Thank you Frank, Bjorn and Bob.
Frank, you have raised a number of aspects/issues and Mongo is not entirely sure he understands your meaning. So, let Mongo try and answer each in turn as best he can.
First, in relation to the first example you have given concerning the car and without judging the rhyme or reason for that process, on the simple question of “is it photography” ? Mongo thinks not. It might be fairer to call it digital art or something similar which suggests it has a lot of licence in the process and hardly anything much to do with a camera/photography.
Secondly, your question about “what Mongo is aiming for” by this process. Had not thought why until you asked the question. However, now that you have, the answer was very easy…….It is to create a more visually interesting image to the senses (than might otherwise be the case if left unedited). No differently than a novelist writing about fact or fiction, they try to present their work in the most interesting and engaging way possible - even those writing about something as dry as fact. If only factual books were allowed, you would instantaneously dematerialise about half the written work on the planet (and half of humankind’s imagination). The same for images.
While on this point, another peculiar example comes to mind. Some of our history’s greatest artists painted during the renaissance period. They were, effectively, the picture makers/photographers of their time - its just that cameras had to been invented yet. Interpreters of their great works these now days, make no criticism of the fact that angels floating on clouds commonly appeared in the works as did hallows around the heads of some pious figures in them. Yet, clearly, these were not visible in real life. In Mongo’s view, they were added by the artist for effect and emphasis. Indeed, when you think about it, what is acceptable or not, often boils down to what you believe. In that case, you will get very different answers from a variety of viewers and possibly never get a universally accepted answer. If you follow this line, you will get to very dangerous areas of contention e.g. is there a Santa Claus? Does God really exist (and if so, which is the real one?) etc etc. For this reason, Mongo does not look to the subjective beliefs of potential viewers or purpose to which the work will be put - he just looks at the work and asks himself if he likes it or not and why.
Thirdly, about the burger and the skinny model you refer to, it is clear from your choice of words that you wholeheartedly disapprove of the deceptive practice to sell the consumer something that is not real or not good for them through the use of “trick” photography (Mongo’s words). While this is perfectly understandable (and possibly agreed by most), it is nonetheless, a heavily personal/bias view. One man’s disgusting meat may be another man’s burger. It is ironic that the photo of the burger may well be accurate. They may go to a lot of trouble to make a perfect looking juicy buyer that looks amazing just for the sake of a perfect promotional photo without photo editing. The real irony is that any harm you are referring to often comes from the associated scripted words that go with the photo or advertisement e.g. no information about nutrition or fat, use of the words delicious, sensational, juicy, craving for more etc.
For the sake of showing his hand honestly, Mongo is not a fan of the artificial, unrealistic, skinny model complete with ridiculous broom length eye lashes and fake skin colour. Mongo happens to think that real, heathy and vibrant are just three of the qualities that equal “attractive”. Many of the stereotype models do not have any of these qualities. However, two things. First, Mongo appreciates the skills the editors of those images have (irrespective of whether or not he approves their purpose). Secondly, it seems to Mongo (rightly or wrongly) that in most cases, if photographers were asked do you want to photograph normal females or the stereotype “model” , most would say the latter. Again, Mongo makes no judgement of that but merely acknowledges its very likely existence.
Mongo looked at the work in the like you provided. Again, Mongo acknowledges the artist’s skill even though that kind of work is of no interest to Mongo.
On a final and general note, it seems to Mongo from what you have raised, that the fundamental question of “what is photography” ? i.e “what are is perimeters before it is no longer photography”? should be first answered. There is no doubt that the answer(s) will be broad, controversial and perhaps never to be agreed upon.
Secondly, does the potential answer have any part in it for the “purpose” to which the photograph will be put or is this an irrelevant subjective factor. Mongo thinks the latter. This is to be distinguished from other cases where it is appropriate to ask "has the photograph been successful or fulfilled its purpose"? e.g. where a photographer tries to bring home the futile and tragic consequences of war by emotive images emphasising that and the viewer is left shocked and thinking that war is futile and destructive. Most would say, that photograph has fulfilled its purpose.
Lastly, (and going back to the original question you asked) if Mongo asks Frank this question:- if Mongo’s purpose was to create a more visually interesting image to the senses (than might otherwise be the case if left unedited), do you like the images ?? and would it make a difference to your answer if you had NOT been told they were composites
Frank, your points have taken Mongo on an interesting journey he had not contemplated but for which he is quite grateful to you. Regards Mongo
