On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:43:12 -0700, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My own two eyes always 'represent my own personal representation of > something' to my brain. If this is the definition of a lie then to discuss > the ability of a photo to lie is moot.
Well, here's the bottom line: Photography is nothing more than communication. It can be misleading, or it can be truthful. It can be intentionally misleading, or unwittingly so. In that way, it's no different from any other way that we use to express thoughts or feelings to other beings. As with any other form of communication, it is subjective, and dependant on the biases and abilities of the communicator(s); I should also say, it is almost certainly subject to the biases and particular perceptual abilities of the viewer, as well. So, what's "allowed"? Well, everything, of course! Well, nothing of course! It's like asking if a work of fiction or a poem is a lie, because what's represented has never existed in "reality" (whatever the hell reality is!). Of course, truth (if truth means that something represents a tangible reality) has nothing to do with that equation. On the other hand, if I pick up a newspaper, I expect that what's being reported should be grounded in facts, and represent that which the reporter believes to be true, accurate, and based on an objective reality. Why hold photography to a different standard than any other form of communication? If photography can be completely subjective (as with some of Dag's smoke-and-mirrors photos), then any form of manipulation can be allowed, either in the darkroom or in the computer. If photography can, on the other hand, hold itself out as being grounded in reality (as photojournalism holds itself out), then restrictions as to what manipulations are allowed are certainly in order - as they always have been for those types of photos. Exactly what are we arguing about, anyway? This seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
