Hi,
> Just to confuse things... Your above statement implies that there is some > objective truth. Something concrete "out there" that is true. And that > subjectivity, by its very nature, because it is one person's viewpoint, is a > lie. I > believe, however, that there is no objectivity --no separate universal truth. What you are describing is solipsism. Although it's not possible to disprove the idea, it is fairly easy to demonstrate that nobody really believes in it. To believe in the idea would be indistinguishable from insanity. > What exists or doesn't exist or appears to exist "out there" must always be > filtered through our own lens; passed through our own subjectivity. We cannot > ever truly stand outside ourselves, outside our own heads, outside our own > world view. If there is a universal concrete truth (which I do not believe), > we > cannot actually perceive untainted. We always perceive it through our own > subjective experience. If there is no external reality - in other words, if everything is in your mind, and yours is the only mind that exists - then the idea of 'filtering' it is absurd. If there is an objective reality, can we perceive any part of it untainted by subjectivity? It seems to me that that is what science, history and other evidence-based disciplines try to do. > Whew. Probably not clear. (And I think I am losing myself in my own argument. > :-)) That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position. It's incoherent. There's a lesson to be learned there! > OTOH, I think photojournalism as used in reporting, is a tricky area and > anything that manipulates an image to present something that was not > *apparently* > there in the first place, could well be a "lie." In that case, the photography > should admit any manipulation. as Frank has already pointed out, photography is no different to other forms of journalism. Whether or not we accept a report from a journalist depends on our previous experience of the journalist, the publication, the nature of the story, etc. If Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker that the US government is looking askance at Iran, I'm inclined to believe him. On the other hand, if he writes in the National Enquirer that he's having Elvis's alien baby, I'd be less inclined to believe him. The same standards apply to photography. I don't know why people think any other standards should apply. -- Cheers, Bob
