To weigh in on this superficially, when I look at a picture I look at the
offering. Call it a cliche today, but to me the medium is the message.
That means, to me truth is in the experssion more than the content. So, to
see a photograph that is faked, I look at the clever picture; and I look to
see the relevence of the comment. Never does it make me react to any kind
of truth but the truth of its presentation. The photographer's truth.
Rambling? Anyway, that comes to my mind from this stimulating question.
S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "karl shah-jenner" <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students"
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: conspiacy talk talk talk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Maxey"
So I will ask the group a few simple questions. Do you assume that a story
or a photo represents the truth or are there others on the list that
question what is presented to them and also want more information before
they decide to care about the person in the story or picture? Second
question: what does it take to get you motivated to care about something
and have you ever photographed some minor calamity only to discover later
that things were not as bad as the image made it seem?
I had a couple of guys run over to me late one night while I was
photographing a festival in a town in WA and in an excited tone they told
me to come quick as there was going to be a fight - I declined and their
response was - well fck you, we aren't fighting then!
Tatoo'd up and leather clad it would have made for a very dramatic shoot
(there was quite a crown of bikers there), but I chose not to contribute
k
