Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think this is the kind of platonic position that Wittgenstein, for instance, would have criticised as not reflecting the way language is really used. Like the search for "real" justice in Plato's dialogues. No method (your 360° approach, for example) is ever going to ensure the reality of a representation (a contradiction in terms anyway, I think, unless we accept that representations are all we have - even in our immediate experience). People can be honest; but no method is a guarantee of honesty. The tools we already have are perfectly suited to doing honest and truthful work (again, I use those words in a non-platonic sense). This requires a critical awareness of what we are doing and, I more and more think, making the method itself a visible (or at least apprehendable) part of the outcome. This would seem to me to be a way of moving beyond or at least pre-empting such specious paradigms as the "professional ethics" one, which is simply a tool for sale to the highest bidder. "In science, as in art and in life itself, to be true to nature we must be true to culture." (quote from a book about the history of syphillis which I can't refrence at this time). - -- Rob http://www.robertappleby.com Mobile: (+39) 348 336 7990 Home: (+39) 0536 63001 All outgoing email scanned by Norton AntiVirus (TM) 2003 Professional Edition. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henning Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:37 AM Subject: RE: [Leica] Journalism, altered photo's, and other ethical debates > At 12:15 AM -0500 11/7/03, Phong wrote: > >Surely you do not assume just because someone > >says that some rules are silly, that they > >think all rules are silly ? > > > >I must say some people on this list seem to only > >see in high contrast B&W with very little tonality > >changes in the different shades of gray. > > > >- Phong > > > > Exactly! > > If we have 'reality' at one end of the scale, (and for this > discussion we shan't go further into what 'reality' is), and a quick > surrealist pencil sketch at the other, the photography falls > somewhere in between. Photography will never come very close to > reality, yet might have more attributes of reality than the sketch. > Where we place documentary photography is a convention, and it > obviously varies among this group, but it is merely a convention and > not an absolute. > > Photography is not reality nor can it truly represent reality. It is > a faint simulacra. > > I would postulate that to approach a representation of reality we > might produce a 360° immersive sphere photograph, or better yet, > movie, of the highest resolution possible, complete with sound. In as > accurate colour as we can manage. Even here our one chosen position > takes away from reality and starts editorializing. > > We use an imperfect imaging system , we take away from reality and > start editorializing. > > We make still pictures of only an instant or specific, chosen, > pictorially 'significant' moments, we take away from reality and > start editorializing. This is where > > We use a regular focal length available to Leica users and photograph > only with a small angle of view, we take away from reality and start > editorializing. > > We use high speed, grainy film , we take away from reality and start > editorializing. > > We use B&W , we take away from reality and start editorializing. > > We interact with the scene or subjects in _any_ way , we take away > from reality and start editorializing. > > A number of the above steps will be chosen based on societal, > political and propagandist criteria. > > We are now quite far from reality, and yet some would say that this > is true 'documentary photography'. It is if you define it as such, > and then only if others accept it as such. 'Documentary' is actually > misleading, as it implies something which it can't deliver. Better > would be 'Type D photography', as that is less loaded. > > > In the end, there is nothing wrong in doing all the above, and having > a propagandist position that you editorialize from, but in all > honesty you must face the fact that you have this position, and that > it is an arbitrary one to all others apart from yourself. > > Another photographer might accept all the above limitations, > recognize them and visualize in the scene in front of him a situation > that will better explain his point of view than what he actually > sees. If this involves asking someone to do something that they > normally do, but wouldn't in the time available to the photographer, > the photographer might reasonably ask his subject to do that action, > and in so doing produce a photo that might be more accurate to the > situation and his position than one that just has the room with > nobody in it (a scene with less intervention). > > Honesty is not possible if you are blind to the factors influencing > your decisions. In the end, nobody can thus be truly honest as none > of us are truly aware of all factors, and therefore it is even more > ridiculous to call someone dishonest because he/she has chosen a > different way to express his/her view of things than you. > > The best way to approach honesty is to start out being as aware as > possible of the choices you make. > > -- > * Henning J. Wulff > /|\ Wulff Photography & Design > /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com > |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html