Reality and Fantasy

Is all of photography a fantasy world? Is even documentary photography a kind of fictional reiteration of

reality? Can any abstraction from reality be other than fictional?

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/8041411

 

--Lannie

PN member <a target="_blank" href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3885114">Julie Heyward</a>, always well worth listening to on any subject, frequently addresses aspects of this idea in her blog. Two interesting recent examples: <i><b><a target="_blank" href=http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/what-photography-is-not/>What photography is not</a></i></b> and <i><b><a target="_blank" href= http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/the-makers-inscription-documentary-invention/>The maker's inscription: documentary invention</a></i></b>

In a world where Ken Burns is considered a documentarian, anything is possible, including getting an historical perspective about a time or event by watching a Hollywood movie about it.

Landrum--

 

Count me as one who believes that "reality" itself is fictional, so photography, in my opinion, is a little further along on

the spectrum of what is fictional. Reality is context-driven and oriented. There is no fixed truth to reality. What reality is

is perspectival. All those qualities apply to photography, only moreso, because it is a look at the world through a lens by a

photographer, so it eliminates periphery which biases what is eventually captured and seen. A lot of photography is actually what is

left out of the shot, which puts a spin on the world. Framing is an exclusive device. The camera frames in a more obvious way

than the human who approaches the world, but human experience is a frame as well. As far back as Plato's cave analogy, smart men were

recognizing that the

senses are not a great way to get at reality. Those idealists preferred the intellect as the better grasper of reality.

Thankfully, the empiricists recognized the shortcomings of a strictly intellectual or ideal approach and reality is currently

more often thought of as a construct than as a functioning truth.

 

Photography as photography and life as art.

 

--Fred

"Plato's cave analogy"

 

Plato anticipated modern media. Maybe not, but he knew somehow that our perceptions are shaped internally according to our individual past experiences. Photography is said, by the scholars and historians who study it, to possess not objectivity but verisimilitude. Hyper-realist painting relies totally on verisimilitude, and its products often seem more life like than photos.

... in addition to the points made by Jeff and Fred, I'll say that some literary fiction can convey more "truth" than can most history (thinking here of the way James Joyce's "Dubliners" depicts bits of a period in Ireland's oppression...perhaps more "verisimilitude" as well...

 

"Truth" and "reality" seem virtually identical concepts...yes? no?

My grandfather used to say: "Its not what you see lad, its what you have seen." Life is one great Rashomon in which we all percieve the same events in our own subjective way based on our character, experiences, moods, etc. Reality does not exist without perception and perception is subjective.

..."Rashomon"..great!

 

"Reality does not exist without perception and perception is subjective."

 

That misses one central concept: "...without SHARED perception." We aren't solo animals, we're a pack (or herd)..

I'll go for "herd" John since I believe Humans (as a general concept) lack amity to qualify as a pack.

I guess it is ok to do philosophy in a philosophy forum. Consider "Is all of photography a fantasy world ?" This

question opens the technically difficult part of philosophy known either as metaphysics or ontology.

 

It's been a few years since drew salary to do philosophy but I assure you that metaphysics abounds with traps for

philosophers, amateur or professional. The usual stumbling blocks are recursive arguments and contradictions.

 

A good example comes from Fred Goldsmith when he advances the conjecture "reality is fictional". The question

then arises is the statement "reality is fictional" real or fictional? If it's real then it's not fictional. But

it says it is...a contradiction. If it's fictional then it is real because that's what it says...another

contradiction. The only progress available, given both contradictions, is to declare the statement either wrong

or meaningless. Unfortunately Aristotelian logic is incapable of deciding which outcome, wrong or meaningless,

applies. And that's after 2500 years of research into numerous metaphysical challenges of a similar kind.

 

To be fair to the Goldsmith conjecture it should be pointed out that the Postmodernist philosophers (mainly

French) have tried to set aside the traps of metaphysics by actually embracing contradiction, absurdity, and

irony as being legitimate components of the world the way it is. The down side of this is that one can never

trust anything a postmodern philosopher says. For them this is alright because their underlying concept of truth

is synthetic; everyone has their own truth. Truth is relative not absolute.

