Reality vs Vision

<p>Should photographers strive to accurately represent reality or to offer others their individual interpretation of that reality?</p>

<p><strong>Can</strong> photographers strive to accurately represent reality?</p>

<p>Tom's question is right.<br>

Or differently put: which reality?</p>

<p>Douglas,</p>

 

<p>Your question presupposes that it’s even vaguely possible to accurately represent reality

in a photographic medium. More to the point, it implies that a certain traditional

“documentary” photographic style is somehow superior to all others.</p>

 

<p>When you realize that <em>every</em> simple choice the photographer makes, from the

camera to the lens to the aperture and shutter setting and all the way through the paper used for printing, will

(potentially) radically alter the final result in ways <em>far</em> more significant than what most people do in

Photoshop, you’ll start to become a photographer instead of a button-pushing recipe

follower.</p>

 

<p>Not to mention, of course, that even the most advanced photograph is a tiny and very inaccurate projection of a vast multi-dimensional scene….</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Douglas, sorry, my first reaction was not exactly polite maybe. But my point is: can you seperate reality from a vision?<br>

Do you believe there is one reality? Can there be, if people disagree on politics, art, which aperture to use for landscapes, which NBA team is better and so on? Isn't your reality a result of your vision, and likewise mine?<br>

The picture you take is from what you saw, and what you interpret as being the reality. But it's your reality; I might see other things there and consequently take another picture. What we see and how we see it is a direct offspring of our vision and imagination. We perceive it as reality, but it's just one of many realities. So you cannot do anything but give a individual interpretation.</p>

<p>Ben's pointing at the same, though his conclusion that this is eventually the difference between a photographer or a button-pushing recipe follower might be a bit much (for me at least).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Can</strong> photographers strive to accurately represent reality? --Ton</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I think they can. And I say that fully aware of all the nuances and difficulties of defining "reality," especially some sort of objective and shared reality.</p>

<p>I'm a big fan of considering perspective as very significant and thinking that much that we call reality is in fact contextual, cultural, and more changeable than we give it credit for.</p>

<p>At the same time, when I say I took a picture of the Eiffel Tower everyone knows what I mean because of something we share. And when I show them a picture of the Eiffel Tower, though it may come from a million different angles with a million different weather conditions taken at all different times of the day, most people will recognize it as the Eiffel Tower. In that sense, my photo represents the Eiffel Tower. If I blur it or purposely move the camera so much that it becomes an abstract whose source is unrecognizable then I haven't represented the Eiffel Tower. There will be a "gradient," as Wouter so nicely put it in another thread, from how abstract to how representative my photo could be.</p>

<p>Some photographers prefer to stick close to representing what they saw as objectively and universally as possible, as close to one end of the gradient or spectrum as possible.</p>

<p>I believe that ethical photojournalists, some documentarians, good forensic photographers, and some artists and other photographers try to accurately represent reality. That is in keeping with my knowledge that everyone has biases and a perspective. It's MY job to keep in mind those potential biases and perspectives as a viewer and I temper what I see in the photo with that understanding, but I do understand that the photographers themselves (even if they operate with that same sort of knowledge) can strive to represent reality.</p>

<p>I read no expression of one method being superior to the other in Douglas's question.</p>

<p>Since "reality" is such a loaded word, I try to stay away from it when I talk and when I talk about photography. Nevertheless it's handy sometimes.</p>

<p>I hope Phylo doesn't mind my quoting his recent encapsulation of some things about reality and photography from a recent thread. It's just below. It's pretty straightforward. That doesn't mean there aren't centuries of discussion with wildly varying accounts of the notion, but sometimes simplicity captures an awful lot of truth (I know, let's not get started on "truth").</p>

<p>Often the reality I photograph is how I see and often it will vary quite a bit from how others would have seen it. Yet, unless I create a total abstract, there will be something represented that I don't mind calling real.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"By reality I very much mean reality as the objective measure and state of things as they exist and are perceived by our senses, today, here and now. Scientific reality. An immediate descriptiveness rather then an immediate expressiveness. The laws of gravity are a fact of reality and they aren't subjective. By art I mean a notion of that reality, a concept <em>within</em> reality. Often idealized and romanticized, emphasized and psychologized. The scream by Edvard Munch gives us such a certain notion of reality, a powerful yet <em>subjective</em> <em>awareness</em>. Photographs can do that also, can be art. But photography <em>as a medium</em> has the consensus, rightfully so or not, of being more grounded to an objective descriptiveness of reality. Much more than painting, sculpture, music or poetry does . . . " <strong>--Phylo Daryin, Sept. 29, 2009</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>This question on this forum will draw forth even more long discussions of the nature of reality and whether there is such a "thing" as objective reality before it's through. What is the meaning of </em> is<em>? <br /> </em> <br /> I'll admit, I find some discussions on the philosophy forum annoying, but dang, this one may reach heights unreached since the Clinton Impeachment. :)</p>

