A good example is Curtis - although his efforts to document the disappearing Indian culture are laudable, he often dressed his subjects in clothes that had no relationship to the traditions he claimed they represented. Yet his photographs are still used as "authentic" representations of Indian culture. The photographs lie, but we accept that lying because it's pre-Photoshop. Now, we question everything and probably end up with more accuracy because we don't blindly accept photographs as "truth."
At 07:48 AM 2/11/2004, Rev. Sidney Flack wrote:
Jeff Spirer wrote:At 12:56 AM 2/11/2004, wildimages@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
5-y ago if I showed someone a photo that was other than mundane no-one (read NONE) ever questioned that it was just an honest record. The usual response would range from "wow, how did you get that" or "mmm, you were lucky" <BIG G>.
Today the first reaction is universally "how did you *do* that?"
Isn't it possible that this could be progress? That now most people know that photography can deceive, that it's no longer just an inside group aware of the manipulation possibilities?
Possible, yes. Necessarily, no. Would you say the same thing about painting. I'm not suggesting we want to keep "most people" in the dark of deception. I am an advocate of "no secrets" in photography. But the assumption you suggest is that people will assume every image is created in Photoshop.
Peace! Sidney
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Surfaces and Marks: http://www.withoutgrass.com