 

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that substituting a fruitless pursuit of reality with a fruitless pursuit of

truth is not progress.

 

A question much easier to answer would be "Is photography a physical process in the same sense as other physical

processes"? I suggest yes in the case of traditional photography. The photons that were part of the subject

matter are the very same photons that burrow into the sensitive surface to cause the chemical changes that

generate the marks that make the picture. The relationship between a subject and it's photograph is both physical

and necessary. "Necessary" is offered in its technical philosophical sense as meaning one thing cannot exist

without the other.

 

Picture making using digitally controlled electronic devices is not an ordinary physical process. There is no

necessary or physical connection between subject matter and picture. Marks and the pictures that result from an

accumulation of them may be generated in the complete or partial absence of subject matter. If one takes a

philosophical look down into the engine room it is easy to see that "digital photography" is of a muchness with

painting and drawing. In these endeavours humans and devices act together to generate pictures.

 

Importantly, painting, drawing, and digital pictures offer unlimited opportunity for visual fantasy in a way that

photography cannot. Consider the highlights of Western visual art over the last thousand years. All of them are

fantasies fabricated by human ingenuity out of human imagination.

 

If we only ever had photography we would not have the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

"That misses one central concept: ...without SHARED perception. We aren't solo animals, we're a pack (or herd).."

 

Yes, indeed. As Sartre had it, We think, therefore we are.

Shared perception? Hmmm.. interesting concept.

"Truth" and "reality" seem virtually identical concepts...yes? no?

 

John, if you ever visite the court while in process, you will witness that they are not always identical, as evidence can be seen differently in the eyes of different judges...The saying that " beauty is in the eye of the beholder", is identical imo as how reality is ( a good word added to my English vocabulary...)verisimiltude, and is again in the eye of the beholder .

 

"Rashomon" is a very good example as well, Nick

 

"There is no fixed truth to reality. " Said Fred

 

So Lannie, I think that " a kind of fictional reiteration of reality" can fit, and it is always imaginative and relative reality, and depends of who is the "reader"...

Pnina, that your different courtroom "witnesses" make different reports shows precisely how a human pack/herd

works. First it gathers multiple perceptions (right, wrong, etc) then it creates a shared perception which, in

your example actually becomes legally binding.

 

The "individual" is a cherished fantasy, or it's a goal, but it's never a fact.

 

Every one of the "individuals" made those courtroom reports as a member of her/his herd/pack, and their

"individuality" was formally condensed to represent the herd/pack's perception by a process (trial) driven by the

herd/pack's leader (judge).

 

We can move toward individuality (called "individuation") if we pay the dues, but we can never actually get all

the way there...

 

Hunting antelope with wooden bow and arrow, one must get very close. Someone skilled or fortunate enough to get

within 15 meters (perhaps close enough for a wooden arrow) will certainly and always be noticed by one of the

does (females) who will instantly share her perception with a dozen others, each of whom will spot the

hunter...making individual perceptions... the body of shared perceptions will then be noticed by the buck

antelope... he will act on it, leading the herd to bound away. All of that takes seconds ... members feed

perceptions into the herd, then respond as part of the herd, never as "individuals" unless something is wrong

with them (those exceptions will be noticed and killed by predator animals). The only way to kill an individual

antelope is to separate it from the herd...it will be less capable of defensive response because it will be less

intelligent, lacking as individuals do the herd's shared virtual brain.

 

The bow hunter seems an ultimate "individual" but he's acting in concert with the herd... tries to be part of the

herd...unless he's more like a wolf, part of a pack..in which case the pack is genetically hard-wired (doesn't

need to "try") to become part of the antelope herd.

 

When humans passively claim to be individuals, rather than paying dues over decades to individuate, they grow

beards, get tatts and body piercing, become laughable and fall prey. The energy that's put into individuation

makes a person stronger, not necessarily more of an "individual."

Maris:

 

Interesting application of the Liar Paradox. However, Fred was making a statement about reality. You are making a

statement about a statement.

