Thanks for your comments! At 04:51 PM 1/6/2003 -0800, Gregory wrote: >You CAN argue the intended perception. The camera does tell the >truth, it's the photographer who lies. I'm not sure that I agree with the terms "truth" and "lies," but I agree with the notion of an intended perception or reception -- and I think the context surrounding the image plays a role here. >Lens choice does not represent manipulation, only choice. Of course, I'd have to disagree here, for reasons that I've already elaborated in other messages and that you make a nod to in the next paragraph. >An ND Grad is about working within the limitations of the film not >about manipulation. Manipulation can be the title of those actions if >you prefer I would, of course, given that, to use the notions of objectivity, truth, lies, etc. that you suggest, an ND grad "lies" about the sky -- if it's so bright that it would be blown out on film, if we want to be truly objective about it, then it should be blown out in the photo. But since I accept that photography is necessarily about manipulation to create a certain image, even if the goal of that manipulation is to create the scene that I see when I look at the sky, it's still manipulation. >If you put a rock into the scene to fill the foreground of your >mountain shot, you are manipulating the truth and if do not allow >anyone to know you put that rock there, you are manipulating the >perception of the truth, you intended to mislead, to misrepresent >the inalienable truth of that scene. Hmmm... I would say that maybe you are crossing a line and maybe you are not, and I'd refer back to the context -- if the photo is one of the pretty landscape photos meant as a fine art image to hang on somebody's wall, I'd have a hard time calling it unethical to put a rock there. If, however, you take a photo of the same thing for the Nature Conservancy in order to call attention to some aspect of the environment, then I would have a problem with that. I think that the context is key here. >It seems to me, the true nature of this discussion is not perception >but intention. You photograph anything you want, anyway you want, >just continue the line of integrity all of the way to the viewer. I have no problem with that as a precept. I have a question, though: I would say that Doisneau's _intention_ in making the photo was to show a certain image of "romance in Paris," which he accomplished quite well. Since the article in which it appeared was dedicated to that theme, and since it was not a sort of photo-survey of how often or not people kissed in the street in France (which would imply a different intention on his part), would it still be a problematic image for you? 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
