|
There ain't such a thing like absolute truth. It
always depends on the bard, chronicler, historician, journalist, photographer,
filter manufacturer and even the recipient.
Was the Battle of Waterloo won or lost?
Or the Gulf War?
Or the Wars of the Roses?
Or the War of Hutus and Tutsies?
Or any war held in so dark history we even don't
know of?
After the USSR occupation was over in the
80-ies/90-ies our Baltic historicians claimed, that now they can write the
"objective history" of these times - these things make me
laugh.
One can't even tell if agrary revolution or
industrial revolution were blessing or curse.
Someone wrote that context matters, but context is
only a set of other units, surrounding or being somehow connected with the unit
under inspection. That means everything depends on a multitude of stories.
Stories depend on storytellers and these in turn depend on their time and
education and nationality and kinderstube and circumstances etc,
etc..
A very good example is even this list or any other
internet unit. Just imagine - without the smileys people can get us wrong
and we cannot even joke.
We have to explain - I thought this and thought
that. Otherwise people get us wrong. But if they already have their own preset
attitude they even won't read our explanations, but act according to their
assumptions. Which truth then is more absolute?
E.g. do you think environment protection is good
for the nature - wrong! It is good for the human only. Maybe nature conservation
is, but that depends again.
We speak about being unbiased.
People from distant locations or distant eras
cannot see things in the ojective light or understand if any truth is naked or
if only a King is naked.
They have to make their research and the
result depends whose stories they read or listen to.
Everything you lose makes someone to win. It
depends whom you ask.
And if you don't ask anybody at all, i.e. if you
try to take pictures or write the history "objectively", then it will be purely
YOUR truth.
About cropping - you may crop or zoom using your
computer or your legs. Is post factum cropping or zooming really
worse?
On the winning picture of this years nature
photography contest in Estonia there was a family standing and looking from a
hillock to a smoky town.
But they were taken from the back and we couldn't
see if they were unhappy or -- perhaps smiling? It was all about the caption -
"Our perspective"
But if the people stand faces towards us, but they
are small and far away and we use grainy film, we again do not see their
faces.
And if we do, we cannot know what they are
thinking.
OK - their is killing and death on some pictures,
but there is also so much more situations without any death, which we simply
cannot assess, because there isn't any single simple answer.
Even the fact that you are going to take pictures
of some war victims is biased!
So - please do not talk about absolute or ultimate
truth. Even the bible says that for your sins your grandgrandgrandchildren may
get punished . . . a divine error or misunderstanding?
Peeter
the Incredulous
|