 

On a different note, I suspect you have missed an important element in the relationship between a subject and a

photograph of the subject - the photographer. That is the only authentic link between two physical objects. I don't

know how you can assert that there is a necessary connection between a subject and its photograph. Indeed, a

photograph inherently must be of a subject. However, the subject exists whether it is photographed or not. How or

why it exists is another story.

 

Finally, you stated that "Picture making using digitally controlled electronic devices is not an ordinary physical

process." It is a physical process, nonetheless. Instead of interacting with a film medium, light interacts with a

sensor. A photograph taken with a digital camera still can be printed, and it still can be post-processed. To quote

(or paraphrase) William James, a difference that doesn't make a difference isn't really a difference at all.

 

I hope that my responses don't come across as overly polemical. However, as someone who also used to do

philosophy, I felt compelled to jump in with both feet.

 

michael

I think Michael understands my point, which is an illustrative one about the nature of human experience and its similarity to

the way photography works with respect to so-called "reality."

 

As for the Liar paradox, I'd probably tend to side with Kripke here, and suggest that my statement about the fictional nature

of reality was an ungrounded one, and therefore not subject to the assignment of a truth value.

 

Maris, a three-word aphorism does not a philosophical argument make. Asking whether the statement is real or fictional did

not occur to me any more than did the question of whether or not I was dreaming the entire matter.

John, your English is "over qualified " for my under qualified one ....;-)) I hope I understood your points.

 

"First it gathers multiple perceptions (right, wrong, etc) then it creates a shared perception which, in your example actually becomes legally binding. "

 

 

It is right to a certain point, but not quite, as there are cases of( and I don't know the word in English) one in 3(judges, the legal way it is done here in some cases, not by a sworn group of people) that see and weight reality/facts/evidence in a different way of thinking.( "minority point of view," I try to translate my language terminology)

 

I agree in part to " The "individual" is a cherished fantasy, or it's a goal, but it's never a fact."

 

 

But still we are a priory different human being, even though with a tendency to pack/herd positions... genetically we are different, culture/ life experience/education etc, adds and makes us different people, that are experiencing reality in different ways, that's why as photographers we are creating in other ways what we see as reality, or what we think( elusive sometimes) reality is in our eyes and imaginative perceptions.

 

I understand the analogy to antelope hunt, but their behavior is a survival instinct , where we as human being still have the ability to think, to weight what we see, and to judge/evaluate, right or wrong is another question. Facts or fantasies ,are as well given to discussion, and points of view.

 

I think that by nature we are individuals, but with the need to live in society.

 

Was not easy for me John, but thanks for your analogy and point of view.

Pnina, you're doing fine.

 

I could agree with your points but I don't see how that would be helpful: I suspect you're earning more individuality than you were born with, as I feels sure that I am.

 

I think people are worth more when they work toward individuality, worth less when they automatically assume they're individuals. In some respects people are equal, of course, but in others they are not.

 

If they don't work toward individuality, they miss the fun.

Maris, your thinking, quoted below, is weak because it assumes limited skills on the part of the "traditional photographer" and it assumes undisciplined aspirations (freaking freely) on the part of the "digital photographer."

 

Look at most of the digital work in Photo.net: Most is constipated (flowers, sunsets, birds, teenage models), less free and "fantastic" than the work of Steiglitz or the many Pictorialists (easy antique examples...more modern examples would include the fashion photography in Vogue and Harpers Bazaar, from their beginnings)

 

I especially disagree with your Sistine Ceiling metaphor: A magnificent Sistine Ceiling could be created photographically...I'd nominate Sebastiao Salgado for the job, though I'd ask him to work in color.

 

"Importantly, painting, drawing, and digital pictures offer unlimited opportunity for visual fantasy in a way that photography cannot. "

Fred:

 

OK, I'm impressed by your reference to Kripke. I read his stuff on rigid designators, and was about to write a dissertation to defend descriptivism. It never happened, and I've forgotten more about Kripke than I ever learned. I did get to meet his father, who is the rabbi emeritus at Temple Beth El in Omaha.

 

michael

"Can any abstraction from reality be other than fictional?"

