Can there be a concept of 'An Honest Photograph'.

[luis_g]

<p>Fred, thank you for the kind words and the close reading of my story.</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>So, honesty is about trying really, really, really, really hard to say what you want to say.</p>

<p>But, dishonesty is also about trying really, really, really, really hard to say what you want to say.</p>

<p>Hmmmm ....</p>

[lightwait]

<p>No, there can't.<br>

This is a categorical error.<br>

Honesty applied to images is projecting human motives onto something that has no agency.<br>

But let's not pretend. We do say a picture may deceive a viewer, but a reordering of the words conveys sense better: A viewer may be deceived by an image. This way, the actual conceptual work gets done by the corresponding concepts: Person deceived, image viewed.<br>

But really, there is nothing wrong with talking about images deceiving. This is how we use language -- metaphorically.<br>

But to actually take the further step and to speak of honesty as something inherent in an image, is to subtly shift into a different language gear. When you ask the question, it's as if you are shifting into a more technical level, a more serious level. You are attempting to say something more general or more regular about images. But if you don't take note of the metaphoric projections prior to the down shift, they're likely to follow you there. :-)</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>Photography is a selective medium, it isn't about reality it's about illusion.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>Yes they can be 'honest' so long as the intent of the photographer remains equally honest. I shoot zoo animals but never pass them off as animals in the wild (I sometimes wish there was a different category for such a genre but anyway that's another story). Honesty in photography is subjective at best, of course not just because of the manipulated composition (which I believe you're eluding to Stephen) but also with the 'choice' of images used to express a concept, subject matter or event.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Honesty in photography is subjective at best</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends what kind of honesty you're talking about, deosn't it, Art? I can understand how emotional honesty would be subjective. One could easily miss another photographer baring his soul and so that kind of honesty could be subjective. The kind of honesty you're talking about, not passing off zoo photos as photos taken in the wild, doesn't seem subjective to me. </p>

<p>Much about photos and art is subjective, especially <em>taste</em>. Much about photos and art is not subjective. Photojournalistic honesty and accuracy are not subjective. They pertain to facts that can be objectively verified. Most should agree that a shot of a zoo animal is not shot in the wild. Opinions might vary. Opinions can be wrong and often are. Subjectivity can be a very bad excuse for simply not getting it or for being dishonest with oneself and others.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>"Subjectivity can be a very bad excuse for simply not getting it or for being dishonest with oneself and others."</p>

<p>Fred, I agree with your comment completely. isThat type of subjectivity evident both in the photographer and as it is in the viewer/ critic here in photonet. I was going to suggest photojournalism remains the last bastion of "honest photography" in an objective sense but then I am reminded of the editor back in the office who picks and chooses what to publicise and so can inadvertently force the photographers hand in WHAT they photograph and the viewers perception of the world. I know this is playing the devil's advocate but I see subjective photojournalism in many newspapers and online, only to find out through proper research there are many sides to the coin.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, photojournalism is not exactly a bastion of honesty, due to agendas, bias, corporate and financial interests. But, at least to some extent, it can be deemed honest or dishonest. One can verify what one sees in a photo in the newspaper by reading and looking at various accounts, eventually putting together a more accurate picture of what actually took place. Sometimes the photojournalistic honesty we seek only comes about by <em>uncovering and neutralizing the prejudice and point of view</em>. That's what I mean by "objective." With emotional honesty, on the other hand, it's precisely the point of view we want. When we feel someone is giving us their perspective, their feelings about what they're photographing or their feelings coming through the photograph, especially raw or from the gut, then we feel we've experienced their honesty. That's why, when talking about honesty, it makes all the difference in the world which kind of honesty we're talking about, IMO. Emotional honesty sort of demands individual perspective, a kind of closeness, intimacy. Newsworthy honesty seems to demand a more distanced and neutral approach, to the extent possible.</p>