Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 07/15/03 10:29 AM, Kyle Cassidy at KCassidy@asc.upenn.edu wrote: > I think truth and photography aren't necessarily related. And I think two > photos sandwitched together can be "truer" than either of the origional > unaltered photos. Look we could discuss this for hours, but you will lose. The fact of the matter is, there is an understanding with news photographers and their readers that they don't make photos that misrepresent the scene. Those who do lose their jobs if they employers have any integrity. Last time I checked, most readers realize the world isn't two-dimensional (outside philosophical discussion). Readers understand perfectly when they see the telephoto effect. And they understand that movie makers don't have an unlimited supply of Anthony Hopkins, so they don't let him fight real bears. The difference is the intent of the photographer and the type of photography a given photographer practices. It's a red herring to use your points as somehow a revelation that photos don't give the "whole picture." Here's a news flash: NOTHING gives the whole picture. Your eyes looking at something doesn't give the whole picture. Even if you could read minds! The truth, in any given situation, is limited. In all the universe, there is no such thing as objective perception outside some special forms of knowledge such as math. Intelligent people sort out what that means and understand the limitations of whatever medium they are using to view whatever slice of reality they're observing. As Cliff Edom used to say, "Show truth with a camera." People who CHOOSE to understand that statement get it. That means you can't look at a picture of a kid playing with a dog and understand why people murder each other. But you might get something about what a nice day in the park it was, and how this kid has a faithful friend. Are those not worthwhile truths? Your dog and Frisbee story only shows the photo needs a caption to clear things up. The truth is still there. The dogs mouth was near the man's arm. They were close together. It's a dog, he's a man. Wow, all sorts of truths come spilling out of photos if you take a moment to think. With a few works, context makes the truth even more complete. All truth is not in any given picture, or sentence. So why use a red-herring argument to argue that there is no truth whatsoever in any photograph? Even manipulated ones have some forms of truth. But what kind of truth is a controlling factor here. And it's up to you to sort out what it is. We aren't going to hold your hand and explain every picture we take to you. With some visual literacy, you'll get pretty good at it. Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.jphotog.com Some people drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just rinse, gargle and spit. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html