'Digital Darkroom' Shows Dazzling Merging Of Art And Technology (PHOTOS)

Photography was used to capture a moment in time, to document the truth. Technology too, began as a means to further scientific truth-seeking, to make humans more accurate, more precise. Both aim to better capture reality. So when photography and technology merge ... why are the results so insanely bizarre?

The current exhibition at the Annenberg Space For Photography is called 'Digital Darkroom' and features 80 photographs, each presenting its own alternate reality. The photos are all by 17 artists from around the world. Not enough for you? Fear not, hundreds of additional images will play on two high-resolution screens in the Digital Gallery.

The warped images range from funny to surreal to downright horrifying (see: the egg faces to the left.) The collection shows the astounding abilities and accomplishments of technology and the strange things people choose to do with this power.

'Digital Darkroom' will show at the Annenberg Space For Photography until May 28, 2012. Go see the weirdness for yourself.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[Retrofuturistic]

01:40 PM on 01/24/2012

The heads in the egg box--- Samuel Beckett would love it. Kind of like how he put his characters in garbage cans.

[ghostrider57]

10:03 PM on 01/23/2012

What is so "horrifying" about the egg faces?

[Gas-Bag]

06:23 PM on 01/23/2012

'Monty Python', is what came to my mind while viewing the slide show, anyone else ?

[umbriago]

08:20 PM on 01/23/2012

See below.

[Gas-Bag]

08:48 PM on 01/23/2012

Well cover me with flour and eggs and bake me for fourteen minutes, someone beat me to it !!!

[ghostrider57]

10:03 PM on 01/23/2012

yes

[BeasleysMom]

06:02 PM on 01/23/2012

I love the eggheads. LOL

[Agathon]

05:47 PM on 01/23/2012

Reminds me of a joke: what are the three worst things about being an egg?
1. you come in a box with 11 other eggs
2. you only get laid once
3. the only thing that ever sits on your face is your mom.

[JohnInDallas]

05:24 PM on 01/23/2012

As a photographer I found this most enjoyable. It is truly amazing what can be done with photography today, not only with the versatile digital cameras but throughout eh endless wonders of Phiotoshop. Enjoy.

[FrkrBYtheSpkr]

06:25 PM on 01/23/2012

Love the Uelsmann, even though it wasn't made in Photoshop... Darkroom, baby!

[NER2]

05:03 PM on 01/23/2012

Dear HP, People who write about photography should actually know something about photography before inflicting themselves on the rest of humanity. There is a gaping distinction between "photography" and "digitography." Did you know that? (One has to wonder because the image by Uelsmann included in this series, for example, is a photograph, not a digigraph, and therefore does not belong in the parade of dross celebrated in this article.) Finally, the rambling discussion by Copeland regarding beauty in photography, included here for no obvious reason, bascially comes down to him saying "I really don't know anything about beauty in photography .. it's a mystical thing and I just guess at it." A more thoughtful and cogent discussion of this topic is presented by Robert Adams in his 1981 publication titled "Beauty in Photography - Essays In Defense Of Traditional Values."

[chrisfrenzy]

05:03 PM on 01/23/2012

As an advertising creative professional, I've yet to meet a newly-minted college design graduate who can't do any of these. Seriously.

[FrkrBYtheSpkr]

06:24 PM on 01/23/2012

Do you even know who Jerry Uelsmann is? First, his image IS NOT digital... Second, he's one of the most celebrated fine art photographers in history. Look him up, educate yourself, then devise your opinion. BTW, I'm a professional photographer, got any work?

[blessed child]

07:55 PM on 01/23/2012

Chill out son. What you said does not invalidate chrisfrenzy's statement in any way. I know who Jerry Uelsmann is, but not everyone feels the same way about even the most celebrated folks in any field.

[chrisfrenzy]

08:58 PM on 01/23/2012

Yes, I do. And I know that his work was done in the dark room and not digitally. This article at least purports to be about "dazzling digitally manipulated photos." None of the photos, including Uelsmann's [though for a different reason] is an example of particularly dazzling digital photographic art. None of them.

Crack open any recent issue of Communication Arts, Print, Digital Photography, or Playboy for Pete's sake, and you'll see far better examples of Photoshop work than any of these — more artful, and certainly more dazzling.

As for educating myself, I don't have time for any more education. I'm too busy fixing the work of "professional" photographers.

Also, I know who Keller Williams is. Just sayin'.

[FrkrBYtheSpkr]

06:24 PM on 01/23/2012

I bet your design graduates couldn't do THAT in a darkroom...

[chrisfrenzy]

09:02 PM on 01/23/2012

If they still taught extensive darkroom techniques [most design students still get some rudimentary darkroom experience, and I typically recommend it as it leads to a better understanding of how Photoshop works], then yes, pretty much any design graduate would be able to do these. But that's like saying, "I bet Tolstoy couldn't write War and Peace in cuneiform."

[KeepLeft]

04:08 PM on 01/23/2012

looking for the inevitable "my kid can photoshop better than this" as I scroll through the comments...

[GetoffMylawn]

03:13 PM on 01/23/2012

I would like to join in and throw some random insults at whoever is reading this.

[FrkrBYtheSpkr]

03:02 PM on 01/23/2012

The image of the tree and house "Untitled, 1982) by Jerry Uelsmann was completely created in the darkroom... He has once used photoshop to create pieces in the '90's to promote Photoshop software, but otherwise is strictly a darkroom photographer. Get yo facts straight!

[TulsaMikel]

02:21 PM on 01/23/2012

Dazzling is not the word I would have used to describe these pictures.
They could have put the Ran Paul / TSA story here if this was a legitimate news site, and not a large pitcher of Koolaid.

[umbriago]

02:20 PM on 01/23/2012

Monty Python was doing stuff much more interesting than this 40 years ago.

[probo]

02:26 PM on 01/23/2012

yep..

[breakingpoint]

03:21 PM on 01/23/2012

first thought - Terry Gilliam

[eric14]

04:46 PM on 01/23/2012

& akbar del piombo

fuzz against junk &
the hero-makers

[GaiasChild]

02:19 PM on 01/23/2012

photography that inspires me and takes my breath away does not make cute with the artificial. technology does that.

[ghost geezer]

02:15 PM on 01/23/2012

If you are impressed with these, you are living a sheltered life.

[FrkrBYtheSpkr]

03:04 PM on 01/23/2012

Clearly you're not aware the the Uelsmann image is a darkroom creation... It SHOULD impress you. It took at least three enlargers. Check out his stuff, he's one of the most prolific darkroom photographers ever. Ah, ignorance IS bliss for the geezer!

[ghost geezer]

07:34 PM on 01/23/2012

When a snob meets a snob, coming through the parsnips...

What I saw struck me as Kitsch. All the equipment in the world
does not often purchase good results, instead seduces technicians
into producing facile, superficially impressive products. As designs,
these works don't interest me.