Ruins of Truth in Content

The most blogged-about topic on photography blogs this week is The New York Times Magazine's publishing and subsequent pulling (from the web) of Edgar Martins' Ruins of the Second Gilded Age which the Times commissioned from Martins last fall. One blog commenter compared this charade to the Oprah-James Frey incident.

Martins is a 32-year-old Portugese photographer who has produced an incredible body of minimal, conceptual photographic work. He has advertised his work as being "without digital manipulation," which is quite a cavalier statement, even taken liberally. With few exceptions, every large format photographer who prepares museum-quality prints utilizes some level of post-production for the simple ability to remove dust or other aberrations from the picture which are natural and inevitable to shooting. This is really no different than the analog tedium of dust removal and retouching of prints in old-school wet photography.

Claiming "no digital manipulation" and no post-production is very ethical high ground in photography. Most who genuinely do this shoot large format (up to 8x10) or ULF, ultra-large format (up to 20x24) film and contact print or still enlarge wet - primarily black & white. Martins' work however is pristine color work, and frankly it's difficult to believe that it is without digital post production. Analysis of Ruins of the Second Gilded Age at PDN seem to agree, and now bloggers are combing through Martins' earlier photographs and pointing out bits of editing in the work.

Which brings us to the most interesting question: Why? Why do this? If you are Martins, you are a fine artist whose work is strong enough that it does not need further justification by claiming no digital manipulation. If you are the New York Times Magazine, why hire a Portugese fine art photographer to document an American housing crisis? I can think of quite a few who could have produced this project exceptionally well in the required editorial means (no manipulation to change the content or meaning of the work). Why did these get past photo editors - was there some gambling with grace or did they really not catch it?

This incident is also a lesson on the ubiquity of the blogosphere and it's ability to affect change at the highest levels of media. Image posted above by Edgar Martins, 'raw flip' evidence animation by a blogger here.

One blogger on APhotoEditor claims that Martins will soon respond. I look forward to the dust settling on this one.