Reality vs Vision

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Sweeping topic. Photography, since the time when Matthew Brady we knew made some alteration in his Civil War photographs has, to my mind, -<strong>even so-</strong> presented a greater reality than existed before then,so the answer is yes we can if we want to. I am thinking that Holbein, who had no camera, instinctively knew where his bread was buttered. And we don't get monarchs with double chins. The Crimean War was depicted with an agenda for public consumption, although I don't know that gravure was out at the time.</p>

<p>Defining terms is always a tough exercise. I won't try because I can't do it without help.</p>

<p>I was just lately watching an old murder mystery film by the master storyteller, Alfred Hitchcock. Called "Shadow of a Doubt." Takes place in a wartime setting of a sleepy Santa Rosa, California. The whole film is beautifully designed to "lift the curtain" on the "reality " behind the facade. I am tipping my hand I suppose. I think a photographer or cinematographer has to move beyond " reality" into the realm of imagination and representation. Representation of the whole by the single frame or the single film cut. Incidentally, try to rent this beautifully filmed black and white movie if you can, admirable opus for 70 year old flic. So I will let those who want reality have it if they like,thank you.. ("Reality TV"= Oxymoron of course.) gs</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Another thought comes to mind. When you get into a car accident, an appraiser looks at the dented fender. Then takes a photo for his or her file. On this mundane level, would anyone not agree that it is a true representation of reality. In a courtroom, a photo is admissable as evidence. Only, of course, if the provenance is established. So I guess maybe the answer is yes. On a mundane level.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ilia, what I mean by that is: there is no "one reality" and "one truth" from which others are derived. So two things can be contradicting and both true. For many things in daily life, this is an unneccessarily complex approach, of course. A chair is a chair, a camera a camera (well, even there discussion is possible). We can agree on many things in this world being what we agree on they are. Or we might all be terribly wrong on that; either way, there is a generic concensus on many things, and I do not deny that.<br>

To me a tree is large, to an elephant it may be not that large. What's true? The viewpoint of the beholder always severly influences what is considered true and real. But where does it stop having a beholder?</p>

<p>And, extending that notion of one truth all the way, it means in the end, there is only one thing true. So ultimately, having reached that pinnacle of thoughts, so to speak, there is no discussion. No doubt. No disagreement. One single truth means one ultimately correct version. That, to me, is the point where it goes wrong. It is too absolute, too divine, and to me it feels like it justifies a supremacy card that can be played in discussions about religion, philosophy and the like. For me, the key to gaining knowledge is doubt, and one truth does ultimately away with doubt. It ends an process which I belief to be endless.</p>

<p>Thomas makes it appear as if those of us who do not belief in a single truth, shy away from a quest for knowledge, insight and understanding. At least, I belief that is the lazy bit. That is of course not the case. All I do is always, at any point, leave a door open to have multiple views on a subject being both right (which in a single truth scenario is impossible).<br>

So Thomas is not wrong, but to me not right either. In my view, this is perfectly possible. If there is only one truth, one of us is wrong. Could very well be me, at which point, I'll have to gratefully admit a life full of wrong assumptions. But for now, for me, the idea of a single truth and a single reality clashes with way too much other assumptions.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>Thanks, Wouter. I would agree with your point of view.</p>

[jean_henderson]

<p>I find it interesting that no one has introduced the concept of the paradox in which both those who believe in one truth AND those who believe in multiple truths may be correct. As for me, I believe in the absoluteness of a multiple pursuit -- the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Would not most of us agree that even those works of art which would not be considered beautiful in the common sense -- say, many of Picasso's works during his Blue Period, are, in reality, Beautiful? I believe that the finest works of photojournalism and the finest of works of photographic art equally encompass this multiple pursuit.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>Probably because such an all encompasing paradox has no practical value. It is nor method nor instrument but a termination of reasoning. Leaving one in position where the accept or rejection of anything are similar and of zero value. Say, it is not cretive.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>( Fred, no I don't mind at all that you quoted me from the other thread ). While a distinction can be made between the two I think it "should" be reality and vision, not reality vs vision. When they are investigated to the full both of them share the same token, the strive for our human experience to reach an apex of awareness.</p>

<p><em>I think nearly every artist continually wants to reach the edge of nothingness, the point were you can't go any further</em> <br /> Harry Callahan</p>

<p>Replace the word artist with scientist and the truth of the quote holds up unchanged, as there's no philosophical difference behind the striving of the two. Smashing atoms or mixing paint. What makes photography so perplexingly interesting is that it can involve the purposes of both.</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Photographers should strive to be photographers.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mocp.org/exhibitions/2005/08/taryn_simon_the.php">http://www.mocp.org/exhibitions/2005/08/taryn_simon_the.php</a></p>

[ted_fisher]

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

<p>Well, I keep telling reality to freeze and fit into a rectangle. It laughs and moves on.</p>

