A photograph, video, newspaper story, book or story is a statement made by human beings. The statements are no more reliable than the person that made them.
I agree with you in that digital is a good thing, because it makes the manipulative aspects of a photograph more obvious. We are becoming more aware that a photograph may not tell the truth, but some of us know that it never has.
One of my grandmothers was a photographer before 1940. I believe she knew a lot more about retouching than we do...
DagT
På 5. mar. 2004 kl. 04.08 skrev frank theriault:
Christian,
All photographs are manipulated. All video is manipulated. All TV news stories are manipulated. All newspaper stories are manipulated. All print media sources are manipulated. All radio is manipulated. All news sources are manipulated
Nothing is "factual and true" unless we see or hear it directly for ourselves. Or, can we even trust our senses? Is the world that we think we experience even real?
Maybe I'm taking this to absurd lengths, Christian, but just because a photograph ~can~ be manipulated doesn't mean that it has been. Just because every photo has the bias of the photographer and/or editor doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect reality, or isn't true and factual. Everything has a point of view, it's true, but ~some~ points of view must be accurate, mustn't they?
Maybe the fact that digital is easier to manipulate by more people is a good thing. It makes us question. It makes us a bit more skeptical. I think that in the past, photographs were not questioned (at least not like they are today). It allowed the Soviets to remove Trotsky from that balcony, standing next to Lenin. They altered history, and did a pretty damned good job of it. I bet that no one in the USSR was the wiser. Nowadays, more people would wonder how accurate things are, and that's a good thing.
But, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Photographs are just as reflective of reality as any other media source.
And, BTW, my grandmothers (both of them) were saints, are now in heaven, and would never have taken a snapshot that was not absolutely accurate and real. So there! <vbg>
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Hockney on photography Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 15:29:38 -0500
His first statement:
"Hockney told the Guardian newspaper that photographs can be so easily
altered these days that they can no longer be seen as factual or true."
is crap!
I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: ALL PHOTOGRAPHS ARE MANIPULATED.
It happens before the shutter is tripped with the selection of film, focal
length, etc.
You are seeing what the photographer wants you to see and in the way he/she
wants you to see it.
No photograph can be seen as "factual or true" not even snap shots taken by
grandma.
Christian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 2:13 PM Subject: Hockney on photography
> Hi, > > on my home from work tonight I listened to an interview with David > Hockney about the trustworthiness of photography. Here is an article > about it: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3532483.stm > > I agree with him about art photography, but, like Russell Roberts, I > thought his arguments about factual photography were rather > simplistic. Still, it's interesting to hear him, nevertheless. > > -- > Cheers, > Bob >
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/ prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/ enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