<p>[small boy with stick wonders what that papery globe in the tree is]</p>

<p><strong>JDM--</strong><br /> When a particular thread is uninteresting to me, I stay away from it. That's because I appreciate that others may find stimulating what I find annoying. Even more so, I appreciate that expressing my annoyance in an unconstructive flyby is even more annoying than the original annoyance of the conversation I could have chosen to skip in the first place.</p>

<p>Fred,<br>

<strong>Who</strong> said it was "uninteresting"? I certainly didn't. Moreover, I didn't even say it was annoying, although it is beginning to become so with such a typical defensive response.<br>

I note from other forums in which you have participated that, in fact, <strong>you</strong> don't always "stay away" from things that annoy you, nor would I ask you to. In fact, if you look at my postings, this is one of a relatively few recent postings that I have made on this forum, for the very reason that discussions here tend to devolve into long and heated arguments. I don't mind the heat, but the length is sometimes a little much.</p>

<p>Some of you are too easy to annoy. That's the real trouble. In a strict sense, I wouldn't myself consider my response to be "unconstructive," but rather a bit of teasing. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put in the emoticon. It will be a sad day in which we can't even tease each other a little from time to time. If the emoticon wasn't enough, then I will apologize and stay away while you all duke it out.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Photographs don't represent reality they are reality; a genuine physical piece of reality itself.</p>

<p>The realness of photographs is particular stunning because they are generated by a physical sample of subject matter travelling across space, penetrating a sensitive surface, and causing marks to form in it. The pattern of marks is the picture, the <em>photograph</em> .</p>

<p>A photograph is a certificate for the existence of its subject matter.</p>

<p>The existence of a piece of subject matter is a precondition for the possibility of a photograph.</p>

<p>A photograph and its subject must both exist simultaneously in each others presence for a photograph to be possible.</p>

<p>At the moment of exposure the sensitive surface becomes heavier. This increase in weight comes only from the subject which concedes an exact same loss in weight.</p>

<p>The fact that photographs are generated by real things interacting one on another does not guarantee that the casual observer will correctly identify subject matter. Consider how many real photographs of real floating logs can be labelled Loch Ness Monster.</p>

<p>Conspicuously, the qualities of a photograph which irrevocably link it reality do not apply to paintings, drawings, or pictures generated in a digital electronic environment.</p>

<p>There is no “should”. The photographer does what s/he, individually, has to do – and it's different for each one.</p>

<p><em>Do you believe there is one reality?</em><br>

<strong>YES, there is 1 reality ... always has been</strong></p>

<p> ... because people allow their prejudice, bias, self-centeredness, self-interest, mis-information, superstition, greed, fear, anger, or any other human blindness to filter this reality ... we differ inter-rater in the description of reality.</p>

<p>Groups can band together and voice their viewpoint in unison, they can kill others who disagree, we can flood the media with our version ... we can even give the Nobel prize to reward unison with our views. Doesn't change the reality in any way.</p>

<p><strong>There is 1 reality ... 1 truth.</strong></p>

 

<p><em>When you realize that </em><em>every</em><em> simple choice the photographer makes, from the camera to the lens to the aperture and shutter setting and all the way through the paper used for printing, will (potentially) radically alter the final result in ways </em><em>far</em><em> more significant than what most people do in Photoshop, you’ll start to become a photographer instead of a button-pushing recipe follower.</em><br>

<strong>As photographers ...</strong></p>

<p>We are so bold as to work and strain to bend the reality and capture something that best meets our version of reality. And, if all else fails, and reality makes it's way to our sensor ... there is always Photoshop.</p>

<p>[Ton] "Can photographers strive to represent reality?"</p>

<p>Yes, one can, but it's a quixotic quest, even for the well-traveled postcard photographer.</p>

