Re: [SPAM] Re: Truth in Phoyo Journalism (?)

[Don Roberts <droberts@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg Stempel wrote:
> >>>>
> The whole point of messing with an image is to make it tell the story 
> better.<<<<<
>  
> WRONG!
>  
> Altering an image, diverting from the actual event captured on film or 
> censor is nothing more than someone's interpretation or intention. 
> People dilute. They will dilute the truth, actions or interpretations 
> of almost anything to further their own gains. It is that simple.
>  
> Lots of you will argue that truth is up for grabs, that your lifestyle 
> sees colors differently than mine. Wrong. Truth is truth. It's your 
> lack of discipline or ethics that are really to blame. A selfish need 
> to have more and we can't be satisfied until we have added our own 
> flavor. Just because you don't see any harm in enhancing a scene, 
> appearing innocent enough, doesn't mean you haven't played with or 
> diluted the truth. 
>  
Greg, as much as I value your viewpoint and intelligence, I have to say 
the above is just dead wrong in itself.  There are few, if any, absolute 
truths.  If any exist, they have nothing to do with perception or 
interpretation or "reality".  Remember "Beauty is in the eye of the 
beholder."?
It should be more like everything related to interpretation of events is 
in the eye of the beholder.  I want to throw a quote in here, which 
deals with memory which is just the prelude to present.  It works as 
well for the now as the then.

What we, or at any rate what I, refer to confidently as memory - meaning 
a moment, a scene, a fact that has been subjected to a fixative and 
thereby rescued from oblivion - is really a form of storytelling that 
goes on continually in the mind and often changes with the telling.  Too 
many conflicting emotional interests are involved for life ever to be 
wholly acceptable, and possibly it is the work of the storyteller to 
rearrange things so that they conform to this end.  In any case, in 
talking about the past we lie with every breath we draw.
                                                                                                                
- William Maxwell, So Long, See You Tomorrow

As much as I would like to believe that there is one objective, 
unalterable truth or or one unassailable version of history, it is not 
possible.  Descartes argues that such a simple thing as a chair would be 
perceived differently by different people.  We may see that as 
sophomoric but it is likely the case.   And if a  simple  object  can be 
perceived in different manners, consider the complications of multiple 
objects and differing ideologies and varied cultures.  Reality is what 
we make it.  History, current events and future prognostications are all 
strained though the individual and peculiar matrix of our minds.  What 
emerges from mine is not necessarily the same as what emerges from yours.

Please note that I am not endorsing tampering with images or presenting 
them, warts and all.  The presentation of actuality is a complex and 
mind bending subject.  Deciding what is acceptable and what is not is 
almost incomprehensible to me.  I know a vegetarian who will eat lamb 
just because it tastes so good.  My point there?  We all have our biases 
and rationales and all that we experience and think about is subject to 
our longings, our prejudices, our searching for the Land of Heart's Desire.

I haven't even touched upon the conversion of three dimensional, time 
stream life into two dimensional frozen moment which presents it's own 
distortion of "truth".  That is the argument going on here and which has 
been going on for many years.  Reword the above quote to read "in 
photographing the present we lie with every photograph we take".   
Photography "may" be more objective than an art like painting but I 
wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Well, enough ranting and stream of consciousness typing.  I assume that 
you will respond and I look forward to it.

Don