Greg,
In other words if you did the crime your odds of getting off are better with a jury trial.
AZ
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SPAM] Re: What do you think?
From: Greg Stempel <fyrframe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, April 30, 2007 2:39 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Just keep in mind, if you use your camera to "represent reality," then do so. Nobody said you couldn't alter the truth to effect your pursuit of art. A studio shot of glass and dice doesn't have to be the truth. Unless you intended it to be so. If you choose a calling to bring us the reality of a scene why can it not simply be that? Reality represented with out interpretation. Are we suggesting that's not possible? I heard a story once that in it's abridged version stated; 100 people were placed in theater. As they sat, a man with gun entered from the right. A man in a cape entered from the left and fought with the man with a gun at the center of the theater's stage. A women entered from the rear, ran up to the man with a gun and took it and left the room from the same door as the man with the cape had entered. The other two men left the room using the opposite doors from which they had entered. There were dozens of varying interpretations given when the audience was asked to describe what had happened. Interpretations of the truth. Yet, reality represented was that someone staged, scripted the event. They hired the actors, acquired a prop gun and held rehearsals and then put on the show. The actors DID come out of their respective stage entrances, the man with the cape never had the gun. Yet, many in the audience saw it that way. In my humble opinion, there is Always a representational version and the interpreted version of everything that happens in front of you and the choice is simple, as a photographer, which side do you want to be on? Take care, Gregory david Stempel www.fireframeimaging.com www.soundexposure.org
