Thierry Maindrault’s Monthly Cogitations
It’s curious that this word has disappeared so quickly, in just a few years, from all our communication systems. It’s true that it’s far from the only one. What’s disturbing is that this term consists of defining the form of relationships between others and each of us, on the one hand, and situating our own behaviors towards ourselves, on the other.
As a photographer, these two observations invite me to better explain this starting point for a chronicle.
Regarding our relationships with others, I have chosen this definition of probity from the universal dictionary of Furetière (1690), taken up by the Robert: probity: goodness, natural virtue by which one abstains from harming others. There are many people of spirit and worth in the world, but there are few who have probity. Regarding our personal face-to-face encounters, the official academic definition seems relevant: “probity: rigor, exactitude applied to grasping the truth, the accuracy as closely as possible.”
What becomes of our work, our findings, our testimonies, our research, our transmissions, our photographic creations with the obvious disappearance of this probity which fades in our realities as photographers as it vanishes in the daily life of our vocabularies.
It is true that in terms of form, we see every day that rigor and honesty are no longer part of the order of things, at all levels. Successive trends are taking precedence over the objectivity engraved by light, small, improvised arrangements are becoming incontestable achievements. Is it really up to technology to take sides in the creation of an image and its restitution? This shift must make us question on several levels. I often repeat that Photography is only a technical ensemble and not an end in itself; the result, and this is wonderful, is a use for countless and very varied purposes. The spectrum extends from strict scientific observation to absolute creative delirium.
The first danger of an uncontrolled, technical interpretation of the image extends from the programming of the camera to the computerized restitution of the image. Our inertia to act, increasingly prevalent in favor of digitalized logical sequences, amplifies the disappearance of rigor, both for others (the subjects) and for ourselves (our choices).
This situation of a very materialistic evolution of concepts is all the more dangerous because it creeps in surreptitiously. Indeed, at the top of the scale, the deceptive modifications of images are certainly visible in their excesses and in their scope; but, a mind with one foot still a little on the ground will see things in perspective. This total photographic relaxation is not terrible; but easily detectable for its inconsistencies.
Far more worrying is the pernicious shift that removes all consent from the photographer’s mind and reflection. Thus, the small adjustment on one eye, the multiple recordings with automatic selection of the best shot, the automatic reconstruction of an attitude – or even a face – become normal operations, with the consent of the majority.
Now, the results of such deviations may be acceptable to an emerging imaginative person who will accentuate them in his delusions of provocation. But these same results remain unacceptable in photographic evidence and in testimonies through images. Let us also avoid trying to confuse interpretation, of enhancement by operators, with the mechanisms of automatically obtaining previewed images.
The insidious danger isn’t so much these outrageous and deceptive images intended to distract the onlooker. Rather, it’s undoubtedly advancing to allow the cursor of betrayal to be placed, in a barely perceptible way, according to options that are often lax, if not biased.
Abandoning our integrity becomes catastrophic as soon as we get to the heart of our conceptions and our image-making. Once again, this affects both our relationships with others and our personal line of conduct.
Regardless of our ideas, our choices, our implications, our strengths and weaknesses, we owe honesty to others, to all others and especially to our subjects and other models. This seems obvious, even more so in reportage; but, we see, day after day, that this is not the case at all. The “scoop”, which has become the “buzz”, is essential for each image, regardless of the function and interest of the photograph.
It is so true that we forget to look for what interests us, as we have observed, for the technique, the essence of the image fades. This truth (individual which is ours, of course) also challenges us in this period of hesitation. Often through laziness, disgust, weariness, of the generalities which surround us and which prevail, we forget our own intellectual rigor.
The globalized societal environment, a sort of leveled, formless universe, hardly encourages respect in all its aspects for the image and what it conveys. The wave of fake montages, the systematic theft of moral rights, the theft of intangible assets, constantly invade us without provoking the slightest reaction from all those involved in the photographic industry.
The biggest international competitions, festivals with overt pretensions, unscrupulous book publishers, curators of highly publicized exhibitions, all these people, with supposedly trained eyes, offer us pictorial representations that resemble anything and everything.
Yet, the technical evolution of photography is far from stagnant. We regularly see new ways of using light to write. For example, developments using plant-based developers for silver films or structural laser scanning offer new perspectives. The photographer’s one-on-one with his subjects still has much to learn about objective creativity or the materialization of ideas.
There remains a huge, non-exhaustive potential for observing or designing with light, without it being necessary to move away from the ethical and aesthetic options linked to our passion.
Thierry Maindrault, April 11, 2025
Your comments about this chronicle and its photography are always welcome at
