Edgar Martins: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:31, 6 December 2009 editA.montenegro (talk \| contribs)22 edits →The Ruins of the Second Gilded Age Portfolio Debate ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:24, 7 December 2009 edit undoFluffernutter (talk \| contribs)Administrators41,664 edits →The Ruins of the Second Gilded Age Portfolio Debate: cleaning out a very heavy-handed whitewash, integrating the most useful parts of it in a NPOV manner. Will explain further on talk pageNext edit →
Line 23:		Line 23:
	Martins was considered by US and UK art critics{{Who\|date=July 2009}} as one of the most influential artist of his generation, working with the medium of Photography. The Art Newspaper, in an article published in June 2006 compared the work of Gregory Crewdson and Edgar Martins, stating that Martins "seeks fresh horizons to develop a philosophical, quasi-sicentific investigation, carried forward on several different fronts" and that "whereas Crewdson's books puts enormous effort into disguising the artificiality of what are in essence almost operatic productions, Martins' sensibility just keeps it simple: the overall concept being photography for photography's sake." <ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/pdf/06_06_Art_Newspaper.pdf</ref>		Martins was considered by US and UK art critics{{Who\|date=July 2009}} as one of the most influential artist of his generation, working with the medium of Photography. The Art Newspaper, in an article published in June 2006 compared the work of Gregory Crewdson and Edgar Martins, stating that Martins "seeks fresh horizons to develop a philosophical, quasi-sicentific investigation, carried forward on several different fronts" and that "whereas Crewdson's books puts enormous effort into disguising the artificiality of what are in essence almost operatic productions, Martins' sensibility just keeps it simple: the overall concept being photography for photography's sake." <ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/pdf/06_06_Art_Newspaper.pdf</ref>

			== Digital Alteration Controversy ==
	== The Ruins of the Second Gilded Age Portfolio Debate ==
			In the Sunday July 6, 2009, edition of the ], Edgar Martins published an expanded photo essay entitled "Ruins of the Second Gilded Age". On July 7, commentors on community ] ] pointed out that at least some of the images were digitally altered,<ref>http://www.metafilter.com/83061/Ruins-of-the-Second-Gilded-Age</ref> which was not consistent with Martins's statement accompanying the photo essay that he did not manipulate his photographs in any way other than by using a long exposure. The essay has since been removed from the website, replaced with a statement that "ditors later confronted the photographer and determined that most of the images did not wholly reflect the reality they purported to show".<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/07/05/magazine/20090705-gilded-slideshow_index.html</ref>

			The analysis further went on to show that images purportedly showing symmetry in Mr. Martin's other exhibits were created by mirroring half of a photograph and adding small, asymmetrical details to the mirrored half. Examples can be seen in several images from Martin's work "The Diminishing Present".

			Martins later said in an essay on the controversy that
		⚫	<blockquote> my intentions with this work were not to deliberate on the condition of Photojournalism nor on the need to claim artistic authorship over pictures. Was I aware of how the story would be presented to the readers? Are some of the constructions not sufficiently self-evident to have opened up a line of questioning much earlier than they did? Do I understand the New York Times' decision to pull the slideshow? Could there have been a different way of dealing with this issue? Do these constructions expose a previously unannounced way of working by the artist? Was this the right platform to invite any kind of debate?  I believe it is more pertinent to ask: can we look at an image at one and the same time as a fact and a construct and be aware of the processes that underpin it?  I believe we can.  And does this invalidate its journalistic purpose?  I don't know.  Whilst I welcome some of the debate that is taking place, I did not envisage that it would be mostly centered on polarities such as ethical/unethical, right/wrong, real/unreal.” <ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/html/09_07_19_how_i_can_see_01.html</ref></blockquote>

		⚫	Martins has also stated that he did not, in fact, make the claim to the New York Times that his photo essay would be produced without any manipulation. The artist’s later statements on the matter highlight that "on the 24th June 2009, two days prior to the project being published, I emailed The New York Times a synopsis of the work describing it as “a study that goes beyond pure formal investigation and documentation”<ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/html/09_07_19_how_i_can_see_01.html</ref> and that there was “a clear misunderstanding concerning the values and rights associated to the creative process which made a renown publication like The New York Times Magazine, commission a fine-artist, such as myself, to depict a very specific view of reality without taking all the necessary measures to ensure that I was aware of its journalistic parameters and limits.”<ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/html/09_07_19_how_i_can_see_01.html</ref>