<p>"<i> I mean, what if I said that every photograph I made was set up? From the photograph, you can't prove otherwise. You don't know anything from the photograph about how it was made, really. But every photograph could be set up. If one could imagine it, one could set it up."</i></p>

<p>and..."<i> In the end, maybe the correct language would be how the fact of putting four edges around a collection of information or facts transforms it. A photograph is not what was photographed, it's something else." --- Garry Winogrand<br /> </i></p>

<p>[Maris Rusis] "Photographs don't represent reality they are reality; a genuine physical piece of reality itself. The realness of photographs is particular stunning because they are generated by a physical sample of subject matter travelling across space, penetrating a sensitive surface, and causing marks to form in it."</p>

<p> This is largely untrue. there are no physical samples of subject matter entering the camera <em>or the eye -- from non-luminous subjects. </em> What does are echoes of the physical subject in the form of photons <em>bouncing off the surface of the subject.</em></p>

<p>[Maris] "At the moment of exposure the sensitive surface becomes heavier. This increase in weight comes only from the subject which concedes an exact same loss in weight."</p>

<p> That is a mistaken assumption.</p>

<p> Rubbings, prints made directly from objects, scultures made from casts of objects, and ready-mades are a <em>lot</em> closer to reality than photographs.</p>

<p> JDMVW: Thank you for descending to our pit to proclaim your superiority once more. :-) Is there any possibility you will someday <em>show </em> us instead of just <em>telling </em> us about it? Relax, I'm just teasing.</p>

<p><em> <br /> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>There is 1 reality ... 1 truth.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. So there are two truths already.<br>

To say there is one truth or one reality will get very close to a semi-religious discussion. Whether you interpret this one reality as a Platonic idea, God, the Matrix or a shared consciousness, stating it exists means believing it exists. Since there is no way one can prove it exists. Even not circumstancial or purely theoretical. You simply cannot know it for sure. So rather than stating there is one reality, I'd say some people belief there is one reality.</p>

<p>One step further on that. It is also quite typical for humans to assume that our sensory experiences and the way our brains handle them implicate a correctness. So our eyes, sensitive to a part of the wave spectrum, and the way our brain translates it (making 523nm orange) would be correct. Except when you're colourblind. And what our ears can capture (~20 to ~20k Hz, depending on age) are real sounds. Except that a dog can hear more sounds that are equally real to that species.<br>

Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy may seem a lot of fun, but at least he had the notion that maybe humans were not the most intellegent species on earth, or the ones at the top of foodchain. And he might be true there - we simply don't know? The movie The Matrix played with that same idea - what if we're all just being played like puppets in a huge theatre?</p>

<p>Now I'm not suggesting we "loose our humanity" here or some silly notion like that, but in discussion on truth, reality and the essence of things, in my view it's good to be humble and realise that we, as humankind, could be all wrong. So try to steer clear from the absolutes. Though they make a great way to start discussion :-)</p>

<p>Food fight. Oh boy!<br>

I thought only Leica's accurately represented reality?<br>

Back to the original question, I think both religion and philosophy point us as human beings towards an attempt to understand what is reality... but in the end, being less than perfect we each come away with our own version of reality (the blind men and the elephant being one good example, or Plato's example of the men in the cave another). My son's experience with brain cancer and recovery from surgery made me aware of just how little our eyes really capture reality and how much the brain processing that information results in the 'image' we think we see. It seems we only 'see' what we 'know' - a good example is soldiers in camoflage uniforms hiding in the woods. When first confronting that, they seem invisible, but when taught to recognize the patterns, they stand out quite well.<br>

I absolutely do not believe in absolutes, at least within our existence here. Check back with me when I am no longer here, and perhaps I'll have an update.</p>

<p><strong><em>I disagree. So there are two truths already.</em></strong></p>

<p>Actually that was my point. There is only one truth ... and 2 (and likely many more) descriptions based on all the skewing factors I mentioned in my post. Because we disagree, lends absolutely 0 credibility to the 2 truth philosophy ... that is just cowardice and laziness. The truth is out there ... we simply have to be willing to seek and challenge (ourselves & others).</p>

<p>Today, the sun in south Florida is hot. My thermometer says it's 92F, yours may say 93F. One or both of our thermometers is right/wrong, instead of saying there is no true temperature, let's figure out the real answer.</p>

