This seems to be the same distinction that is made in literature (Fiction
versus Non-Fiction) - and before reading a book, I certainly would like to
know which is which.
But in the visual arts?
I realize that it's important to some people - especially regarding issues of
historical accuracy in history paintings - but that's way down the list of my
priorities, and I can't recall a single instance where I ever cared.
Even in the example that Michael cited, I suspect that the truthfulness of the
photos only became an issue because the photographer made a claim about it.
Isn't it common practice to re-touch photos for print -- so that the most
important features can be quickly identified?
Is this "True/Not applicable" distinction the same as "Art/not art" --- as
far as Michael is concerned?
If so, it's rather banal.
----------------
>But it is a concern when viewing a photograph presented as a journalistic or
reportorial image. By tacit agreement, a news photograph has to show what was
before the camera without unannounced alterations by the photographer.
>This is a paradigm example of what I mean by asserting that ascertaining
whether the work "is true" or whether that question does not apply comes
first. In this case of journalistic photography, all of the other photographic
qualities--lighting, angle, sharpness of focus, etc.--are subordinate to the
literal reliability of the representation.
____________________________________________________________
Protect yourself with the right Health Insurance plan. Click for coverage
information.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUOiYqe4oVDVadzL6q2Oik5D
FgUBaPevpk5c3bowDef0HcDtUNoOE/
