Reality vs Vision

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>I saw an interesting painting the other day - it was an old fashioned country lane with cottages on both sides. Down the centre the painter had painted a line of electricity poles..... I'm sure they would have come out had it been a photograph.</p>

[ceesmaas]

<p>Douglas,</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>The first thing the photographer does is take a whole dimension away from reality. He makes a two dimensional image of a 3d-situation. And if that's not enough, he steals all the colors away, if he chooses so. Or he saturates the original colors. He was in a real situation with real smells, real wind or real rain, and he ends up with a flatten image of what (seemed to be) reality. An accurately representation is therefore impossible. Of course that depends on one's interpretation of 'accurately'.</p>

[Art X Photography]

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

<p>I think in answering that question one needs to make a distinction between a photographer (in the clinical sense) and an artist (who uses photography as a medium for their artistic expression), and of course between the two lies the photojournalism which, although claims to be an objective observer, cannot help but be governed by their own moral interpretation.<br>

Like Fred, I believe our interpretation of reality is guided by cultural forces (at least that's what I think he's suggesting) but also by social and historical influences as well. That's not to make one's reality any more significant or accurate than another's, but it is to say that the reality that surrounds us can, and is, interpreted subjectively (I'm not suggesting that I see the sky as black when in fact it's blue, and I'm not talking about surrealism either).<br>

So the reality we see around us can be photographed accurately but that doesn't mean we should strive to do so in a clinical/forensic way. I think we can present a photograph accurately in it's context but individually in it's composition. Our emotions or moods can influence the time of day we choose to photograph, capturing different angles and light. It can influence the level of editing we perform in the digital dark room. However, as observers of that work we can also interpret it differently and so the reality the photographer intended may vary from the reality the viewer interprets. Even photojournalism relies on the photographer's ethics and moral judgments to capture the 'story' that will make news and not necessarily the reality that exists in that scene.<br>

Forensic photography does capture reality in it's most accurate form (I use the term "accurate" as intended by the initial question posted by Douglas) however beyond that I don't see individual interpretation of reality as being any less accurate. The initial question posted suggests there is a generic 'holly grail' of reality a photographer should strive to achieve....I much rather subscribe to the view that individual interpretation or reality is what defines us as a photographer</p>

[lemaclemac]

<p>There is no "should". We all do what we want, the results are immensely varied. Calling a picture beautiful,<br>

soulful, artistic, ugly, haunting etc. are just subjective judgements. We take what we want - some may enjoy, others<br>

not. Enough of this philosophical claptrap! </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Enough of this philosophical claptrap!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Welcome to the Philosophy of Photography Forum. It's here for the claptrap....</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>"Enough of this philosophical claptrap!"<br>

exactly what part of philosophy of photography forum dont you get george????</p>

[bmm]

<p>I sometimes think we have these discussions upside down.</p>

<p>Because we start with an assumption that it is the photographer who is the primary focus of the 'reality' vs 'interpretation' choice-continuum. My own view is that the end viewer is massively under-played in this discussion.</p>

<p>To use the quote above, if a <em>'camera takes on the personality of the handler'</em> then surely, largely, the <em>'image takes on the personality of the viewer'</em>...</p>

[geobeo]

<p>I am enjoying your discussion here and I must say I don't find that on the other forums. Keep it up please!<br /> Let's have a look at what the ultimate searchers of reality have to say about it - of course I refer to nothing else as <strong>"science"</strong> .<br>

<br /> <strong>Biology</strong> : As <strong>Dave Martin</strong> has pointed out, the functioning of the human eye is special and gives a hint how the human creature cuts out parts of the outer world - intriguingly similar to cameras, like Dave said.<br /> On a more general note, there is the notion of <strong>Autopoiesis</strong> (self-creation) in biology as a denominator of any living creature (including grumpy men with cameras). This concept involves restriction of perception down to a few narrow channels, which allows the creature to reduce complexity of the outer world and finding a niche (a way) to exist.<br /> <br /> In that regard I could say yes there is one truth and I am perfectly happy with it - if I only hadn't read the damn science articles (not to mention the endless rabbiting in here :-)<br>

<br /> <img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_D3dHgYjxWxo/SKcrQlDBwvI/AAAAAAAACks/ianI47FPHtg/s576/_IGP2756x.jpg" alt="" width="576" height="427" /> <br /> The truth lies in the hands of the beholder<br /> <br /> To be continued with of course <strong>philosophy, gender studies, sociology, theology, art studies</strong> <br /> Greetings from Georg (beholder of the universal truth)</p>

[aplumpton]

 

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=5597271"><em>Douglas Weldon</em></a><em> </em><a rel="nofollow" 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>

Perhaps neither. A lot of the discussion focusses on what is reality and limitations of its interpretation.

 

 

 

A third possibility is to take reality or a mental or machine (camera) perception of reality as simply a starting point or a constraint and to construct something wholly different.

 

 

 

Photography, like a painter's brush, palette and canvass, is a tool to create. No need to try to represent reality if what you wish to do is to create an image which communicates what you want to say to the world (or a part thereof).

 

 

No need to be constrained by reality.

</blockquote>

 

[george_elsasser]

<p>From my perspective I think an individual photographer should strive to do what is meaningful to them as an individual. If I understand the question as it was intended.<br /> <br /> For a "documentary photograph" in the purist sense of the word I would imagine a photographer would try to create the most pure view possible. They would exercise every opportunity to make the final image's portrayal of light (mimic [although impossible] the range of light we see by keeping shadows open and so on) and view (probably a 50mm lens if the camera is 35mm) come as close as possible to our ideas about what we see. I hope this makes sense - difficult at best to put into words because of the endless plasticity of words such as reality and so forth. Although a documentary photographer could just as easily manipulate many of these opportunities to get their point across whether or not they see their point of view as objective or subjective.<br /> <br /> It is certainly a great question to pose and for me as a photographer a photograph is never reality regardless of it's "purity". To me its always an interpretive language open with endless possibilities and this is why it has held my interest for so long. A <a href="http://george-elsasser.blogspot.com/2009/10/road-and-sky.html">teacher</a> (where paragraph starts so the idea was) of mine said what he thought was most interesting was photography's ability to lie. This was long before PS and digital.<br /> <br /> Ansel Adams who many would consider conservative at least in his subject matter said, "The negative is the score and the print is the performance". If I look closely at his prints I find many of them highly interpretive from what was before the camera (to my experience) or how my eye sees. Often he would emphasize certain potential abstract qualities presented to him in the original scene through much darkroom manipulation. So for me anyway I always like to keep in mind a photograph is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional reality at best. Depending on the image maker some photographers prints (and exposures) move different degrees from somewhat realistic to highly abstracted depending on their ideas, hopes or aspirations about which they want to present.</p>

[george_elsasser]

<blockquote>

 

<p>I sometimes think we have these discussions upside down.<br>

Because we start with an assumption that it is the photographer who is the primary focus of the 'reality' vs 'interpretation' choice-continuum. My own view is that the end viewer is massively under-played in this discussion.To use the quote above, if a <em>'camera takes on the personality of the handler'</em> then surely, largely, the <em>'image takes on the personality of the viewer'</em> ...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is an exceptional point, but would add the personality of the viewer at least in terms of looking at photographs can be altered as he or she learns more about the practice of looking at photographs say through formal education, individual study or even a practice such as meditation.</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>