Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/04/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Chris Saganich wrote: > I believe photographs exist...I have many adorning my walls.> The photographs only exist in the the presence of light, light is energy and the dissipation of energy is the only known absolute (and some physicists dispute this too). Everything else is interpretation. HCB took an exhibition of his WWII images showing the naming and shaving of the heads of collaborators to Japan. The Japanese could not understand the images because culturally they could not understand the concept of collaboration when a country was occupied even though they are well accquainted with the concept of loss of face, they thought the crowd was "wrong" for victimising the individual. Interpretation is a tricky subject, as my far said "Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers" and later on "Don't believe everything you see on TV". > As for the > contents, well, if one is looking to convey one absolute truth about the > world, or life; or uncover some sort of universal meaning, then they > were never to be believed...unless you believe in fairy's...or > miracles. If your attempting to convey a perspective or interpretation > of some aspect of the world or life, then manipulation doesn't matter. > So is perspective and interpretation totally devoid of universal meaning > and absolute truth? How absurd is this life? > > At 10:10 AM 4/22/2009, you wrote: > > >> R. Clayton McKee wrote: >> >>> Quoth the Tina Manley : >>> >>> >>> >>>> Nobody will ever believe photographs again. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Read the comments (if you can stomach them.) >>> >>> The viewers already don't believe photographs (which is probably >>> realistic, in today's publishing world) but, even more frightening, >>> the majority don't seem to care. Welcome to 1984, revised for the >>> marketing era. >>> >>> >> >> Unfortunately this phenomenon is not new I'm afraid. >> Believing is by essence subjective. >> PR people and politicians know that better than others. >> For instance, what if I don't believe these are faked : >> http://www.lafabriquedelinfo.fr/component/content/article/133-lnles-journalistes-sont-victimes-du-mythe-de-la-photographie-qsans-retoucheqnr?showall=1 >> >> http://tinyurl.com/c3hr7y >> I'm absolutely confident the first one isn't, I can't tell you why. ;-) >> >> Now, if the result is what matters as we often state here, I wonder if >> the limits of 'post-production' are not all in the viewers' minds, and >> beliefs. >> On the other hand, a photograph being the result of a long personal >> and technical selection process, equating it with a truthful >> representation of what actually is or was, is simply a dramatic mistake. >> The rest of it is left open for beliefs, or ignorance. >> Amiti?s >> Philippe >> >> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> R. Clayton McKee http://www.rcmckee.com >>> Photojournalist rcmckee at rcmckee.com >>> P O Box 571900 voice/fax 713/783-3502 >>> Houston, TX 77257-1900 cell phone # on request >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > Chris Saganich MS, CPH > Senior Physicist, Office of Health Physics > Weill Medical College of Cornell University > New York Presbyterian Hospital > chs2018 at med.cornell.edu > http://intranet.med.cornell.edu/research/health_phys/ > Ph. 212.746.6964 > Fax. 212.746.4800 > Office A-0049 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information