	Edgar Martins' 'Ruins of the Second Gilded' Age project, commissioned by The New York Times magazine, sparked a hearty debate in the core of the photographic and journalistic community in the Summer of 2009. However, it is now widely accepted that much of the discussion which took place in digital media was largely one dimensional.
	The portfolio was presented by the editors as having been produced "with long exposures, but without any digital manipulation” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/07/05/magazine/20090705-gilded-slideshow_index.html</ref>, and it was evident that the artist had resorted to some use of digital processes; but it is “also known that Martins is one of the photographers who has written most eloquently about the truth and verisimilitude of photography”. <ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/pdf/09_11_EN_OriginalSin-JC_F_B.pdf</ref>
	Martins' work is known for addressing issues of construction and theatricality with the aim of making the viewer engage more actively with the images. So why is it that events unfolded in the way they did?
⚫	In the essay which Edgar Martins released in response to this debate, he stated that: "I have long expressed concern at how a vast majority of Photojournalism is incapable of representing process; whether it be the process leading up to or underpinning the event being covered or the process of assimilation, appropriation and communication of the real by the photographer. ~~I have always believed that even in an editorial context there should be an attempt to raise ideas about communicating ideas~~. ~~This taps into the latent potential of Photography's failings~~.  (…) Photojournalism has never felt the need to challenge or contravene certain rules, aesthetic or ethical. Yet, within this framework there is a perpetual search, not to mention a real need, to find new ways of assimilating and representing the real.  Though I do not subscribe to the notion that it doesn't matter what the photographer knows or believes, what matters is that he creates images which will help others articulate or challenge what they believe, my intentions with this work were not to deliberate on the condition of Photojournalism nor on the need to claim artistic authorship over pictures. Was I aware of how the story would be presented to the readers? Are some of the constructions not sufficiently self-evident to have opened up a line of questioning much earlier than they did? Do I understand the New York Times' decision to pull the slideshow? Could there have been a different way of dealing with this issue? Do these constructions expose a previously unannounced way of working by the artist? Was this the right platform to invite any kind of debate?  I believe it is more pertinent to ask: can we look at an image at one and the same time as a fact and a construct and be aware of the processes that underpin it?  I believe we can.  And does this invalidate its journalistic purpose?  I don't know.  Whilst I welcome some of the debate that is taking place, I did not envisage that it would be mostly centered on polarities such as ethical/unethical, right/wrong, real/unreal.” <ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/html/09_07_19_how_i_can_see_01.html</ref>
	It is now understood that Mr. Martins communicated to The New York Times his intentions to produce a multifaceted project. <ref>http://alice-k-ok.blogspot.com/2009/09/on-edge-of-ambiguity-photography-of.html</ref>
	The artist’s statement highlights that "on the 24th June 2009, two days prior to the project being published, I emailed The New York Times a synopsis of the work describing it as “a study that goes beyond pure formal investigation and documentation”.<ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/html/09_07_19_how_i_can_see_01.html</ref>
	It is also in the public domain that Edgar Martins did not describe the work as “with long exposures, but without any digital manipulation” and that he did not preview the feature layouts prior to publication. This statement is believed to have been cited from a press release divulged by his American publisher, in 2008, concerning a series entitled ‘The Accidental Theorist’.
