Thanks for the comments, Bob! At 11:20 PM 1/6/2003 +0000, Bob wrote: > >the belief that we should record >things as we find them, with as little imact as possible, not how we >would have liked them to be. I can't argue with that as a goal. >The fact that no film can completely represent the real world (or even >that the world we percieve is a construct within own conciousness ;o) >does not prevent film being an objective record. The real issue is in >the intent of the photographer. Once the "photographer" removes >things from a scene - the line is crossed. I would still disagree with the notion of a photo being an "objective" record -- I would suggest that a "subjective" record would be more accurate, to the extent that the photographer's subjective choices are essential to the making of any image. That said, I do acknowledge a difference in kind between choosing Velvia to bump up the colors in a scene and tossing a baboon to a leopard to get some shots of the leopard's dining habits. Thanks again for the discussion. 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