 

 

[jean_henderson]

<p>Right on! Phylo's Callahan quote and Ted's comment are beginning to put a spin on this discussion!</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>My buddy majored in philosophy and he would laugh at this discussion. Even philosophers can't figure out what reality is, nor where it begins and ends if it does exit. Now imagine an "artist" with a "camera" walking up the university bar where all the post-grads philosophers hang out. You need a PhD to come to the barstool...<br>

Anyway, this is from THEIR perspective, and is, of course, completely separate from what our concerns and questions might be as "Togs"...<br>

What about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which talks about scientists trying to view the elusive electron and other subatomic items: They are so small, that once you shine a light on them (or other method to see them) you actually move them by that act, and so it's impossible to tell both the location and velocity at that level. <br>

One would think that it would be impossible to capture reality, because by capturing it with your lurking and clicking, shuffling and snapping, chair-climbing and panning, you're changing it. Or maybe after the wine is served, nobody really notices at all...<br>

(And electrons don't drink wine.)</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Tim,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I keep telling reality to freeze and fit into a rectangle. It laughs and moves on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very nice. Be glad it laughs ;-)</p>

<p>Ed, kind of funny to bring up quantum mechanics.<br>

Photography is all about light. And light is.... uhm, yeah, uhm... A bit of wave, a bit of energy and a bit behaving like mass....<br>

Our most important input to take a photo in the first place, and that's already something that's hard to define, multi-faceted and showing a different aspect whenever the scientists call on it. So, yeah, we discuss reality and try to paint with light...just crossing science's biggest mysteries, as a hobby :-)<br>

But one question: what's more important in this discussion? The discussion itself or the answers? Even if PhD philosophers have trouble with it, should that make us stop discussing? I sure hope not, for me it's all about provoking the brain and make it do what it's designed to do: think.</p>

<p>(by the way, I've met quite some philosophy students, and was rather unimpressed by them often enough. Many of them can understand what others have said before, but to me, philosophy has more to do with standing on the shoulder of giants and look further, than with looking at the giants themselves. Not all studies get the aspect of stimulating a investigative and creative mind very right. But that aside).</p>

<p>Phylo,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photographers should strive to be photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds intriguing, but also screams for definition. Is a photographer somebody who operates the camera, or somebody who uses a photocamera to "catch" images as he sees them? Would make quite a difference, I'd say.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Wouter,<br>

When considering the threads original question, I simply think photographers should strive to be photographers, meaning by this that photography is both about reality and an interpretation of reality.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>OK, clear, understand. To me, it wasn't exactly clear how to interpret it. Thanks for the clarification.</p>

[simon_bygdell]

<p>As someone said, a piece of rock is truth and so is a piece of sculpture. There is no single reality (as physicists and mystics, both will attest) so art is an artist's rendition of truth.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p >The photographer brings order to reality and does not produce a replication of the visible - as stated by Walker Evans, "Reality is not totally real." More recently, Giorgio Morandi said, "I believe that nothing can be more abstract and unreal that what we actually see." </p>

<p > </p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p >What is missing in the discussions of reality, and is central to photography, is the idea put forth by Walker Evans that, "The secret of photography is, the camera takes on the character and personality of the handler. The mind works the machine."</p>

<p > </p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p >Do you want blind reproductions, a "true copy" of reality with no message other than, perhaps, decorative appeal - and revealing precisely nothing? </p>

<p > </p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p >Reality is unstructured with no ready-made meanings. It is the photographer who finds, among the infinite possibilities, a single image to transform the visible and the invisible structures into a coherent, aesthetically organized whole. </p>

<p > </p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p >The image is bounded by a frame, the world is not. When the photographer chooses to put a frame around the visible, it is no longer reality, as the very act of selecting the subject liberates it from its ties to reality. The photographer is attempting to make the visible more than evidence, but a statement.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The photographer must realize and understand that when you choose a particular view, with a specific focal length lens, and put your camera in its final position - when you trip the shutter, reality has been radically changed into two dimensions, bounded by the frame you've chosen, and liberated (or literally ripped away from) the time and space in which it existed. </p>

<p > </p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p >In another way, this has to do with a science concept and something I've never clearly quantified for myself - which is "observer bias." In science, when testing is being conducted, observer bias is only looking for results or behaviors you are expecting while ignoring or failing to notice those you're not expecting. In photography, you may extend that to making images of the subject you expect to make (your ingrained reality) - while ignoring (or not seeing) the alternative images (realities) available.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p >Since photographs often have a subliminal stream of ideas, emotions, and memories - are Cindy Sherman's images less real because she chooses to invent the reality she is photographing? </p>

