The Authenticity Filter
Lessons from Photoshop on Biological Engineering
SOURCE: Debra Aronson
Over time, various technologies have altered our perceptions of what is essential and original. So how is moving a few pixels around in a photo like altering biological systems? Above: two pieces of the author's digital work.
Print
I was taken aback by the scowl crossing the artist’s face in response to my innocent inquiry: “Did you use Photoshop on that photograph?”
“No!” she spat back as she turned away. A moment later I saw her nudge another artist and they fired a stereo look of contempt in my direction. I quickly moved several booths away, feeling the blush of my embarrassment, but without understanding it. Still, I was careful not to utter the same offense again as I went from stall to stall, studying the art displayed on that beautiful autumn day at the Bethesda Arts Festival.
Debra Aronson
Roses in Glass
Over the previous years I had taught myself how to use Adobe’s Photoshop software. First it was just to improve my amateur photographs, but over time I learned to see it as a tool to create original art from efforts that had missed the mark, and finally as a way to create work starting with a blank “canvas.” I had come to enjoy it so much that I fantasized about earning a living working with the right side of my brain. The artist within me pleaded for a release from my day job in the policy shop of a trade association. While my full-time position and family responsibilities left little time for artwork, I would sit down at my computer whenever I could and practice. Hours would race by. I forgot the rest of the world. My back ached. My bladder cried. In short, I was addicted.
Without time to meet other artists, I continued my craft in isolation. This, in part, explained my bewilderment at the disdain my question about the image provoked. The suggestion that a photographer might have improved an existing shot, or created something meaningful from nothing, was somehow a suggestion of inauthenticity. Thank goodness I had not joined a local photography club. I might have been tarred and feathered.
But how could I have been so naïve? —I, who spent my day job exploring popular antagonism to the application of technology to biology. Genetically modified plants and animals, organ transplantation, the use of drugs to improve mood or cognitive abilities— each of these meet fierce opposition from some groups. So much, in fact, that my organization was forced to use extensive security measures when we held our annual meetings. How could I have not seen a similarly strong reaction coming when I ventured beyond the “pure” bounds of classic photography?
I tried not to be so hard on myself. After all, biotechnology involves living things, including pieces of ourselves and even our whole bodies. Opposition to the technical manipulation of biological systems generally originates from arguments that man should avoid exercising powers that rightfully are the domain of God or nature. Such hubris invites the wrath of God and/or nature—as well as other unintended adverse consequences. Another deep-seated fear is that we may carelessly eradicate the very characteristics that make us human or that make life valuable. My job has been to encourage the public, along with policymakers, to reason beyond these instinctive reactions in evaluating the benefits and risks of a proposed biotechnology. At the same time, I work to help innovators grasp the negative public attitudes, and the impact of such attitudes, on the acceptance of their products. It has been challenging and fun. But really, what is objectionable about moving a few pixels around?
Hang on… I am transported back nearly 40 years to a concert in Forest Hills, New York. Bob Dylan takes the stage on his first tour using an electric guitar. The crowd’s reaction is negative, to say the least, and I join the growing chorus of boos. We stop only when he finally picks up his acoustic guitar.
Colorized movies caused similar outrage. Microwave ovens evoked disdain from “real chefs.” Both the end of vinyl records and the advent of mp3s caused apoplexy for audiophiles. Where does this reverence for what is familiar come from? The womb?
We love what we know—the cozy and comfortable. Yet we love to create and improve. Our love of invention is the very thing that distinguishes us from other animals, although we often have to work quite hard to overcome our aversion to change. This internal conflict assured plentiful work for generations of psychiatrists.
But then along came Prozac.
Debra Aronson is a health policy consultant and visual artist; she recently served as Director of Bioethics for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Debra custom-designs creative pieces on commission. For more examples of her work and further information, Debra can be reached at dearonson [at] verizon.net.
Comments on this article
Brilliant! Thank you. This question/statement is long overdue and needed to be said. And say it she did… beautifully. Look at “Roses in a Glass”; In my opinion, this is more interesting than the pre-manipulated image could be.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pmExcellent
February 10th, 2009 at 3:46 pmBeautifully written! Feels like that I know you better than before.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:34 pmWONDERFUL I think the artist with paint and brush must have looked askance at the guy with the camera. And who really knows what the horse thought looking at the model T. ?
February 12th, 2009 at 2:10 pmWhen I first became aware of Photoshop, 15 or so years ago, I adamantly refused to use it. But I was quickly captivated by the technology and the ability Photoshop gave me to enhance my meager camera skills. I have pondered the Photoshop question ever since. Now I see the entire picture creating process as the melding of the natural world and technology to communicate a message. The camera itself is just one tool and Photoshop is just another, in the construction process that begins with the photographers intent and ends with the viewers reaction. As soon as one presses a shutter one has used technology to create an image. It’s the message not the method that counts.
Oddly, my 20 year old daughter who is an aerospace engineering student at WVU, is quite disdainful of Photoshop and believes the only pure form of our art is black and white film photography. How did I go so wrong?
Scott Durham
February 12th, 2009 at 3:01 pmThe Essay is wonderful. It addressed an excellent question and is very well written. The only problem is that Prozac isn’t the answer – so what is???
February 13th, 2009 at 4:24 pmDebra’s article is thoughtful and to the point. However in the scientific arena, I suspect there may be some concern that in artificially altering reality we not confuse or substitute the artful creation for reality. Thus, identifying the change and the “artists” intention is essential to understanding the objective of the presentation
March 7th, 2009 at 12:21 pmAn excellent piece! Now you must have a much better understanding of what the post-impressionists – particularly Cezanne – faced from their contemporaries! I’d love to be able to see your new exhibition, but a trip to New York is not on the cards just now.
December 6th, 2009 at 12:56 pm