On 1/24/2014 10:19 AM, Bob W wrote:
The apparent believability of photography arises from the mechanical
relation between the image and the subject. In other words, the
sensor records something that was definitely out there - unlike
painting or writing, where the text or image is mediated by the
author's eye, brain and hand.
Now, this believability is only apparent. We all know that all sorts
of things can intervene between taking the photo and us seeing it.
Therefore, as with written journalism and say war art, we rely on the
photographer, writer or artist to be honest. It is the author's
integrity that gives written journalism its power, and the same is
true of photojournalism. If we learned that a Pulitzer prize-winning
author had not been at the front he described, for example, but had
spent his time in a hotel bar 50 miles from the action, or had
invented the things he described, or omitted relevant information,
his writing would lose all its authority, however good it was as
writing.
The same standards must apply to photojournalism. We must be able to
trust the photographer in order to trust his photographs. This guy
was dishonest in what he did, so he loses all his authority as a
witness.
B
I'm 100% with you on this one, Bob. Especially in photography such as
this, the integrity and honesty are paramount because these images have
great impact on great many people.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
