Authenticity is the new black

I read this the other day and it brought up a few half-formed questions I've wondered about before - what is photography today, why the term 'authenticity is so popular, and how people define themselves as artists. Not that I've thought about all of that at once, but separately they are three things I've mentally checked-in on at some time or another.

(original article in The Independent, Talent in 2010)

But this statement is a trifecta of puzzling thoughts! - "Photography is dead in its traditional form," says Tim Hetherington. With the proliferation of digital culture, his view is that authenticity is now more important than style. "Many people can take pictures as good as mine but mine are more authentic because of my experience."

This is the kind of thing where if you're just skimming the article it sounds really good, like ... smart. It comes off as a strong statement, purposeful, made by someone confident in his trajectory. But once you begin really thinking about its individual components it doesn't make any sense!

I don't know if I'm going to make any sense either, but I want to think a few things through...

First - I wonder what he means by photography's "traditional form?" Is he going all the way back to glass plates or just to silver processing? Or is it simply the difference between film and digital? If so, there's this assumption of skill if you're shooting film, whereas with digital you can just click away. But that difference isn't artistry - that's being technically proficient. If traditional form means composing in camera (using film) and digital is automatically associated with computer manipulation - he's ignoring photography's extensive history of manipulation either in camera or in the darkroom.

There was a time when photographers had to beat the gallery/museum doors down to be considered artists in their own right. Add to that, a parallel history of photographers wanting to demarcate the line between their work and that of the unwashed masses. Photography today is both a recognized and valuable artistic medium. And it's interesting to see what the proliferation of digital cameras and imagery add to the art form. Our culture is becoming even more visually aware and documented to an unprecedented degree. Still, not everyone with a digital camera and photoshop is an artist. And although everyone has "experience" that is authentic to themselves, neither does that authenticity distinguish what is art.

Speaking of authenticity... a few years back when I was still freelancing I was hired to do research for a company that makes an artificial sweetner. They wanted to understand how young women in their 20's (a core segment for them) thought about beauty - what beauty was, how it could be attained. A sidebar to this was how their thinking about what "natural" meant tied into notions of beauty. Really interesting project... Anyway, one of the strongest patterns to emerge was the association of beauty with authenticity. If someone was being "true to themselves" then that was beautiful. Which is cool, right? especially for young women to be able to discard unrealistic or impossible standards.

Since that project I've noticed that "being authentic" is a seemingly ubiquitous concept. I see it mostly in the corporate brand world where supposedly "authentic" brands are championed or champion themselves for being "authentic." What is that anyway?

So... this isn't really making sense, as I'd expected. But basically what I keep stumbling over is that this photographer, Tim Hetherington, is setting up a distinction between what is real and what isn't based on his inherently subjective experience. And he's established a value judgement associated with that - saying that his experience makes his pictures more "authentic". Well, yes of course - but so does everyone else's. If he just wants to say "mine are better" he should try a different line of argument.