Andrew Gullen wrote:
>on 2005/02/09 8:19 PM, Moose at olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>I propose that all 'serious' or 'thoughtful' photography is certainly
>>graphic design to a greater or lesser degree.
>>
>>
>That's true, but logic does not support drawing the conclusion that there is
>no difference along this continuum.
>
Of course, not, otherwise it would not be a continuum, but a point. And
the ends are quite far apart. Perhaps the accidental shutter releases,
like when my (preexistence of OM) Nik*n Ftn was dropped on the floor of
Hoover Dam and took a picture of the ceiling. The other end might be
photographs of deliberately staged falsehoods?
I'm only saying that any division into categories is inherently
arbitrary, as there are no discontinuities to act as natural
demarcations. In fact, as you look closer at any one area, differences
that seemed inconsequential, start to become quite significant. That's
the was it is will almost anything natural.
>To me the issues are:
>
> - To what extent is the photographer *trying* to tell the truth?
> (Even if they compose, remove irrelevant distractions, burn/dodge,
> etc, and of course it's a judgement whether these things interfere
> with the essential truth of what's shown.)
>
And what IS truth? I sit down with my mom and brothers and we reminisce
about past family events. The only thing is, we all remember them
differently. And even if there are pictures, they never show everything,
and besides, we know they lie. :-)
> - If there has been a serious departure from reality, has the viewer been
> informed?
>
And what IS reality. The closer one looks into human perceptual systems,
the fuzzier it all becomes. Have you read about those born blind, then
given sight? Quick summary in Deepak Chopra, Unocnditional Life, p207-8
proposes a reality in which real people live that is really impossible
for us sighted folks to really imagine. He references the Annie Dillard
book, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, which I haven't seen.
Reminds me of the time I got suckered into taking a blind from birth
woman to see 2001: A Space Odyssey. Seriously weird, but another story
even further OT.
> If not, are they liable to draw important conclusions from the image that are
> wrong? That is, would they feel lied to if they found out?
>
Wonderful! Now the continuum from 'pure' photography to 'pure' graphic
art has been conjoined with a moral continuum. Can fist fights be far
behind? :-)
>Fiction can of course tell truths deeper than non-fiction sometimes.
>Picasso's Guernica was probably as truthful as photographs in a different
>way. Strict factuality is not really the point, and it's probably impossible
>for mortals as we have only our own viewpoints to interpret from.
>
I have often proposed switching the signs on the Fiction and Non-fiction
sections of libraries, bookstores, etc. Since fictional narratives
always tell truths about the human condition and non-fiction is always
full of inaccuracies and incompleteness, no matter how much factual data
it contains.
>(These are my opinions and I reserve the right to change them without
>notice. Liability will be limited to replacement with fresh unexposed
>opinions. :-) )
>
ROTFLOL!!! I LOVE it!
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|