 

How is a photograph an abstraction from reality? What do you mean?

"How is a photograph an abstraction from reality?'

<p><p>

I wouldn't use the word "abstraction," but I think what is meant is likely something like this: A photograph is a picture of something in the

world. Somehow, therefore, the photograph acts as an intermediary between the viewer and the world which is snapped in the

picture-taking. Because the photo is thus removed from the world of which it is a picture, is it a fiction?

<p><p>

What's interesting to me is that this way of looking at photography often forgets that the photograph itself becomes part of

that same "real" world and so is <i>really</i> not so separable from it.

<p><p>

I'd say a photograph is as real or as unreal as reality. Fiction can speak great truths and fantasy is its own reality. Fiction is very real and

"reality" itself can be pretty abstract.

Fred:

 

Would it make sense to say that the photograph is a representation of the world? Perhaps in this context, the

terms 'fiction', 'representation', and 'construct' are synonymous. By taking a photograph, one interprets the world.

And, yes, I do think that meaning is context-dependent.

 

The world's greatest philosopher, Robin Williams, devoted a record title to reality - what a concept! Employing a true-

false model doesn't quite work; it doesn't account for modalities. Nor does it allow reality to be anything other than

linear. Nor does it incorporate context or perspective. I'm reminded of "Contact", which clearly pointed out that a

system of symbols cannot be interpreted without a set of rules by which to interpret them.

 

OK, it's only 7:15 AM (my time) and I'm in desperate need of caffeine. I've been rambling on without it, so my

remarks probably are gibberish. Maybe we can straighten the mess out later.

The word Reality is being used here as if some well formed and defined brick of which we are merrily build our house. Reality can not exist in the empirical sphere since any observation immediately causes “tampering with the results”. We can’t even make a good case of considering photon marks left on film / sensor as an imprint of reality while any attempt at observing, cognition or interpretation immediately transforms it to subjective opinion. 10 individuals observing the same object will create 10 parallel universes which may or may not have similarities.

 

Protagora noted that “Man is the measure of all things” and how right he was. We really should direct our efforts towards research of the human cognitive process which probably contains all the answers that will ever be of real use to us in our “practical world”. Theoretical science will always point to some amazing notions but many of them will remain outside the cognitive abilities which are at our disposal at this stage of evolution.

Michael--

 

"Representation" is a designation of something, standing for that something, or denoting it. It often implies a lack of

subjectivity. In that respect, a representation can act as a substitute or at least a likeness.

 

"Interpretation," I think, has more subjectivity (although UN interpreters, I suppose, should be more translators than

anything else). Interpretation suggests meaning, elucidation, understanding.

 

I think one can represent without understanding the meaning, so interpretation seems to go a step farther.

 

I generally don't like thinking of photography as representation any more than I like thinking of a fixed notion of reality,

because I think interpretation is always at play, even if not overtly or consciously.

 

I find it helpful to think of these terms relatively and on a continuum. Because I think some photography does lean, on a

continuum, toward representation (in comparison to other photography which does not), I'm fine with your

formulation. Moving forward, though, I also think some photography is a re-presentation, with emphasis on the

"presentation" and, as already said, on a photographer doing the presenting. I think some is an interpretation, injecting

more of the photographer as mediator. And I think some is a recreation and some a creation.

 

I think it difficult to draw a distinct line between fiction and nonfiction. From personal experience, some of the portraits

I've done could seem fictional, in that they may create a persona more of my choosing than the subject's projection.

Especially hearing viewers' interpretations and assumptions about the person in the photo makes me realize what a

fiction some portraits actually are. At the same time, the good ones will often connect with some kind of truth, about

emotion or about the human condition, etc. And, when you get right down to it, it's not as if I created the image of the

person from scratch, as I might in a drawing or painting not based on an actual person. The nonfictional aspect of these

photos is that they may be easily recognizable as likenesses of Person X. Another nonfictional aspect is that they may tell of my

honest

feelings about Person X or I may utilize Person X to convey some honest emotions. The fictional aspect can be in my ability to portray

Person X a certain way, a way in which the photograph does not really reflect who Person X is.