What IS ICM - and who gets to decide?
The more popular ICM has become, the more photographers seem to disagree on a surprisingly simple question: What actually is ICM?
This question became more than academic for me recently when some of my own images were questioned by an ICM group moderator. Their uncertainty wasn't about the quality of the images, but whether the technique used fell within what they considered the boundaries of ICM.
How did we get here?
To understand today's debate, it's worth looking briefly at how ICM evolved.
Conventional ICM image where the camera moved during a single exposure
ICM techniques are not new to photography. In fact, photographers associated with Pictorialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries experimented with moving the camera during exposure to achieve painterly effects.
Neither the term ICM nor the techniques themselves became mainstream until the digital age, accelerated by inexpensive memory cards, instant results, and the ability to share work online.
Since the term became widely adopted, photographers have continually pushed its creative boundaries. As the techniques evolved, so too did debate over what the term ICM actually encompasses.
What does “Intentional Camera Movement” actually mean?
Before deciding what should qualify as ICM, perhaps we should first ask a simpler question: what do the words actually say?
At face value, they place only two obvious conditions: a camera is used, and the movement affecting the image is intentional.
That may seem clear enough, but the assumption at this point is that the camera is being moved during a single exposure to create controlled motion blur. This is certainly the definition most widely accepted today- and the one generally returned when asking AI.
Here camera movement is between multiple shots
Yet nothing in the phrase Intentional Camera Movement specifies when the camera is moved, how it is moved, or that the image must result from a single continuous exposure. Those restrictions have evolved through convention rather than language.
Adopting such a restrictive interpretation inevitably excludes some photographers whose work intentionally uses camera movement in different ways. This would exclude photographers who create movement-based multiple exposure work, such as Pep Ventosa's well-known In the Round series, and those who employ long exposure apps on smartphones (which compute extended exposures from a series of frames).
None of this is to suggest that definitions have no value. They help us communicate, teach, and describe techniques. The challenge comes when definitions become so rigid that they discourage innovation or fail to keep pace with the evolution of the medium.
Who gets to decide?
The real question, then, isn't whether definitions matter- it is who has the authority to define an art form that continues to evolve.
This is where facts give way to opinion.
So who is right? Perhaps everyone - and no one. In my view, everyone is entitled to their own definition- and no one has the authority to declare that theirs is the only correct one.
My own working definition is simple:
“An ICM image is any image in which the camera has been moved intentionally to influence the final result.”
Notice that this definition makes no reference to how the camera was moved, what type of camera was used, or how the final image was constructed.
Photography has always evolved through experimentation and innovation. If we become more concerned with policing definitions than encouraging creativity, we risk limiting the very spirit that has helped ICM flourish.
An example where ICM is used to enhance rather than overpower the subject. Does it matter how the camera was moved to create the result?
Final Words
If you've read this far, you're probably interested in ICM, so I'd love to hear your thoughts. Should ICM remain confined to its traditional interpretation, or should its definition evolve alongside the creative techniques photographers continue to develop?