I have been trying to come up with a response to this Edgar Martins situation as it has been handled by Jörg Colberg, on his blog Conscientious. For a couple of days I have been frustrated by the lack of a willingness to take Martins to task for some of his statements in his one-sided response to why he digitally manipulated a recent commission from the New York Times Magazine, that was subsequently pulled.
I can’t really remember what my reaction was to this manipulation. I do know in the past couple of days I have been extremely frustrated with both Mr. Martins and Mr. Colberg. The first for his overwrought masking of the truth. To sum up, he lied to the New York Times about his manipulation policy.
What really got my hackles up was rather sophomoric post by Mr. Colberg today about what a photograph is as it compares to a photo-illustration. This post showed me that he is swimming in unfamiliar waters. He could have easily referenced the Reuters handbook on what is accepted digital processing. It is very clear, probably too clear for Mr. Colberg.
The lack of an ability to comment on this post directly, save for emailing him, also gets to me. How is this really a discussion in this day and age in the blogosphere? I am not always a fan of comments, but in this case, I wish they were there.
I have been tweeting some of my initial reactions to these posts, but since he Mr. Colberg abandoned twitter for tumblr (a platform without comments). I wonder what type of dialog he is striving for.
I wonder if, from Mr. Martins’ perspective, this is now a closed case. I wonder if someone from PDN had tried to contact him for a response if he would be willing too? The cynic in me says no because Mr. Colberg offered him an unquestioned platform for his views. Did this action by Mr. Colberg add to the supposed dialog he wants to create or hinder others from grilling him directly?
Well, I don’t know, but I would like to move the dialog along, so I am offering this space here as the an open forum for these topics. Feel free to comment. I welcome it. If you would like to directly respond to any of the above posts feel free to use this comment section. My response is a measured one, I am opening this blog for comments for responses from another blog.
A note of full disclosure: I do not know Mr. Martins or Mr. Colberg. I participated in a workshop in Jackson Hole, Wyoming in 1994 where Kathy Ryan, the picture editor of the New York Times Magazine was my team leader. Her words of advice and encouragement helped shape my view on photography. I have not had any contact with her since then. I worked for the New York Times once as a freelancer in 1993. For me this is not about the Times it is about journalistic photography. In my 11 years of newspaper photography there was always a very clear line of what was and was not acceptable in terms of digital manipulation. That line became blurry when I came to graduate school for my MFA in photography. Blurry in the sense that, the more mysterious I am about my process the better. I do not like working like this. I do not like deceiving the viewers of my photographs. That is the part of fine-art photography that still rubs me the wrong way.
There is a German poem by Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart, famous set to music by Franz Schubert called Die Forelle—the Trout. In the poem an angler is having trouble catching a fish that continually outsmarts him. The angler’s solution is to stir up the water so the fish can’t see and then he snares him.
This is what Martin’s is attempting. There is no ‘ontological, epistemological and moral chasm concerning truth, verisimilitude, and authenticity’ here. The images were marketed as without manipulation of any kind. Marketing for his books also contained similar verbiage. It was clearly, unambiguously a lie.
Nothing he is writing in that unreadable, academy-speak answers the simple question: why did you lie?
Why Joerg felt he needed to provide the platform for Martin is beyond me. Martin could and probably should have addressed the issue on his own blog. The fact that readers can’t comment on Conscientious makes it all the more odd to offer it up as a forum.
And now we are expected to run back and forth between Conscientious and Conscientious Redux to follow the dialogue and Joerg’s responses?
Kind of silly if you ask me.
The lack of editorial oversight created a mess for the Times, and Mr Martin created a mess that other art photographers are going to have to cope with on future assignments.
It’s ironic that at the heart of this drama lies a communication problem – problems which are still ongoing because people aren’t addressing one another directly and openly.
Mark M is spot on.
Edgars response is hilarious and utterly meaningless, which is kind of apt. Edgars is just a construct, a game that lots and lots of people buy into.
Edgars is as real as his photos, not real at all.
I say put his photos back up, put up his response and let those that are human amongst us have a good laugh.
Tom,
Nicely done.
That essay by Martins, what an exhausting load of crap.
Your response points out the fact that it’s so much easier, whether using words or images to just tell the truth in the first place.
Since I wrote this, some things have cleared up in my mind.
One is that I might have been a bit hard on Jörg.
Another is Edgar Martins is still a liar.
I also really do not like being a commentator on things like this. Kenneth Jarecke does a much better job than I do. Taking pictures is what I enjoy. This blog started more as a notebook of things I can keep track of, more than anything else. If anything, I need to point it in the direction of self promotion.
Thanks to tall have commented.
Hi Tom
Found your blog and I enjoy reading it.
On a side note, one of my favorite quotes is from the architect Le Corbusier:
“I prefer drawing to talking. Drawing is faster, and leaves less room for lies.”
Sometimes I wish bloggers and photographers would follow this. Actually, sometimes I wish blogging just disappeared, and people started creating again.
Look forward to more of your picture taking.