	Edgar Martins chose to only respond to this situation through an essay which he released in July 2009 as well as through an exhibition of photographs held at Galeria Graça Brandão, Lisbon (November-December 2009). In this exhibition titled ‘The Rate of Convergence of Two Opposing System Trajectories’ the photographic work was accompanied and supported by a large installation comprising one tone of apples. This was perceived to be a direct reference to the debate which his portfolio ignited as well as a commentary on his relationship with The New York Times.. It is understood that Mr. Martins will also be presenting this work at the prestigious Centre Culturel Caloust Gulbenkian in 2010. According to the Portuguese Time Out, “a book of the work is also understood to be scheduled for release in 2010”. <ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/pdf/09_08TimeOut.pdf</ref>
⚫	In his essay ~~titled~~ ~~‘How~~ ~~can~~ I ~~see~~ ~~what~~ I ~~see~~, ~~until~~ I ~~know~~ ~~what~~ I ~~know?’, Edgar Martins~~ ~~states~~ that there was “a clear misunderstanding concerning the values and rights associated to the creative process which made a renown publication like The New York Times Magazine, commission a fine-artist, such as myself, to depict a very specific view of reality without taking all the necessary measures to ensure that I was aware of its journalistic parameters and limits.”<ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/html/09_07_19_how_i_can_see_01.html</ref>
	Between August and November 2009 several philosophers, writers and curators spoke out on the matter, publicly supporting the artist, his work and the discussion which it ignited.		Between August and November 2009 several philosophers, writers and curators spoke out on the matter, publicly supporting the artist, his work and the discussion which it ignited.
	~~A myriad of articles surfaced on both sides of the Atlantic describing the polemic and debate as simplistic and uninformed.~~ Portuguese curator Jorge Calado remarked that "Photography begins with an “f” sound that stands for fiction, fake or forgery. And that is the original sin of photography. Only the most untainted purists (and the pedantic New York Times) seem to be unaware of this." <ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/pdf/09_11_EN_OriginalSin-JC_F_B.pdf</ref>		Portuguese curator Jorge Calado remarked that "Photography begins with an “f” sound that stands for fiction, fake or forgery. And that is the original sin of photography. Only the most untainted purists (and the pedantic New York Times) seem to be unaware of this." <ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/pdf/09_11_EN_OriginalSin-JC_F_B.pdf</ref>
	Peter D. Osborne, on the other hand, declared that “It would be a mistake to assume, as some appear to have, that the visual elegance, the abstraction, the careful rendering of formal values and the necessary manipulation that exist here as in much of Edgar Martins’ practice are inappropriate qualities when applied to the themes of this present work. It is true that the crisis and human unhappiness indicated in many of these images is real enough, whatever the class of those who bear them, and they impose on any photographer some kind of ethical responsibility. However, Martins has never been a humanist photographer, nor is he a social documentarist. There is coolness, and a distancing throughout his work, and an overriding concern with form. There is even a case for describing him as a metaphysical photographer. And yet it is precisely certain of these qualities that seem so effective here.” <ref>http://www.edgarmartins.com/pdf/09_11_EN_A_EVIDENCE_OF_BEAUTY_FULL_TEXT_A_(FINAL)Oct09.pdf</ref>
	Pulbished in magazines such as Hot Shoe, Umbigo, the British Journal of Photography, O Actual, amongst many others, Edgar Martins’ 'Ruins of the Gilded Age' has now been hailed by UK and US based art critics as one of the most poignant pieces of work produced by a photographic artist in recent years, not only because of the relevance of its theme, but because of the way it propels us to reevaluate our understanding of photography and its debile relationship with the real.

