> I must admit that you leave me a bit > confused here -- first off, you seem to reject out of hand the argument > that I made in my last post about how all photos are manipulated when you > write "regardless of arguments about choice of lens...," then you seem to > accept that all photos are manipulated when you use the expression > "excessively manipulated." Do you mean to reject my argument that all > photos are manipulated or do you agree with it? My goodness, that old lame excuse again. It resurfaced with the digital revolution - A lie is a lie Deception is deception A straight photo of a street scene is exactly what it says. There is a world of difference wetween the inevitable abstraction of an instant from life and concocting something that wouldn't otherwise have happened. But the real issue is not whether or not it was staged (there is nothing wrong per se with staged images) but with the fact that Doisneau *knew* his image was being treated as if it was a real street scene. It contributed enormously to his reputation of being able to *see* / capture decisive moments in the seemingly random mix of life. He was quite happy to let that misconception continue. The fact the story came out was only when he was forced to tell. The fake is not the image itself but the lie of Doisneau himself. But his deception has changed the perception of the image for all - supporters AND opponents. Fitting a skylight filter is really not the same as photographing a stuffed dead animal (Wolfe) and allowing it to be presented it as real. A piece of paper is not a lie. The fact that no one can tell the whole truth does not justify the out and out liar ... Q As a follow-up, then, if > you do accept it, at what point would you draw the line between acceptible > manipulation and excessive manipulation? > > >Your example of documentary literature would depend whether the work > >is labeled as fiction or non-fiction, and whether the author was op en > >about any fudging of the facts--it's a matter of ethics. > > Of course it's a matter of ethics; to my mind, that's what makes it worth > discussing in detail. > > It is very frequent that documentary literature is categorized as fiction > even when it is not, in the strictest sense, imaginative writing -- it's a > commonplace in the academy to do so, with a typical example being the field > of testimonial fiction (Menchu being a good example, also many of the slave > narratives, captive narratives, and so on, would fall into this category). > And often the expression "based on a true story" is used in films and > movies to finesse the issue, as well. > > >Some photojournalists and reporters have been fired for alterations > >such as you mentioned: "characteristics of a number of different > >people portrayed in a single character" > > Once again, your argument fails to account for the context -- a > journalistic piece in a newspaper is different than a testimonial novel, or > even a lifestyle piece in US magazine, for that matter. We routinely apply > different rules for evidence in journalistic newpaper articles than we do > in opinion pieces, for example, and that seems just fine to me. > > >Read an excellent column on the ethics of staging here: > >http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/toy_gun.html > > > >Read more columns on the ethics of photojournalism by Deni Elliot > >and Paul Martin Lester here: > >http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/nppa.html > > Thanks much for the links, I'll look forward to reading them. And I know > that there are some articles on recent trends in documentary photography > that I want to look at too, so if you have more links or bibliographic > suggestions, I'd love to hear them. > > At the end of the day, what makes this discussion interesting for me is > that these are difficult questions with no easy answers -- I have a strong > interest in documentary photography, a genre of photography that makes > claims to truth, objectivity, and transparency, but I am also aware that > nothing about photography is objective and transparent. It's a bind that > I'm trying to come to grips with and discussions like this help. > > Thanks again! > > Keith > ___________________________________________________________ > > Keith Alan Sprouse / Department of Modern Languages > 176 Hampden-Sydney College / Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943 > (o) 434.223.6335 / (f) 434.223.6347 / (h) 434.244.0465 >
