January 2008
From the plethora of questions accompanying the invasion of digital technology, what usually stands out is the one referring to the legitimization or condemnation of distorting interventions on photographs, and simultaneously, the permissible limits of these interventions. The first comment that arises automatically is related to the fact that this question was also pertinent in the past, during the era of analog photography's dominance. Thus, photographers should have known or at least contemplated the answer to this question long ago. The 'sinful' interventions, which accompany digital photography like a curse, could all be carried out, albeit with much more difficulty and time-consuming processes, even in the analog era. And of course, no 'sin' in the world was ever measured or charged in relation to the ease of its execution. However, this very question presupposes a mistaken starting point, the notion that photography 'narrates' a true event. Yet, any discerning observer would realize that photography does not have the ability to narrate but merely to 'describe', and also fails to describe anything more than a detail of the world. What gives significance to the description of the detail and transforms it into a photographic (and not a real) event, always deficient in relation to reality and always constructed in relation to the truth, are the interventions from the photographer's side. The choices of shooting angle, framing, cropping, density, contrasts, shades, clarity, timing, etc., constitute the expression of the photographer's personal vision. A vision that begins at the time of shooting (when the photographer confronts the world) and completes during editing (when the photographer deals with his photograph). And this was always the case, and it is still the case today, under any photographic technology. However, the most important aspect is that these interventions must adhere to certain principles and have defined limits. And the limits can naturally be set by the photographer himself, but they must always respect - and this is particularly important - those set by the photographic medium itself, namely those that preserve the 'indivisible unity of the photographic image'. The belief that all elements of a photograph constitute the proposition of a vision. A unity that naturally does not relate to reality but to the nature and properties of photography. This dimension, if it can be described as ethical and can prohibit the 'sins', has more to do with the ethics of aesthetics, which is related to the creator's ability or disposition to perceive and respect the medium's identity. If eventually, the invasion of digital technology forces photographers to re-examine the medium they use by posing questions that should have been answered long ago, this alone is sufficient to welcome it.
Plato Rivellis