A photograph isn’t a digital nip/tuck: has the quest for perfection derailed our sense of reality?

Once a beacon of truth and marveled for its accurate representation of reality, it would seem that the camera has become yet another tool through which our perception of what is real is distorted. Although, to the camera’s credit, it is not a direct tool, it simply forms part of a process which mimics reality so closely that discernment between truth and fiction becomes challenging.

“Photography” literally means “to write with light”. Let the inherent imagery (and poetry) of that definition develop in your mind for a moment. Then consider that photography is an art form, it reproduces reality to allow us to marvel in the simple perfection that is the world, the simple perfection that is life. Art, however, exists to create beauty. Beauty is subject to interpretation. Thus, when one uses a camera to create art through a photograph, is the camera not being used to capture someone’s interpretation of beauty? The essence of this statement is captured perfectly by Susan Sontag in “The Heroism of Vision”:

“Nobody exclaims, ‘Isn’t that ugly! I must take a photograph of it.’ Even if someone did say that, all it would mean is: ‘I find that ugly thing…beautiful.’”

However, the art of photography is not limited to simply activating a shutter and marvelling at the still image of reality. It requires planning, framing, composition… and editing. Although the practise of editing photographs to enhance their aesthetic appeal is not one which is peculiar to the digital age, it is a practice which has become synonymous with the act of taking a photograph – the glorious essay written with light which can convey more than words could ever hope to describe! Our innate desire for perfection, to enhance the beauty of the world around us, requires that we modify that essay – we edit it. Since a photograph crops life into view-finder sized chunks, by editing that representation of life it would seem that our view of reality becomes blurred with our idealised vision of what it could (or should?) be. To edit, in terms of a written piece, is to correct, condense or otherwise modify the content so as to make it suitable for its intended purpose. The intended purpose of a photograph is to beautify, so how does one perceive that poorly elucidated distinction between beautification of reality and complete distortion when editing a photograph?

I am not the first to offer up a critique on this phenomenon and I doubt that I will be the last to do so. The concept of “self” versus our desire to view ourselves as acceptable, even exceptional by the standards created for us by others is one that probably has, and is likely to, generate many philosophical studies and debates. In another time, a portrait was taken to document a person or people. To capture some truth which could be remembered for years to come – a life made immortal through artistic reproduction of reality. I doubt one will encounter many people who will deny the presence of this slightly narcissistic desire to want to leave a reminder of their existence behind when they vacate this mortal plane. If we’re leaving a representation of ourselves behind, it is only natural to want that form to be as memorable, and beautiful, as possible (for some it might be better to not be remembered at all than to be remembered badly). And so we document our lives accordingly. And for the most part, do so according to what has been shown to be acceptable. In our present time, what is acceptable is perfection. But perfection is unobtainable because it is a concept created by our imaginations; it is limitless and subject to ever-growing expectations and changing perceptions. The practice of editing photographs to represent perfection has been taken up aggressively; it is at the point where beauty has become a well concealed lie that has been sold to us by make-up houses, fashion designers and advertisers (to name but a few culprits).

Symmetry of facial features is likely to always play a pivotal role in our perception of beauty, but physical perfection is strongly subject to perceptions instilled in us by a plethora of influences. Although one can debate the “nature versus nurture” arguments, it would be incredibly foolish to disregard the massive role played by media and advertising in our perception of physical beauty. What is changing, however, is our willingness to accept the lie. People want to take back their perceptions and celebrate themselves, to destroy the unobtainable idealised form. And one of the best ways of doing this is to reveal the lie. Many celebrities and models have embraced this concept and have spoken out against their digitally enhanced forms. A recent example of this is that by Australian model Meaghan Kausman. To summarise the incident, her body was digitally manipulated, leaving noticeably slimmer thighs, buttocks and waist thanks to photo editing software. Meaghan strongly objected to the modification of her features and was deeply concerned regarding the message that the “slimmer” images sent out to a society already plagued by body image issues. Whether the person doing the airbrushing is the photographer, a graphic designer or simply a cog in a large machine, the net result is the same: an appealing image which is supposed to represent truth has key elements which are grossly misrepresented.

When editing a written piece, one needs to be careful to ensure that the removal of fragments does not diminish the message that one has attempted to convey. That the intrinsic purpose that motivated one to write has been embedded in the words and remains as the permeating essence. To edit is not to diminish, it is to enhance. Altering the brightness or contrast of a photograph may aid the impact of subject. Removing an electrical cable that was not supposed to be in the image will remove elements which may detract from composition. The only thing enhanced by altering the fundamental curves of one’s face or body is the lie that we are not beautiful as we are. That our natural form needs to be tweaked – a digital nip/tuck! – for it to be accepted, appreciated, remembered or desired. Yes, it can be argued that location, posing, lighting techniques and the angle of the camera all contribute to the photograph and, as such, play a role in manipulating the final perception of the subject in the image, thus one cannot discern where the fabrication truly ends or begins. Where can artistic license be allowed or denied if one assents to one aspect, but strongly objects to another? Reality versus idealism? To answer that, perhaps one needs to revert to my previous point regarding intended use and the motivation behind the choice to tell a story with light.

I like to think that when one wants to have photographs of one’s self taken, whether the end use is for a modelling portfolio, a family photo album or even an ego boost, one needs to ask whether they are simply wanting the photographer to manipulate their appearance to the accepted standards of beauty or if they want a truthful representation of themselves? If the choice is the latter (and in my opinion, the better), then one should find a photographer who will help you to remain truthful while still enabling you to project the best version of yourself. A photographer who will, quite literally, put you in a different light and possibly help you to see something in yourself which you were not able to perceive before seeing that photograph. Someone who will show you how beautiful you are as an individual as opposed to producing an image of a person who is strikingly similar to you, but who does not actually exist.

Do you want the red or the blue pill? The choice is yours…