Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In the world of journalism, documentary film and photography we have "reporters" and the "viewer/reader." Reporters may include: writers, producers, editors, photographers, journalists, cinematographers and photographers. The viewer/reader has some expectation that these individuals and teams strive to communicate some "semblance of reality" on the subject being documented and/or reported. On one extreme of the continuum we have bland lists (either visual or verbal) of who, what, when and where; on the other end of the continuum we have extreme propaganda; or even outright deception. Most documentary work done with some skill, art and integrity falls in the broad middle ground between these extremes. Fine documentary work provides some semblance of reality; yet with a point of view (or even several points of view). Justice, truth, reality - words which refer to concepts we strive to understand through our own subjective experience, collective history and the integrity of our historians, philosophers, journalists and documentarians. The reality of the media itself (a photograph, a film, a story, a book) lives as a separate, human point of view; only vaguely referring to an actual event or series of events. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Jul 20, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Chris Saganich wrote: > > The reality argument may work if we think of the image as an object that > exists. The image had a prior existence before being altered. I could > for example take a print, cut it up into pieces and tape it back together > haphazardly then submit it for publication. The stealth quality of > electronic alteration isn't fundamentally different only easier to conceal > or cause confusion. One can not call the former and latter object the > same object. The first object conveyed the golfer with his caddy in the > background obviously sharing the moment of victory. The golfer and his > caddy work together and are a team. There is emotional involvement, their > worlds are intimately intertwined, etc. The second object removes the > caddy's involvement denying his role as an integral part of the victory, > undermining the relationship between a golfer and caddy, re scripting the > victory as an individual one rather then a team effort. In a word > altering what is commonly considered the normal relationship between a > caddy and a golfer. Of course this is only relevant if such a > relationship existed.