The pure, frank sentiments we hold in our hearts are the only truthful sources of art.
—Caspar David Friedrich
In this age of powerful processing tools and artificial intelligence (AI) models capable of generating photorealistic images, it’s no surprise that so many photographers go out of their way to present themselves and their work as “authentic,” assuming implicitly that the term is self-explanatory and refers to a singular, unambiguous quality: the quality of representing things as they “really are.” Alas, this assumption is false, and there is much more to authenticity than just realistic photographic depiction.
In a 1993 article titled “The Two Authenticities of the Photographic Media,” Rudolf Arnheim suggested (as the title indicates) that there are two forms of authenticity in visual art, and that the difference between these two forms is especially problematic in photographic art. He wrote:
The figurative arts are always dealing with two kinds of authenticity. They are authentic to the extent that they do justice to the facts of reality, and they are authentic in quite another sense, as they express the qualities of human experience by any means suitable to that purpose. The latter, the aesthetic function of representations, is greatly helped by the former, which offers recognizable images of creatures and objects. But the latter hampers rather than supplements the former: the fancies and liberties of the human imagination are anything but authentic when taken as documents of physical reality [emphasis added].
This dilemma was sharpened by the advent of photography. The mechanically obtained pictures revealed more clearly than the handmade images of artists ever could that when the imitation of nature was taken literally it could not fully meet the requirements of art in its usual sense [emphasis added].
Put another way: a work of art may be authentic to objective appearances (i.e., representational) or it may be authentic to the artist’s subjective inner experience (i.e., expressive). The two types of authenticity don’t necessarily “play well” together. If you strive for authentic expression, you may have to compromise realism; and if you strive for authentic realism, you may have to compromise the artistic (creative, expressive) merits of your work.
Arnheim felt that it’s possible for photographs to be authentic in both senses but not perfectly, and only when photographers restrict themselves to working within strict limitations. Even within these limitations, authenticity is still a matter of subjective judgment.
One reason for this subjectivity, even in ostensibly realistic photographs, is that all representational art must be composed (i.e., given form) according to the subjective preferences of an artist, which always involved separating the artwork from its real-world context, choosing a singular perspective, placing elements in various parts of the frame where they may assume greater/lesser prominence than they might if viewed in-situ, and so on. In Arnheim’s words:
To the extent that the arts were representational, they aspired to a faithful rendering of the facts of reality; but in order to make their images comprehensible to the human mind they had to select, shape, and organize the material taken from reality—they had to find and impose form. By doing so, however, they had to partially reshape the facts of reality perceived by the eyes. Hence, aesthetic theory had to put up with a compromise.
Another reason authenticity—even in realistic artwork—is a matter of subjective judgment, is the fact that all photographs must be retouched (i.e., processed) to make them “readable” (Arnheim’s term). This brings up the perennial question of photographic processing: how much is too much? And, who gets to decide? Again, in Arnheim’s words:
The most legitimate use of retouching eliminates accidental flaws to obtain pictures that present the essentials of the subject in the clearest fashion, for instance, in photographs of machines or anatomical preparations. Retouching is also employed for the more objectionable embellishment of portraits or landscapes to obtain the cheap effects of prettiness and false perfection.
Consider now the prevailing styles in various genres of photography and ask yourself how many of them would likely be considered as “objectionable” by Arnheim’s terms: aiming no higher than “to obtain the cheap effects of prettiness and false perfection,” and thus not authentic in either sense—objective/representational or subjective/expressive.
Considering Arnheim’s two kinds of authenticity, a photographer claiming to be authentic should be able to answer this question: do you strive to be authentic in terms of realistic representation, or in terms of expressing your inner experience/feelings, or both?
Be aware, though, that each of these options, while perfectly valid, also represents a compromise:
- If you prioritize authenticity in the sense of strict realism, you may have to avoid abstract/unobvious compositions and uncommon perspectives, avoid processing your work beyond correction of technical flaws, and likely compromise the expressive/artistic merits of your photographs.
- If you prioritize authenticity to your authentic feelings/experiences, you may consider yourself free to employ any composition or processing choice that serves your expressive purpose but may have to compromise strict realism.
- If you want to be authentic in both senses, you must abide by the limitations of both and accept the compromises of both.
For what it’s worth, my answer is the second one: my highest priority is authenticity to feelings and to (truthful) subjective experience, less so to accurate representation of objective appearances. I strive for my work to be as realistic and as pleasing as I can make it, but when personal expression requires that I deviate from strict representation, I have no qualms about doing so. Examples of such deviations include situations when an abstract composition may be more expressive than a realistic one, or when some retouching is needed to eliminate distractions or to place emphasis in the service of expression.
Whatever your own answer may be, if you apply it faithfully you may fairly claim your work as authentic. But don’t get too comfortable yet. There is considerably more to authenticity than just how you make your photographs (or other works).
Consider now this question: when you claim authenticity, do you mean to say that the things you create are authentic, or do you mean to say that you are an authentic person?
To be continued…
