Recently I applied to be a member of Illustrators Ireland – an organisation which works as a directory of Irish artists. I received a decision on my application stating I had not been successful, for a couple of reasons.
The first was that the panel felt I needed more published commissions which I guess was fair enough even though I had met the desired quota of published pieces. But it was the second reason which frustrated and annoyed me even more, so much so I decided to write this blog post to address it.
Their second reason for rejecting my work:
“[The panel] also had an issue with some of your illustrations. They felt that many of the samples shown are stock photography which you then put layers over so they were unsure how much work is original content.”
So basically one of the reasons I wasn’t successful was because my work was just a bunch of stock images slapped together, making it unclear if the work could be deemed an original piece.
*For clarification: I enquired as to whether or not Photo manipulation would be an acceptable art form for Illustrators Ireland before I applied – their response was “Yes this work would be suitable for review.”
So by Illustrators Ireland’s distinction the above works aren’t creative, inventive, or imaginative enough, they’re simply stock images pasted together…
What is Photo manipulation?
Photo manipulation can also be referred to as Photomontage, Composite, Photo illustration, Photoshopping, and can include various sub categories such as Retouching/Airbrushing and Colourisation.
In its most basic form Photo manipulation can be described as:
“Transforming or altering a photograph using various methods and techniques to achieve desired results. Some photo manipulations are considered skilful artwork while others are frowned upon as unethical practices, especially when used to deceive the public. Depending on the application and intent, some photo manipulations are considered an art form because it involves the creation of unique images and in some instances, signature expressions of art by photographic artists.”
Ever since the advent of Photography there has been Photo manipulation in some shape or form.
In a modern sense, Photo manipulation is the creation of a piece of artwork comprised of various images and media to create a new, complete image. Unlike a Collage where it appears obvious various pictures have been combined, a successful Photo manipulation should be seamless where it is almost impossible to distinguish the individual images that make up the completed piece.
Is Photo manipulation an art form?
That’s the real question and the answer to which I thought was obvious. As stated above, Photo manipulation can be considered an art form depending on how it is applied. If you are simply retouching a photo of a celebrity then no, it should definitely not be considered art. But if you, like me, use multiple photos and various other media, blend them all to create a new image then yes, it should most definitely be considered art.
I say “should” because while it’s obvious, there still appears to be those in the art community (such as Illustrators Ireland) who believe that simply cutting and pasting images together does not constitute art. Even though you and me know fine rightly that is a woefully inaccurate description of what Photo manipulation actually is.
Like any art form, the skill level of the artist can play a large part in whether the viewer would consider a piece “art.” There will be a vast difference in quality between someone who has only been painting for a year compared to someone who has developed their craft over 20 years. Regardless both are art. Whether or not you like a piece of art has no bearing on the fact that it is art nonetheless.
As an experiment I want to show you just how wrong Illustrators Ireland (and any other detractors) are about Photo manipulation.
Here is a recent image of mine in all its art-form glory. Illustrators Ireland would have you believe this is simply stock images with layers over the top (whatever that means).
Now if we were to recreate this image by just cutting and pasting all the elements and slapping them together (which is what Illustrators Ireland believe I did to create this image) it would actually look like this.
As you can see when comparing these two versions there has been a clear skilful and artistic hand that has created the real finished image at the top. There has been shading, colouring, and yes PAINTING to arrive at the final seamless image. Every element works together to create a completely new composition.
The original stock images are almost unrecognisable when laid out side by side with the finished image.
If you had access to photoshop and these base stock images, would you be able to recreate my finished image identically? The answer would be no, because we all have our own skill level, creativity and inspiration; thus proving that an artistic and creative hand is needed to create this image, which in turn proves that Photo manipulation is, when used in this manner, art.
Ethically sourced Stock photography
One of the major players in Photo manipulation is the stock providers who supply a nearly unending reserve of stock photography. Stock sites such as iStock, Adobe Stock, Getty images, and Shutterstock have been created with the express intention that these images will be used by other people in any way deemed appropriate through their terms of use.
It’s an ethical practise that ensures stock providers are paid fairly for the use of their images along with other art sites such as Creative Market, Neo Stock, Fantasy Backgrounds Store etc.
But of course, people can still create Photo manipulations which infringe on copyright. Doing a Google image search of Janet Jackson, finding an image of her in the results and constructing a piece of art with her at the centre can be seen as copyright infringement.
Because she’s a celebrity her image and likeness are not free to use, not to mention the photograph in question will be copyrighted to someone else – usually the photographer or publication – someone you haven’t got permission from to use regardless of how fantastic the finished art turns out to be.
Of course, like everything there is a grey area when it comes to the difference between copyright infringement and what could be termed “fanart.” Was the original photographer credited? What is the intended use of this art? Are you selling the art i.e. profiting off the celebrity’s notoriety and fame? Depending on how you answer these questions will depend on whether you’re liable in a court of law should it ever get that far. Even then different people have difference stances, you might get someone who is very lenient and welcomes fanart (Such as Critical Role and Within Temptation), while others may take a hard lined stance (such as Wicked and Disney).
In the end it’s all about being responsible. Stock images and assets can be expensive, but there are free alternatives available such as stock sites like Pixabay, and Unsplash. Even DeviantArt has a great community of stock providers who offer their images free for active members of the site (but they can set their own specific rules so it’s best to doublecheck their requirements before using).
Concerns with Photo manipulation and the fashion/advertising industry
Probably the main reason people get confused with Photo manipulation and whether it’s an art form is due to the fashion/advertising industry. When a celebrity on the cover of Vogue is smoothed out and thinned to within an inch of their life – this can be called Photo manipulation in its most sinister context, because the retoucher is manipulating the image to deceive the viewer.
As I’ve said all along, in my opinion, this type of Photo manipulation isn’t art, its simply retouching or airbrushing. As I’ve discussed Photo manipulation, in its truest art form, takes a lot of skill, time, and patience, in order to transform it from a cut and paste collage to a seamless piece of art.
Ever since there have been photographs, there has been Photo manipulation. One of the prime examples of this, used in a deceptive manner, is Victorian and Edwardian era images that were doctored to show women with smaller waists, in order to achieve society-of-the-day’s “fashionable silhouette.”
As you can see with the two images above, both waists have been doctored and slimmed down to achieve the fashionable silhouette of the period. This was done through manipulating the negative, much the same way film cells would have been painted by hand to give the illusion of colour film before the technology existed. Sometimes the alterations would have been made on the actual printed photograph as well.
There are two brilliant videos to watch on the subject if you’re at all interested:
Hopefully this post has been informative and you have a new appreciation for Photo manipulation in the same way you would for traditional and digital painting. And hopefully next time you see a piece of Photo manipulation art you wont just naturally assume all the artist did was paste some stock images together and “then put layers over” them.