<p > </p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p >The image is a vehicle for meaning in its own right - beyond the simplistic task of representation. In painting, this was formalized by Cezanne who said that an artistic picture can no longer be a replica of reality, but must (in Cezanne's words) - "…create a parallel reality, which conforms to the particular laws of the medium." </p>

 

<p >If you study Robert Frank's work it is the radical subjectivity of his images that prompted Jack Kerouac to write, "To Robert Frank, I now give this message: You got eyes." Are Frank's images literal translations of reality? No - they're subjective interpretations of what he was seeing. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

 

<blockquote>

<p>What is missing in the discussions of reality, and is central to photography, is the idea put forth by Walker Evans that, "The secret of photography is, the camera takes on the character and personality of the handler. The mind works the machine."</p>

<p>Do you want blind reproductions, a "true copy" of reality with no message other than, perhaps, decorative appeal - and revealing precisely nothing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but this idea put forth by Evans must be seen in context that, for Walker Evans, photography's greatest potential as a form of art was precisily it's ability for recording fact. Looking outward instead of inward. In contrast to the Stieglitz school Evans was after the artistic potential of descriptive photography, as he saw it in the work of Atget. Evans was going after an impersonal style, marked by an " intensity of vision ", " recording with the studied indifference of an archaeologist, stripping the image of any pictorial rhethoric that would instruct the viewer how to feel. " What Evans recognized though was that this in itself also was a form of rhetoric, a <em>style</em>. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.artbook.com/0870700324.html">http://www.artbook.com/0870700324.html</a></p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>"... for Walker Evans, photography's greatest potential as a form of art was precisily it's ability for recording fact."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yet, Evans did a lot to change the facts to fit his personal viewpoint, including radically cropping the image after it was taken. In some cases he physically rearranged objects within a scene to better state his personal ideas of what the "facts" should illustrate. The idea that Evans was the master documentarian and recorder of untouched "facts" is an idea that is not true.</p>

<p>However, none of that contradicts the truth of Evans statement that the "mind controls the machine." If you understand the meaning of that statement, then you have to understand that a photograph is an extension of the mind controlling the machine and how that mind perceives its own self-defined reality.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>I think I did understand the meaning of the statement, and I don't disagree with it, but the statement must be understood in context if it's used to illustrate anything about Walker Evans' personal view or main idea towards photography on the subject of " reality vs vision". A personal view he held about photography's greatest potential being its factual descriptiveness, a view also strived after at the time when he was at his most mature point as a photographer. ( The book I linked to is a good read and deals quite extensively with this, with " Reality vs Vision " in photography and how it was approached by different photographers throughout history, from Atget to Evans to Frank to Friedlander,...)</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>I don't see anything in Evan's statement that needs to be viewed only within the context of his work - in fact, I never brought up Evans work, only his statement about the mind controlling the machine. Do you think the statement is true or not - regardless of Evans or his work? Would it have made a difference in your reaction to the statement if I said a friend of mine, Bob Smith once said....? You seem to be having a reaction to the statement because it's attributed to Evans - let's get past the point that he made the statement and made photographs - and examine the thought behind it which has a truth contained in it no matter what kind of photographs you make. </p>

<p>Because a mind is controlling the machine - is there not a reflection of that mind in the photograph? If there is, then the only reality in the photograph can be the one that the mind controlling the machine sees as its own personal reality. </p>

[charleseagan]

<p>You may be able to compare it to being a news reporter. If your article is not intended for the opinion section, then you should attempt to present the news as is, as un-biased as possible, but otherwise put a spin on it and let it represent how you feel about the subject.<br />I would say it depends on your audience.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>You may be able to compare it to being a news reporter. If your article is not intended for the opinion section, then you should attempt to present the news as is, as un-biased as possible, but otherwise put a spin on it and let it represent how you feel about the subject. I would say it depends on your audience.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If you can find a news source that is not biased through specifically including and omitting chosen pieces of information - please point me at that source. </p>

<p>With personal, creative, photography - the audience has little, if anything to do with what you put into the photograph. My personal work has nothing in common with news reportage versus the opinion section. Everything I do includes my personal view of the subject matter, from the moment it is selected through making the final print. </p>

