Talk:Edgar Martins

[Untitled]

Regarding the Digital Alteration Controversy. The cited article says "Editors later confronted the photographer and determined that most of the images did not wholly reflect the reality they purported to show." which isn't an accusation but an admission of digital alteration. More background can be read at the Metafilter post and follow up apparently responsible for the accusation and admission. I'm not sure how much of the links off of the Metafilter threads should be included in the article. Both public radio and Editor and Publisher have stories on the removal.

Further examples of digital alteration, possibly should be footnote in the controversy section? http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/07/new-york-times-magazine-withdraws-possibly-altered-photo-essay.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.245.181 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Alteration Controvery section whitewash

I have removed a quite heavy-handed attempt at whitewashing the article's mention of the controversy surrounding Martins in August. The edits by user:A.montenegro, who appears by his user talk to be the subject of this article, Edgar Martins, removed paragraphs describing the identification of the photo essay as digitally manipulated and the subsequent removal of the essay by the New York Times. I have restored those paragraphs.

A.montenegro also inserted a number of (badly formatted and generally poorly sourced) paragraphs essentially doing a lot of tap dancing about Martins' awesomeness as an artist and his ultimate vision, but not saying much about the controversy. I have retained the parts that did did talk neutrally about the controversy and were sourceable to Martins himself, as well as a statement by a person that I was able to verify through google actually was a curator of art. However, I have removed a substantial amount of, essentially, puffery talking about how unnamed or non-notable people hold that Martins' essay is "one of the most poignant pieces of work produced by a photographic artist in recent years."

Essentially, A.montenegro's edits failed the neutral point of view test. I have trimmed them down and integrated them into the article in a way that provides the artist's point of view without stating it in a non-neutral manner. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see if there's a rebuttal of that "pedantic" quote. I doubt the Times or any other reputable, reliable news source would consider the most basic form of journalistic accuracy "pedantic". --NellieBly (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It still reads as remarkably whitewashed to me. For example, it leaves the distinct impression that the NYTMag's statement of no manipulation was simply a result of miscommunication, when in fact it was his calling card. His website repeatedly referred to the fact that his photos were altered neither digitally nor in the darkroom; every interview he has given he has talked at length about how he views the lack of manipulation as important to his work; the prefaces to his books, all of which have been found to have manipulated photographs, also make the claim. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to try to balance it out if you have sources for that stuff, Bbatsell. I just trimmed out the worst of it because I am not well-versed in the photography-politics world and wasn't aware of any rebuttals made to Martins' protests, etc. If there is information that can be used to give a more global perspective (rather than a what-Martins-says centric one) on the issue, that'd be great! keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst Edgar Martins and his representatives have abstained from commenting on this situation in blogs and discussion forums, our organisation felt the need to intervene on this occasion. We have filed an official complaint with Wikipedia, a site with an international audience and broad reach, about uninformed and unfounded speculation and statements concerning the debate which this project generated, the artist and his work. Whilst we now believe that Edgar Martins' page has a more neutral edit, we would like to point out that several direct quotes provided by our organisation concerning other authors, philosophers and curators' views on this subject have systematically been edited out. This has led us to believe that some of the editing has been biased and unilateral. As our organisation is not well versed on the inner workings of wikipedia, we will be working with other editors and the site organizers to rectify present and future incorrect statements. We have edited out a paragraph which stated that ' further analysis 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, especially in works such as The Diminishing Present'. The way this sentence has been structured may lead one to believe that this situation unmasked a previously unannounced way of working by the artist or that the use of digital processes were not supposed to have played a role in the artist's practice. This is wholly incorrect. Those who have accompanied closely Martins' work will know that his images have always dealt with issues of construction and theatricality and that the use of digital processes has been sporadic but an essential part of some of his projects, including 'The Diminishing Present'. The interplay of conventional and digitally processes has been a central focus of Martins' work. This has been discussed publicly by the artist, himself, as well as several curators and editors, including in seminars organised by our organisation. Martins' essay references this in detail. Martins' use of symmetry has also been discussed in numerous past articles and interviews, including in his most recent publication (When Light Cats no Shadow, published by Dewi Lewis), where it is debated at length with renown author Gerry Badger. In a recent article, published in The British Journal of Photography (January 12th 2010 edition) Martins has also addressed this issue and theme. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that even in this discussion forum there seem to be uninformed statements and gross generalisations, which are not only incorrect but can be seen as defamatory. Several journalists and editors have already pointed out that none of the synopsis produced by the artist and displayed on his website reference the production process of his images. Martins himself has purposefully omitted this information from catalogues and exhibitions in a deliberate strategy to increase the ambiguity of his work. The only context in which the artist has specified the non-use of post production processes is in an interview published in a previous monograph, relating to a project entitled 'The Accidental Theorist' (and related press material). Some of the statements included in this forum are therefore a simplistic generalisation of the artist's practice. Edgar Martins is one of the most poignant young artists working with photography today and, as the curator Jorge Calado mentioned, one of the artists who has most eloquently spoken about the 'truth and verisimilitude in photography'. Though we accept that the publication of his portfolio polarised some sects of public opinion, those interested in debating the wider issues which surfaced, concerning the condition of Photojornalism and the relationship/chasm between Journalism and Art Photography should do this through the right channels and not use Wikipedia to fulfil personal agenda. A.M —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.montenegro (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This situation is under discussion here. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)