Sorry, folks, but this discussion is truly off the wall at this
point. Maybe we could cut it off? Or, take it private.
With no offense implied, the discussion sounds like a couple of
geezers yappin' it up. It's actually kind of funny.
And I know I'll get bad stuff thrown at me, but there it is.
-yoram
On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Herschel Mair wrote:
Agreed at last - must you must consider that all photographs are
presented out of context. A picture on a gallery wall could not be
more out of context.
Herschel
On 9/1/11 1:33 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Thu, September 1, 2011 13:41, Herschel Mair wrote:
There you have it David:
I don't know what "purely true image" means. To a first
approximation,
ALL camera-original images are "true". (What they're not, IMHO, is
"complete".)
They are never COMPLETE truths and an incomplete truth, a selected
truth, a consciously manipulated truth - /IMHO/ is a lie. A man who
shows only the part of the scene that suits his own convictions
is, by
virtue of exclusion, creating a lie, even without touching a single
pixel. That photograph is a lie. You can't leave it up to the
viewer to
ask the right questions in order to get the whole truth.
Of course, and that's true when you present the photograph in a
context
implying it's more than it is. That's why "complete" is the key in
my
reading of the situation.
