On 2011-09-01 14:43, Herschel Mair wrote:
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.
> 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.
Probably true. Galleries, after all, are for art, where truth becomes
even more subjective.
Part of the excitement I guess is the applying aesthetic standards to
documentary photos. It's inevitable, I even agree with it, but it still
leads to even more confusion (and provides yet another incentive to
shade the truth in ones photos!).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
