As photographers, don't we search for some sort of photographic truth? Yet - why do we embrace photoshop and truth altering devices? (Believe me... I am one who embraces photoshop...) Where's the balance?

It started when I began thinking that I am going Gonzo... (as opposed to Glamour)

Gonzo is a style of reportage, film making, or any form of multimedia production in which the reporter, filmmaker or creator is intrinsically enmeshed with the subject action (rather than being a passive observer).

So that got me starting to wonder… can a photographer truly remove himselve from the subject he is investigating through the act of snapping the shutter?

Sure, there is this whole concept of “Street Photographyâ€? which implies that there is the capturing of pure moments - like holding a mirror up to the world around us. Seems like its done in black and white and captures a single human moment - like a stolen kiss on a street corner… a man jumping in a puddle…urban kids playing ball in an alley… a woman smoking a never ending cigarette propped against a wall, etc…

These momentary realities frozen in time seem to occur because the subjects were not aware of the presence of someone capturing them. It is said that Henri Cartier-Bresson would wrap a large handkerchief around his camera and pretend to be blowing his nose while he took the picture. Some people use waist-level finders, or long telephoto zoom lenses, or just do what they can to blend in with the crowd.

I would have to agree with Hunter S. Thompson - that objectivity in any media is a myth. Just because the subject may not be consciously aware that an image is being captured - the photographer still has a role in deciding when to capture the image.

That is one of the things that I really like about photography: ultimately, any image captured was taken from a series of potential images happening in reality… and the moment to press the shutter button is solely dependant upon the person doing the pressing… therefore, the photographer, though only capturing what is happening, is still having an effect on what exactly is to be presented outside of the actual reality - by pushing the shutter button.

Taking this concept to an extreme… I am reminded of that John Waters film, Pecker. At the end of the movie, the photo agent finds a new prodigy to work with: a blind man who shoots random images of the world around him - without actually having any awareness of what he is shooting or what the outcome actually is.

Obviously this is a satirical attack at the professional “artâ€? world… but I think Waters hit upon something. The blind photographer paradigm is probably the closest thing to a pure objective artform. Sure, he is still hitting the shutter button and deciding what to capture. But his decision has nothing to do with his ability to see it. I mean, if we want to get technical, maybe he could still hear the scene or smell it… but, at least in theory, his decision to capture a moment is purely a gut feeling OR totally random. Isn’t that closer to objectivism?

Heading back to gonzo… the term seems to have taken on a more relaxed meaning - concerning itself with ‘telling it like it is’ as opposed to being truly objective. But at it’s core, the purpose is clear - “This is my view of realityâ€?…

I picked up a copy of TerryWorld, a book of photographs by Terry Richardson. My mouth dropped when I first looked through it. I was disgusted. And believe me… I am no prude.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with his work, the full body of his photography can be amusing, bizarre, and shocking to most. Much of it contains sexual elements of a kind not ordinarily seen in mainstream media. His trademark style is notably raw, direct, and amateurish, though he is not an amateur… far from it actually. Probably one of the more trendy fashion photographers in the biz.

I felt that a lot of it was shock for the sake of being shocking… and nude and sexual for no other reason than to be nude and sexual. Sort of a shallow cheap thrill… But, then I read his artist statement…

Richardson, and I am paraphrasing from his statement in the beginning of the book, decided to shoot what he wanted - but learned early on that he couldn’t just stay behind the camera. He had to become a part of the image or the scene in order to get what he truly wanted. He said that by offering to get naked for one of the models to shoot him - he not only made her feel more comfortable, but also had discovered something about himself which benefited his work.

In fact… and now I am going to quote from the statement, “I would never ask a model to do something that I wouldn’t do myself.â€? This, of course, is almost an exact quote from the last page of my most recent publication, Inaudible Memories. It is the caption underneath a photo of me being the submissive participant in some sort of experiment in bondage.

It was that moment that I found a new respect for Terry Richardson.