<p>The possible existence of truth aside for the moment, which of these seekers that we seem to have defined here is the more successful. Now, I realize that I have to provide some guidelines with this group, so let's put it this way:</p>

<p>Given that there are some photographers who believe they seek a truthful reality in their images, and some photographers who believe they desire to communicate a more personal view.<br>

Are those photographers who seek to accurately depict reality the more successful. <br>

or<br>

Are those photographers who share their personal vision of reality the more successful.</p>

<p>Success is defined as either commercial success, or success through critical acclaim, or both.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5597271"><em>Douglas Weldon</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 08, 2009; 03:28 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Should photographers strive to accurately represent reality or to offer others their individual interpretation of that reality?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Douglas, being a product of Dr. Timothy Leary, Andy Warhol , L.Ron Hubbard et al, I could come back with a nifty little quip like "What is reality?", but in the spirit of your post, I strive to create photographs that people want to look at, and feel different than before they saw my work.<br>

Maybe happier, maybe sadder, but different. I want to give them something other than a pretty picture.<br>

In a strange way though, we all have our own ideas about what reality is, so it really comes down to interpretation, so maybe my original comment has some validity.</p>

<p>Bill P. </p>

<p>Thomas, because we disagree you do not have to tell me I am wrong. I simply do not agree with your "1 truth" idea, period. Repeating "there is only one" is not going to convince me. Calling me coward and lazy is also not very impressive line of reasoning, and on the edge of impolite. So let's leave it at this and agree to disagree.</p>

<p>Douglas,<br>

Better question now it's bit more defined :-)<br>

I think it depends on the type of photography which one will yield the biggest chance of success:<br>

- A photojournalist depicting facts with as little as possible personal influence in the picture would do his job right.<br>

- A photographer aiming for art pictures should, in my opinion, certainly include a personal vision.<br>

The lines between those are never that strict, of course, but only to indicate that each approach has its value and place, and that each could be a way to success.</p>

<p> It <em>doesn't matter </em> if there's one or ten thousand realities, we will photograph only what we're ready to see at that moment, and the great undiscovered ocean(s) of truth (Truth, and untruth) will do just fine without us.</p>

<p><br /> </p>

<p>The reality IMO is very big, ambivalent, heterogenious thing which, probably don't need to be represented and there hardly is anybody who would like to have it represented at all. Basically because there is so much of it instantly available to behold anywhere.</p>

<p>Not to mention it is seldom enjoyable or intertaining.</p>

<p>But photographers are strange lot and some of them take calls for the ultimate. Even go beyond that.</p>

<p>So, if someone will pop-up a good photographic ROR, we will be willing to take a look.</p>

<p>Striving is really a part of reality and if you are to strive, strive you do.</p>

<p>Offering of our personal interpritation of reality is what we basically all do all the time and there seems to be no way out of it.</p>

<p>The IR, however nonreal it might seem to be, is, sadly, a part of reality anyway. </p>

<p>Human boundary, so to say. :-[</p>

<p>Just to be on the safe side, suggest the interpretations. They usually banal but can be usefull, even profitable. True representations on the other hand are hard to make and often left without much appreciation.</p>

<p><strong><em>Calling me coward and lazy is also not very impressive line of reasoning, and on the edge of impolite. </em></strong></p>

<p>Wasn't calling you anything ... simply engaging in conversation. What I said was that the multiple truth (there is no truth) philosophy is lazy and cowardly. The "everybody" is right idea is a way to avoid real probing & discussion to find TRUTH.</p>

<p>What I think we agree on is that people see the truth through their own eyes ... and are apt to disagree, and maybe irreparably so. I am simply saying that ... because we see things differently, is a ridiculous reason to believe that there is no truth.</p>

<p><strong>Douglas;</strong></p>

<p>If you are shooting documentary, you should make every attempt to present reality as best you can (it will be skewed to some extent by YOU though). When shooting ART ... shoot and alter whatever YOU want for whatever intent YOU want. People will then see it and interpret it in the way that THEY want.</p>

<p> It is a misunderstanding that documentary has been about realism. Not since the days of Jacob Riis and Flaherty has it been so.</p>

<p>May I kindly ask the apologists of "multiple truth"/ "multiple reality" to explain what is ment by this term?</p>

<p>Is it not easy to assume there is only one with many aspects?</p>