame. However, as previously said, the frame of the image doesn’t always contain the whole story. It could also be seen as difficult to accurately portray a scene, when you are considered an ‘outsider’. Natan Dvir says “There is an unsigned contract with the subject[s] that I will respect the essence of their experience. I want to be true to the truth of what I have experience, interacting with the world with a degree of integrity, trying to understand the culture and people and how the situation, the conflict, impacts human beings”. Dvir said this after having lived and worked in Israel most of his life, when it came to photographing a large Arab minority, he struggled to feel like he had represented them in the truest way, as he wasn’t all that familiar with their faith.

I think using photography as activism is a great way to gain recognition on certain subjects. I believe that photographs can definitely make people feel a lot more than words can. If you can physically see the impact that issues are having on people, you feel instantly more compelled to help in some way. Although this would be beneficial to certain activist campaigns, there is always an underlying thought, in my mind as photographer, that it’s possible we might not be seeing the whole truth.

This article is trying to define the difference between selfies and self-portraits. Using examples from feminist photographers, Murray has succeeded in presenting different views on the term selfie. With the rise of social media outlets like Instagram and Snapchat, selfies are becoming unavoidable online. I only have to scroll through my Instagram feed to prove this point. However, photographers such as Vivian Fu & Noorran Matties are attempting to change the way women see themselves, by promoting self portraits, rather than selfies. With the term selfie, comes assumptions of narcissism and low self esteem. Alternatively, self-portraits are seen to have more artistic connotations, thoughtful composition and context and may be a more positive way to approach feminist topics, or any topic for that matter. They give the artists an outlet to challenge stereotypes, which would immediately be disregarded or overlooked if they photograph was first recognised as a ‘selfie’.

I found this article interesting. I’d never thought much beyond the purpose of taking a selfie, I only saw it as as something everyone was doing on social media. A photo that makes you feel good about how you look, boosting confidence. I don’t think it’s necessarily always with narcissistic intent, commonly a selfie features more than one person, maybe these photos are snapshots to look back at later as memories. Self portraits always seemed more serious and creative, and although I think it’s easy to mix the two up, as selfies are essentially self portraits, there is a distinguishable difference between the two.

This article written by Ruxandra Looft was incredibly helpful for me in understanding more about postfeminism itself, as well as the impact that fourth wave feminism and social media has in the 21st century. The GirlGaze project created and campaigned by Amanda de Cadenet initially started as way to encourage females to breakout into the photography industry, something which is seen as a predominantly male profession. After de Cadenet published information about the project on the TeenVogue website, the hashtag #girlgaze was picked up across social media platforms, inspiring young females across the world to showcase their photographic talents and discuss ‘global’ feminist issues.

The GirlGaze mission statement says “commitment to making the arts accessible to all, especially populations that have been previously disadvantaged and underrepresented. Focusing on inclusivity and diversity, the organization encourages active agents in the art world to uphold these values and promote them by ‘modelling through action’ (The Americans for the Arts 2016)”. Although the statement focuses on ‘inclusivity and diversity’, isn’t it ignorant to assume that the project truly is representative of females globally, when it’s whole premise is activism through social media? Social media isn’t accessible to hundreds of thousands of people all over the world, so who is representing these ‘previously disadvantaged and underrepresented’ females? It’s great that they now have the opportunity to speak out and advocate for themselves through this project, but isn’t it deemed futile if they can’t access the platform in which they have to use to do so?

Looft talks about the fact that it’s instinctive to want to enter photographs that ‘fit the brief’ of what GirlGaze is trying to promote, and if us girls are photographing with this in mind, then can it be considered artistic freedom? It’s also important to consider who is judging the images that appear on GirlGaze’s Instagram & Twitter. A small group of people are deciding and leading this project, choosing which photographs are posted to the official social media accounts. It’s entirely possible that girls are using this to their advantage, creating work that they know will appeal to these people, in order to get it posted on the official site, gaining recognition for themselves, whether or not they believe what they’re creating will make any sort of impact.

I think that GirlGaze is a great way to encourage young females to work in the photographic industry. Using social media to gain knowledge and understanding on other cultures as well as art is a great way to encourage young people to express themselves, especially in our now technology focused world. It is without critique, but if it’s helping thousands of young women across the globe become more knowledgeable online, hopefully in the future it will help them consider other ways that they can help the feministic wave grow and reach the corners of the globe that social media cannot.

In this text, Fontcuberta questions the use of Photoshop to retouch photographs widely publicised in the media. She talks a lot about actress Keira Knightley, and how her figure has been altered multiple times to suit a particular role she was playing, or product she was promoting.

Chanel enlarged Keira’s breasts in their famous ad, to give her a more ‘feminine figure’. However, this was seen as perfectly ethical, due to the fact that it wasn’t false advertising, because she was promoting a perfume, not herself. In fact, she was even a “trending topic across numerous celebrity gossip blogs” for her enhanced chest. Fontcuberta then goes on to give an example of false advertising. Olay were slammed by the ASA and had to retract an advert they’d created for one of their anti-ageing creams. The advert featured a youthful looking Twiggy, but was later found to have been manipulated to erase all wrinkles or signs of ageing. The fraudulent images enhanced the advert’s power of persuasion, and was therefore pulled from circulation.

“Corrective digital retouching or ‘adjustment’ has become standard practice, a kind of default post-production process that is taken for granted and passes without comment”. We’ve become so used to seeing doctored images, that it’s become normal to us.

Fontcuberta also brings up the point, that it’s scandalous for photographers to edit their own photos, simply to make the composition more interesting, whilst in no way changing the focus or concept of the image. But it’s perfectly fine for publishers to manipulate photos so that they can sell more magazines, “justified on grounds of editorial policy”.