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==

Revision as of 14:24, 7 December 2009

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Edgar Martins" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article may require cleanup to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (May 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Edgar Martins (b. 1977 in Évora, Portugal) is a Portuguese photographer and author who lives and works in the United Kingdom.

Early life and education

Despite his Portuguese birth, Martins grew up in Macau, China. In 1996, at the age of 18, he published his first book - a philosophical novel entitled Mãe, deixa-me fazer o pino ('Mother, let me do the hand stand'). In 1997 he moved to the UK, where he later completed a BA in Photography and Social Sciences at the London Institute, followed by an MA in Photography and Fine Art at the Royal College of Art.

Work and honors

Martins's first monograph, Black Holes & Other Inconsistencies was awarded the Thames and Hudson and RCA Society Book Art Prize. A selection of images from this book were also awarded the inaugural Jerwood Photography Award in 2003.

The Diminishing Present and Approaches, Martins’ following books were launched in 2006. An exhibition of this work has toured 15 different countries.

In Spring 2008 Aperture Books, New York, launched Edgar Martins’ next monograph, entitled Topologies. This work has been exhibited internationally, in Portugal, the UK, the USA, Germany, Brazil, Spain and France.

The launch of his new book, When Light Casts no Shadow is scheduled for Autumn 2009, and will be published by Dewi Lewis .

Martins has exhibited extensively throughout Asia, America and Europe. His work is collected in museums, public, corporate and private collections, throughout the world, such as BES (Portugal), the Fundação Ilídio Pinho (Portugal), MACE (Portugal), The Victoria and Albert Museum (UK), The National Media Museum (UK), The Dallas Museum of Art (USA,) The National Media Museum (UK), The Caloust Gulbenkian Foundation (Paris), The EDP Foundation (Portugal), amongst many others.

Edgar Martins was the recipient of the inaugural and much sought after New York Photography Award (Fine Art Category) in May 2008 . He was also selected for the Terry O’Neil Award (UK), and awarded a National Media Museum Bursary Fund (UK). More recently he was awarded the prestigious BES Photo Prize and a Sony World Photography Award.. Edgar Martins was also a finalist in the Prix Pictet 2009.

Martins was considered by US and UK art critics as one of the most influential artist of his generation, working with the medium of Photography. The Art Newspaper, in an article published in June 2006 compared the work of Gregory Crewdson and Edgar Martins, stating that Martins "seeks fresh horizons to develop a philosophical, quasi-sicentific investigation, carried forward on several different fronts" and that "whereas Crewdson's books puts enormous effort into disguising the artificiality of what are in essence almost operatic productions, Martins' sensibility just keeps it simple: the overall concept being photography for photography's sake."

Digital Alteration Controversy

In the Sunday July 6, 2009, edition of the New York Times Magazine, Edgar Martins published an expanded photo essay entitled "Ruins of the Second Gilded Age". On July 7, commentors on community weblog MetaFilter pointed out that at least some of the images were digitally altered, which was not consistent with Martins's statement accompanying the photo essay that he did not manipulate his photographs in any way other than by using a long exposure. The essay has since been removed from the website, replaced with a statement that "ditors later confronted the photographer and determined that most of the images did not wholly reflect the reality they purported to show".

The analysis further went on to show that images purportedly showing symmetry in Mr. Martin's other exhibits were created by mirroring half of a photograph and adding small, asymmetrical details to the mirrored half. Examples can be seen in several images from Martin's work "The Diminishing Present".

Martins later said in an essay on the controversy that

my intentions with this work were not to deliberate on the condition of Photojournalism nor on the need to claim artistic authorship over pictures. Was I aware of how the story would be presented to the readers? Are some of the constructions not sufficiently self-evident to have opened up a line of questioning much earlier than they did? Do I understand the New York Times' decision to pull the slideshow? Could there have been a different way of dealing with this issue? Do these constructions expose a previously unannounced way of working by the artist? Was this the right platform to invite any kind of debate?  I believe it is more pertinent to ask: can we look at an image at one and the same time as a fact and a construct and be aware of the processes that underpin it?  I believe we can.  And does this invalidate its journalistic purpose?  I don't know.  Whilst I welcome some of the debate that is taking place, I did not envisage that it would be mostly centered on polarities such as ethical/unethical, right/wrong, real/unreal.”

Martins has also stated that he did not, in fact, make the claim to the New York Times that his photo essay would be produced without any manipulation. The artist’s later statements on the matter highlight that "on the 24th June 2009, two days prior to the project being published, I emailed The New York Times a synopsis of the work describing it as “a study that goes beyond pure formal investigation and documentation” and that there was “a clear misunderstanding concerning the values and rights associated to the creative process which made a renown publication like The New York Times Magazine, commission a fine-artist, such as myself, to depict a very specific view of reality without taking all the necessary measures to ensure that I was aware of its journalistic parameters and limits.”

Between August and November 2009 several philosophers, writers and curators spoke out on the matter, publicly supporting the artist, his work and the discussion which it ignited. Portuguese curator Jorge Calado remarked that "Photography begins with an “f” sound that stands for fiction, fake or forgery. And that is the original sin of photography. Only the most untainted purists (and the pedantic New York Times) seem to be unaware of this."

Notes

Categories: