Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If a photo is presented as a factual representation of an event, it damn well better be that; if it's presented as an artistic statement, it's factual truth is irrelevant. The photo in question was shot by a photo journalist, on assignment, covering a war. It was presented as fact. If it was posed, it is not art - it is fraud. But I happen to believe that it is what it purports to be. :-) On 3/21/06 3:16 PM, "PHC" <paul@paulhardycarter.com> wrote: > The various "investigations" into Capa's "Falling Soldier" seem to have > proved whatever the investigator believed in the first place. > > Surely the point here is that we'll never know. All we have is the > picture: enjoy it or loath it. I try to see it - as I try to see every > other picture - on it's pictorial merits and not as a "true" record of > a particular event, as a don't think such a thing exists. > > According to that criteria, it's a good picture. > > P. > > ******* > Paul Hardy Carter > www.paulhardycarter.com > www.digitalrailroad.net/phc > +44 (0)20 7871 7553 > ******* > > On 21 Mar 2006, at 17:14, B. D. Colen wrote: > >> As to the Capa photo - when I can find it, I'll send you the reference >> to >> the explanation I believe. > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information