Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If I take a photograph of a man beating up a spammer, and then I put it in the newspaper, besides the world rejoicing, the truth I mean to communicate has been told. A man beat up a spammer. A dog didn't bark Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. A giant ant didn't crawl out of the Los Angeles River and destroy half the city. A man beat up a spammer. You don't get the whole truth, like their middle names, but then no communication between any humans ever communicates the whole truth. Similar kinds of truths we can communicate in various ways, such as writing and speech, can be communicated visually as well. It's a straw man to expect perfect truth from photographs before we allow them to communicate any truth at all. That ignores the fact that ALL forms of communicating the truth are similarly limited. On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 11:31 AM, LRZeitlin@aol.com wrote: > That's just the point. If the photo were truly a faithful > representation of > reality, you should not be able to tell the difference. "Truth" has > nothing to > do with photographic fidelity. Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.jphotog.com Never miss a good chance to shut up. - Will Rogers. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html