photography and objectivity

Hi! I would like to have deeper insight into objectivity in photography. Can

anybody recomend any interesting texts, book or articles written by some

respeced peaople.

Tkanks in advance...

Objectivity eh, well I suppose any photograph taken objectifies everything it represents. To

photograph is to objectify.

What are you looking for? A German art movement? CogSci? Journalism?

There is no such thing as an unbiased photoghrapher ..therefore unlikely that you would discover objectivity in photography?

Sometimes a photo forces objectivity in the observer.

There are no absolute standards but perhpaps relative standards of objectivity which are just as meaningful. For example, which is more objective: A photograph by an archeologist of a 5000 year old artifact just dug up and perhaps about to disintegrate, or an advertising photograph of a model in a fashion magazine, or a Riefenstahl (sp?) photo of a nazi rally, or a photograph of a crime scene taken by an investigative team? In each case a bit of reality has been recorded but in the second that image has a high probability of having been manipulated or, in the third case, carefully staged.

Obviously the rally was staged. The films/photos she took were "artistic" propaganda but hardly objective except to the extent that the film itself objectively records some portion (it doesn't get all the photons of course) of the image focused by the "objective" lens.

What is in front of the lens is what existed, no? If only for an instant. Unless

we throw out all the laws and theories of optical physics, and the nature of

matter, what the camera sees has to be considered fairly close to an objective

interpretation of what was photographed.

 

The key I believe is the constraint "if only for an instant". But then you may say

that the bias of the photographer also influenced the way the subject was

photographed? Undoubtably.

 

An uncontrolled and independent measuring instrument (which the camera is

not, at least directly in the hands of a photographer) can be as objective as it

probably gets. Objectivity is usually lost when man is behind the recording

device. I suggest that it is a question of degree, as the wisest and most

experienced of of photographers can approach objectivity with a more

balanced mind, but never attain it completely.

 

But of what importance is complete objectivity? How many writings of man

can be called objective in that sense? I have trouble giving any examples.

How many pieces of art can be so called? How objective are juries in trials, of

judges at competitions.

 

Objectivity is relative, yet the pursuit of absolute objectivity a noble, moral,

important pursuit - but like property of infinity, somewhat unapproachable.

 

Is not subjectivity that which matters most in art?

"Is not subjectivity that which matters most in art?"

 

Maybe. The question doesn't concern art. Not all photography is art.

If pure objectivity is the goal, and the reader's interest is of a technical bent,

perhaps scientific photography texts would be the best reading material, or

some of the old but technically excellent Kodak publications?

 

Or some works by National Geographic photographers, whose mandate

would seem to be objective portrayal of peoples and nature.

 

You may be right, Don, but photography as a means of recording (objective

response) is to my mind the dullest form of its use. Like asking a painter to

record a scene objectively. It's done, but how can that inspire the recipient,

except momentarily, or to simply acknowledge that the image is a little slice of

time.

 

Not all photographic moments in time are objective images, as such. The

raising of the US flag at Iwo Jimo in WWII was not an objective event, but an

important aesthetical (image composition) and emotional (wartime)

happening that was staged and which provided longlasting subjective value.

The Robert Capa (I think?) photo of a republican fighter at the moment of his

death in the Spanish civil war is an objective photo that succeeds greatly in

separating itself from the instant and that also has longlasting value as a

statement about conflict, or perhaps the fragility of human existance.

 

It will be interesting to see what responses are received to Darek's good

question.

 

Perhaps I can offer a few paths to follow, although I am no expert on the

subject: I think that Janet Malcolm ("Nikon and I", or some such title, it is a

three decades or so old publication) approached the subject of objectivity

fairly well.

 

Anything dealing with objectivity in news reporting, by famous persons (such

as the late Walter Cronkite?), might make good reading on a quite analogous

topic, one that probably presents the requisite mind set of the human behind

the microphone or camera.

We still have no idea what the OP is looking for regarding objectivity and photography.

 

"The raising of the US flag at Iwo Jimo in WWII was not an objective event, but an important aesthetical (image composition) and emotional (wartime) happening that was staged and which provided longlasting subjective value."

 

This has been discussed often here. To call it "staged" is incorrect. The first flag raising was not photographed although the raised flag was photographed by a USMC photographer. The flag was recalled to ship and another, much larger flag, brought on shore, which was then raised. Among the photos (and movie cameras, I think), Rosenthal's became famous.

 

I have no idea why these details make it not an "objective event".

 

Or do you think they took that mount with carbines a-blazin' and raised a US flag over the bodies of enemy soldiers in the heat of battle? And because it is not that, but something else, it is not an

objective event?

Don, I guess it depends upon your definition of objective, or of an objective

context (as you seem to imply in respect to the Iwo Jimo photo). I'm not sure

where Darek is coming from either when he speaks of 'objectivity in

photography'. Perhaps rather than giving space to a semantics discussion, it

would be best to clarify or better situate a question by putting it into a clear

context. Then, suggestions can be made to reading material that might best

address that.

Arthur, here's a good page of photos and stills documenting the event.

 

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/raisingb.htm

 

The words 'faked' or "staged" are sometimes used to smear the reputation of the photographer, Joe Rosenthal, for reasons I can only guess at. None of the reasons I can come up with are pleasant -- I do not mean this personally towards you.

Don, it was an impressive and important event and unfortunately too many

good people had to pay the supreme price at that site, prior to and after that

flag raising. I have every respect for the photographer Rosenthal and even

more for the USA of that period that fought a very noble and critical fight in a

difficult period (like other allies, if perhaps in a somewhat lesser degree in

absolute, if not in relative, terms). I hope my use of the word staged was not

offensive to you, it was simply meant to try to make a minor distinction in my

mind between a completely off-the-cuff instantaneous photograph and one

which had been pre-visualised and emphasised, following the initial flag

raising.

 

I'm not sure I fully understand all that led to that famous photograph, but I will

agree that the context of the photograph was objective. Thanks for the

background, that you and your fellow Americans are probably more familiar

with than we foreigners.

"...it was simply meant to try to make a minor distinction in my mind between a completely off-the-cuff instantaneous photograph and one which had been pre-visualised and emphasised, following the initial flag raising."

 

He missed the first flag raising. He was trying to gather up those guys for a group shot around the flag, when the second much larger flag was delivered. He missed the shot of the exchange of flags (another photographer got it). He was a short guy and was standing on some rubble so that he could see over the heads of those in front of him. While he was turned away talking to (I think) the motion picture cameraman, they began raising the flag, which he saw in his peripheral vision. F/8 and be there, saved him, but he didn't know that. He thought he missed the shot. So, he got the guys together and posed them in front of the raised flag, wanting something to show for the day. Not completely off-the-cuff and instantaneous (he knew a flag would be raised) but nearly so. I think it qualifies as an objective photograph.

 

Not a great day on the job for the poor news photographer 8-)

Specifically on your request for books/texts: tentatively, how about these as a starting point?

</p><p>

<ul>

<li>Sloan, W.D. and J.B. Mackay, <i>Media bias : finding it, fixing it</i>.

2007, Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Daston.</li>

<li>L. and P. Galison, Objectivity. 2007, New York & Cambridge, Mass.: Zone

Books ; Distributed by the MIT Press.</li>

<li>Renger-Patzsch, A., et al., Albert Renger-Patzsch : photographer of

objectivity. 1998, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.<br>

 </li>

</ul>