Relation of Photography and Reality - authors

<p>Jeez, after the big mushroom, and the fallout; would like to think there are some pockets of humanity left.</p>

<p>Perhaps not. Oh well.....just the way the cookie crumbles. </p>

<p>Allen, perhaps what may be wanting for readers are some images and your comments on them that back up what you are saying. For instance, you say: "A photograph is a frozen moment in time <strong>without</strong> a future or past." For a statement not to be taken simply as a glib comment, some proof or at least reasoning would be useful. Then, with the image and your comments as testimony the readers can connect to something that goes beyond words and debate a tangible example.</p>

<p>"For instance, you say: "A photograph is a frozen moment in time <strong>without</strong> a future or past"</p>

<p>It has future and a past but we don't see that in the Photograph. We are looking at a frozen moment in time which is open to interpretation dependent on the individuals take on the Photograph...the take is subject to many influences culture/beliefs/experience/ knowledge/artistic understanding/ intellect and list goes on.</p>

<p>For instance looking at the photo below every thought about it pure conjecture other just a recorded image...no before, no after, just a little moment in time frozen for all eternity.</p><div></div>

<p>Where does this photo take us....</p>

<div></div>

<p>Arthur, my last post was out of respect for you.</p>

<p>Hey, all the death watch beetles have left.....scary. It seems all about a certain person who e-mails folks.</p>

<p>Scary death watch beetle person.</p>

<p>.just a thought.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Allen, I just saw your two examples and I agree that they do not seem to convey any feeling of past or future. There are examples of those that don't, but that is not to say there are not examples of those that do. The following examples may form some sort of evidence that photos can reflect both or either the past and a future. </p>

<p><a href="/photo/17223534">http://www.photo.net/photo/17223534</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/11928771">http://www.photo.net/photo/11928771</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/11572206">http://www.photo.net/photo/11572206</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/17989566">http://www.photo.net/photo/17989566</a></p>

 

<p> "The following examples may form some sort of evidence that photos can reflect both or either the past and a future."</p>

<p>What do they tell us? A cross with a past open to speculation of what it means subject to the culture you are part of.. Is it just two lines, a symbol of oppression bathed in blood, a false religion turning a prophet into a God.....or, just a fairy tale. What past would you like to choose ? The future only the imagination can create. A derelict house does it tell of the past or future? It is just a subjective view of the present. A cross on a graveyard of a dead soul. What does it tell us of the past or future. Nothing...just a cross over a dead body.</p>

<p>A frozen moment in time without a past or a future.</p>

<p>The Photograph.</p>

<p>If the mind does not imagine any past or future in looking at a photograph, or any other significance it might present to the viewer, it is likely that the same might occur when that mind is presented with a painting, a sculpture, a novel or a poem. Any, or all of these, can incite the use of imagination, or not.</p>

<p>Imagination, the past, the future....and the present.</p>

<p>We have reached the same page in the book of...of, something. Arthur.</p><div></div>

<p>The power of an honest photo.<br>

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/vietnam-war-to-turkish-beach-the-enduring-power-of-photos/article1-1387578.aspx</p>

<p>"The power of an honest photo"</p>

<p>It makes me want to cry..."mans inhumanity to man". Robert Burns.</p>

<p>Im not sure about the honesty of any photo without context (the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.) and a honesty from the photographer.</p>

<p>The power of a still image to create emotional response, change, is another level of art...call it documentry, call it anything. The power to create powerful emotions, to change the world, to perceive and understand, is that not what Art is constantly trying to achieve?</p>

<p>Don't know about honesty but I guess we feel better when we collectively cry and show each other how caring we are by our public reactions to such photos. Then we trot off to our Labor Day picnics. But at least we care! The honesty in the original photo tends to get a little muddled in the process of reaction and ongoing history. Nick Ut's photo of the so-called Napalm Girl was taken in 1972 and the Vietnam War didn't end until 3 years later. And we've been fighting unnecessary and politically-motivated wars ever since. Yes, the photo supposedly got into our collective psyche and we were all horrified and then when the U.S. invaded Iraq and we were told to go shopping, we did just that. But we're all moved by photos. Doesn't help the dead and maimed much, though. The reality goes well beyond the photo.</p>

<p>I think we're generally well-served to consider that photos and reactions to them, when they deal with honesty, truth, or reality, are a <em>framing</em> of honesty, truth, and reality.</p>

<p>Nothing's perfect. But you can't deny the power of some photos to change people's beliefs, minds, feelings, and actions, even if not right away. In this case, I think the refugees were helped by many because of the picture. Maybe we should have more appreciation in the good nature of man to help others. </p>

<p>ana >>>"I am working on my dissertation and need some authors that point that discussion: if photographs can be true or are an illusion."<br /><br />Much too broadly posed question. Typical of what a philosophy professor might give a student to write an essay on with an expectation students will usually pose much too narrow responses. A better question that one could actually write something with clarity about would be "Can elements of photographs be true and can elements of photographs be illusions?" Thus posing such a question broadly vaguely as a whole opens the door to all manner of abstractions, and term definitions, and interpretations.<br /><br />For instance a recent black and white news photo of the recent floods in South Carolina in some newspaper with a descriptive caption. One can say with certain truth that the image is a 2-dimensional black and white graphic of the South Carolina flood captured on a specific date and time during the day. If it shows houses and cars in the water one can with truth state the image elements show such. Most such news images have a list of elements which if a specific question is asked can be either stated as true or false. Other questions might be uncertain. For instance someone might ask if the scene was specific town. Without easily identifiable structures or signs that would be unknown. <br /><br />On the other hand someone might argue the image isn't true because we humans see in color 3-dimensionally and the photo was not. Indeed one can say no photograph accurately represents the human visual experience but that is not important because within narrower limits of the elements of human visual perception of what a photograph can represent may be readily specified and be stated as true and also be stated as valuable within those limits. <br /><br /></p>