Analyzing the Work of Tom Bamberger

Tom Bamberger is an artist who uses the newer media of digitally-synthesized photography in a quest for truth and beauty.

All information on him is taken from "Understanding Digitally Synthesized Photographs Through Theories of Knowledge: A Case Study of Tom Bamberger's Cultured Landscapes, " by Yi-Hui Huang. More of his work can be seen at http://www.mocp.org/exhibitions/2003/12/midwest-photographers-project-tom-bamberger.php.

 What is his work about?

Bamberger is a huge follower of Darwin, believing that only science can explain the universe, and that the world is an interaction between ourselves and the environment. According to Bamberger, though, truth can not be found in reality. Reality is concrete and what we see, but everything we see is tainted. It is not true. Truth, Bamberger believes, can only be found in the mind. It is abstract. Truth is beauty, and only in beauty can we find truth.

A straight photograph is not a finished product to Bamberger. It is frustrating. It poses a problem, because it doesn't contain the agreed upon truth of what beauty is. It lacks beauty, and thus lacks truth.

To solve this, Bamberger alters pictures to create imaginary landscape-like scenes that he finds beautiful. He currently explores the idea of truth in how to make one image beautiful, through taking a small image and repeating it and seamlessly weaving it into a new bigger, "more beautiful" image. He also references nature, because of his beliefs on the human relationship to it. In a way, these images are an evolution of our surroundings into a more perfect form. Beauty is not even in the object itself necessarily, but in how it is composed and presented by the artist to create what his mind says to be "truth". Digital altering is the means he has to do this, and because it is done in the media of photography, the image still the feeling of honesty and observable reality that a photograph implies. In a sense, through doing these images, he creates his own new reality.

Source: http://www.mocp.org/exhibitions/2003/12/midwest-photographers-project-tom-bamberger.php

Source: http://www.tonkonow.com/bamberger.html

How is  Reality Defined?

Bamberger's view of reality was the basis of how he went about making art and what media he used. Does my worldview affect what I think about reality too? Does the way I perceive things alter reality, or does reality and what I think about it (personal truths) go hand in hand? Do I believe that what is real and scientific and what is true to me are the same?

Short answer? Reality is what is real. What Bamberger created is unreal. It might have qualities of beauty in it that seem to be "perfect" to Bamberger, but I don't believe such a high standard of beauty equates with truth. If that were so, that says that the more homely aspects of our life have no place. Reality is a show and an appearance, rather than an experience and a knowledge. Also, Bamberger claims to appreciate science and nature, yet he fails to accept the science and nature around him that don't live up to his standard of what nature should be. Bamberger, I believe, does not pursue truth, but beauty. This might be admirable and wonderful in it's own right, but it is not truth. It is his opinion on what reality should be.

• A worldview defines how one sees reality. I do believe that one's belief system shapes how one will see the world around him or her. Bamberger's foundation in science and beauty, along with his belief that nothing is truly real to us but what is in his mind, drives him to create images that correlate with his standard of beauty. Any artist in general might look at an object and see in it different meaning, potential, or purpose than the artist behind him or her might see. I might find a tree to be beautiful, because in it I see intricacy, the gorgeous textures and colors it is packaged in, and the wonder of all of the functions occurring within. I appreciate it, because I see lushness and make associations of climbing trees and exploring in them as a child. I see in it the intelligent and perfect hand of a Creator, and believe that this tree shows us more about Him, and His care and design for His creation. Odds are not everyone will have the same thoughts upon contemplating the idea of the tree for a while. Another may look at the tree and see it as a symbol of renewability, a valuable part of an ecosystem, or something to learn from. They may associate the tree with peace or with vitality. Still another may look at the tree as a material potential for building a new product, a great element to place in a yard, or something growing maybe a bit too close for comfort to the powerlines. We all are looking at the same thing, but who we are affects our reading of it. 
• How we perceive reality depends on context. Am I trying to find meaning and purpose in what I'm looking at? Is my mind elsewhere, so it's just an insignificant blurb that just happens to be in my line of sight? Am I trying to find a practical purpose for what I'm looking at? Am I focused on how it's affecting something else, that is the bigger focus of my attention and cares? Both my priorities and how I am approaching what I look at or study in reality affects how I will read it.
• I believe reality and truth are two different terms for two different things. Reality is what exists around us. Truth is what cannot be proven wrong. Aspects of reality may be truthful, but I think we have two different terms for the two different things for a reason. They aren't the same.

An example? Let's look at irrational numbers in algebra. They don't exist. They cannot exist. They aren't REAL. But they don't lie. We know that while i isn't real, it will always be the square root of negative one. It is truthful.

In my opinion, this is the fatal flaw of Bamberger's work. It is tasteful and creative as art, but I don't agree with where he's coming from. To him, reality is a show and an appearance rather than a what is actually experienced or observed. Also, Bamberger claims to appreciate science and nature, yet he fails to accept the science and nature around him that don't live up to his standard of what nature should be. Bamberger, I believe, does not pursue truth, but beauty. This might be admirable and wonderful in it's own right, but it is not truth. It is his opinion on what reality should be. It is a perspective on reality.