<p>The simple act of selecting what you're going to photograph - by choice alone - elevates that subject above all of the other things you've chosen not to photograph. You're making the statement that in your opinion, that subject is worth your consideration, and if you can communicate that reason visually - then you've made that subject worthy of other people's consideration. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>I never brought up Evans work, only his statement about the mind controlling the machine. Do you think the statement is true or not -</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously there's a mind controlling the machine but that doesn't necessarily mean that the consciousness of the mind is being expressed through the use of the machine and in the resulting photograph, if that was not the minds/photographers goal in itself, like with Evans. But true, who's work or his own opinions of it isn't relevant per se in this discussion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Because a mind is controlling the machine - is there not a reflection of that mind in the photograph?</strong> If there is, then the only reality in the photograph can be the one that the mind controlling the machine sees as its own personal reality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily.But what is always there in the photograph, as a direct consequence of a mind controlling the machine, is the <em>intention of the mind</em> rather then a reflection of it. A shown intention of the mind doesn't necessarily shows us a reflection of that mind, if at all. And in photography the intention can relate as much - and only - to the descriptive language inherent to the medium, with the photograph being a " reflection of reality ", as it can relate to the expressive language of the mind, with the photograph being a " reflection of the mind ". I do agree that it can be possible that : "the only reality in the photograph can be the one that the mind controlling the machine sees as its own personal reality." But I disagree with the premise to that conclusion, as I also read the conclusion then in that there's no possibility of an actual reality ( the state of things as they actually exist ) to be shown in the photograph.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Isn't there something valuable to be learned by putting a quote in the context of who said it? If Evans makes a claim about photographs but his work shows something very different, it may say a lot about the quote. Some quotes sound good on paper, but if the ideas aren't embodied in actual photographs, then they may only work in the abstract and not in practice, possibly making the quote of limited use. I think if a quote is belied by someone's own practice, it's well worth at least considering that. The quote may work in the context of others' work, and that should also be taken into account. What I'm saying is that many things sound good . . . and that's about it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The secret of photography is, the camera takes on the character and personality of the handler." <strong>--Walker Evans</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no trouble squaring Evans's quote, which I like, with there being a distinction -- what the OP is asking about -- among various degrees of adherence to representations of reality by different photographers. It's not a question I often concern myself with, but it comes up often enough for a reason.</p>

<p>The Evans quote is true, has merit, and shows great insight. Nevertheless, our having an effect on the outcome, perspective, and character of a photograph doesn't preclude knowing what we mean when we talk about representing reality and being able to <em>strive</em> toward that.</p>

<p>I can safely say that a forensic photographer <em>strives</em> (a key word in the OP) to represent reality more than some others. I can also twist that and say even the most manipulative photographer is representing reality (his reality.) I may recognize that the forensic photographer still has a perspective and a bias and makes photographic choices. But his choices will usually favor representing straightforwardly what he sees. That has meaning and is not undermined by the Evans quote.</p>

<p>Many other photographers, even ones who approach photography more aesthetically than forensic photographers, express a desire to accurately present what they see. Even if I know some of their character and personality are imbued in the photograph, I also know what they mean and I can distinguish between photographers who strive to do that and photographers who don't.</p>

[dave_martin6]

<p>I believe it is useful to study some aspects of perceived reality to understand the complexity of the question. One important aspect is physiologically based. When a typical human observes a scene, the mind assembles a composite picture composed of many sub-pictures; one's overall field of view is about 190 degrees wide; however, of this 190 degrees less than 1/100th is sharp at any instant in time.<br>

<br /> Within the sharp, "instantaneous" (maybe 1/10 sec) field of view, dynamic range is limited to not many stops (maybe 4?). However, if you allow time enough for your eye's iris to adjust, a few stops can be added....your brain will then assemble a high dynamic range version of the physical image.<br>

<br /> Which of these "realities" would you like to record or represent?<br>

http://www.newarts.com/images/VermeerLadyWriting.jpg<br>

<br /> Vermeer's painting of a Lady Writing at an Open Window looks realistic at first glance. Look more closely - the painting's effective dynamic range is far beyond what can be seen with a blink of the eye. Still, I would call it a realistic painting as it likely is not far from what one would remember after observing the scene for a few seconds.<br>

<br /> Read up on "Human Vision"...<br>

Dave in Iowa</p>

[dave_martin6]

<p>Sorry, I did not understand how to post an image in the text of my above post. I repeat it here...<br>

I believe it is useful to study some aspects of perceived reality to understand the complexity of the question. One important aspect is physiologically based. When a typical human observes a scene, the mind assembles a composite picture composed of many sub-pictures; one's overall field of view is about 190 degrees wide; however, of this 190 degrees less than 1/100th is sharp at any instant in time.<br /> <br /> Within the sharp, "instantaneous" (maybe 1/10 sec) field of view, dynamic range is limited to not many stops (maybe 4?). However, if you allow time enough for your eye's iris to adjust, a few stops can be added....your brain will then assemble a high dynamic range version of the physical image.<br /> <br /> Which of these "realities" would you like to record or represent?<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.newarts.com/images/VermeerLadyWriting.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.newarts.com/images/VermeerLadyWriting.jpg</a> <br /> <br /> Vermeer's painting of a Lady Writing at an Open Window looks realistic at first glance. Look more closely - the painting's effective dynamic range is far beyond what can be seen with a blink of the eye. Still, I would call it a realistic painting as it likely is not far from what one would remember after observing the scene for a few seconds.<br /> <br /> Read up on "Human Vision"...<br /> Dave in Iowa</p><div></div>