He went on to talk about Larry Clark as one of his influences…

Larry Clark (the director of the movie KIDS, and a successful photographer… though not as well known for his photo works as his movies) was influential in sort of this post modern apocolyptic recurrance of Cinema Verite… not gonzo…

Still with me?

Cinéma vérité is a style of filmmaking, combining naturalistic techniques that originated in documentary filmmaking, with the storytelling elements typical of a scripted film. It is also known for taking a provocative stance toward its topics. Cinéma vérité aims for an extreme naturalism, using non-professional actors, nonintrusive filming techniques, hand-held camera, genuine locations rather than sound stages, and naturalistic sound without substantial post-production mixing or voiceovers.

The term originates in the translation of Dziga Vertov’s Kino-Pravda (Russian for “cinema of truthâ€?), a documentary series of the 1920s. Now, unless you are like some incredible film buff, I bet you have no clue who Vertov is - or what his Kino-Eye may be. So I will make it simple to get informed - if you have not seen “Man with a Movie Cameraâ€? you should seriously check it out. It’s this silent movie from 1929 about a guy making a movie about life in Russia. The movie was one of the first to use juxtapositions in the form of rapid-fire jump cuts. A technique that was extremely avant garde at the time and now is commonplace. Film at that time was more of a documentary style - a camera pointed at a stage to document a theatrical performance. Not a way of telling a story by capturing individual scenes or happenings and then pasting them together in a way that is condusive for story telling purposes.

Looking backwards - I had been fascinated with cinéma vérité as a youth when preparing to embark into a world of film direction and producing. When I had first seen KIDS, I wasn’t sure what was real and what had been fictionalized. It was rough. Unpolished. It seemed to be very real - like a documentary.

I was so inspred…

When I was at UMASS, I decided to produce a movie for my thesis project in that style about college life. I went around with a camcorder to parties, events, classes, and basically all over campus filming whatever I could. I would interview people… and just capture whatever I saw. At first people were all in my face about the camera… but eventually, people started ignoring that it was there and went about their real lives. I captured some very real moments…

But it ended one day… tragically… I started thinking about it… and I wondered why would these kids (from KIDS) allow this film guy capture some of their most intimate moments? Why were the people that I was shooting let me capture their intimate moments?

Is glamour photography a disregard for truth? I feel that I have been abandoning truth in my images and I wonder if I made a bad decision.

This came to the front of my awareness when I recently posted four images on my deviantart account that I had taken while hanging out with someone that I had expressed a romantic interest in (not a model, but a friend who was a subject for some impromptu fun while in central park). These four images clearly show my feelings towards this woman… and I think many a truth was captured in those images. Even though I did polish them (airbrushing, retouching, and the like)… the underlying emotions are real (or so I thought). Probably some of the most realistic expression of emotions in my work - to date.

It got me thinking… maybe Terry Richardson is right. I had always thought that I interjected a piece of myself into my images - but perhaps that is not enough. Maybe I need to rethink my subject matter… and interject myself personally into my images. Even if I am not in the frame - maybe I need to play a more active role in finding truth in my images - instead of creating a reality that is as far from the truth as possible.

Thoughts?

The only thing I would ever agree with terry richardson on is that one should never ask a model to do something one would not do oneself.  (that's not me trying to be pretentious, that's just proper english...sorry)

Terry Richardson is to documentary photography what "The Real World" is to documentary film making.  Yes both have a long and brilliant scholarly history, but they are the aborted half assed bullshit attempts of people who found out quickly that they were good at selling themselves and little else.

Let me go a step further: Truth is just a perception of reality. As such Adams images of Half-dome are true but not real, the same for your images of your lover, Mr. Ranum’s  images of Nori, and mine of Jon.
Let us pick on me for a moment. When I was shooting Jon, I saw a powerful man, I had planned to show grace and balance…Failure. Power is what I see in those images, power is what I saw that morning. Is Jon as muscular as I present him?  No. Is he powerful? Yes. My images are true but not real.
In other words: “Photography is a one eyed man looking through a wee tiny hole…how much reality will you find in that?â€?
Not my words but I don’t know whom to credit.

Marcus, Thank-you for the suggestions and Photoshop help