Photography has altered dramatically since the introduction of digital technologies. There is the idea that we have moved into the 'post photographic', with digital photography bringing up debates about authenticity and validity. The fact that the photographer is able to digitally alter the image, means that it is no longer a direct capture of that certain moment in time. Digital, by nature, is problematic, it doesnt sit comfortably in the conventional ideas of art practice.
My understanding of aesthetics is the way in which something looks, the way something is composed. However, it is about reception, the images are not always pleasurable, poeple have different ideas about what is pleasurably aesthetic and what is not. Digital photography means that we can take an image that may be seen as pleasurable, but then crop it, alter it and so on to the point in which it is not longer pleasurably aesthetic. On the other hand, we can go the opposite way. Digital technology can allow us to generate retro fascist humans, images of models with no spots, excess hair, and the perfect figure. Just think about all the celebrities photos that are airbrushed before appearing in a magazine. What we are seeing, is not a true representation of the person themselves. It makes us reconsider our relationship with the real.
This is a photo of Britney Spears 'detouched'. Who is to say that this is not what Britney actually look like!? Maybe this is what celebrities actually look like and that is why there photos are always airbrushed! haha. Ofcourse, I no that the reality is that Britney doesnt look like this, so why then do so many poeple believe that the perfect airbrushed photos of celebrities are true images of the person!?
"They all look sooooo perfect by the time their pics get to the pages of magazines,but, we, being photoshoppers, know they didnt start out that way. Thev all got lines and wrinkles and blotches and pimples just like the rest of us do" (www.abc.net.au/.../200512/s1525372.htm ).
So as we can see, manipulation of images can take us way from reality, and form a recombinant culture. There are advantages however to digital aesthetics. For instance, we can achieve images that are not possible with contemporary art forms such as painting.
Image below: Pedro Mayer,The Strolling Saint (1993)
However, there is still critism such as the fact that, paintings can actually be more real than photographic portraits, with the photographic not being able to capture the essence/truth of a person.
MY VIEW ON MY DIGITAL CAMERA
These days, digital cameras are the 'in' thing, haven taken over from the disposable film/camera. I however, am one of the rare people who still rely on the disposable camera to catch my memories. Although a digital camera has sat in my room for the past year, it has rarely left the house. This was due to the fact that i found the disposable camera far more simple to use, and it has no battery that ( in the case of my digital camera) can run down quite quickly meaning that it has to be charged up, something of which i dont know how to do! In my opinion, yes, the digital camera may have more qualities such as a better picture, but i think that you lose the element of suprise that you get with the disposable camera/film. While with a digital camera you can see the image straight away, and are able to delete any photos that you dont look 'nice' in, with a disposable camera you get the exitenment of going to pick them up, opening up the packet, not knowing what to expect.
Britney photo: I apologise if the Britney photo does not always how up. Its bascially a digitally altered image of her with many spos and warts etc.
