Truth

[AJHingel]

<p>I was asked about my reaction to the Milton Greene shot of Marilyne Monroe. <br>

I might be a wrong person to ask. I have not been involved in the myth around her and have mostly not particularly appreciated her films and surely not her singing. I have never found her especially beautiful neither. A question of taste and cultural background maybe. I see therefor the photo of Milton Greene with a certain distance. <br>

<br>

I can surely appreciate the beautiful composition of the photo and I love the negative space, but I mostly see the figure of Marilyne Monroe as a posture, a pose probably following the instructions of the photographer. I therefore feel, that the photo is a continuation of the myth of the actrice (small, frail, vulnerable, somewhat lost and a discrete glamour), more than a photo of an individual, whether or not some of the same characteristics fit to the person. In fact it is quite difficult to shoot the person without contributing to the myth. "Truth" is not a term I would use in this connection. Maybe it is too far fetched to see the black space as a sign of hope for an end to the myth now more than half a century after her death. Other myths have lived on much longer, I must admit.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Part of the person, and an important part of the person who Marilyn was, is the persona and the myth, the pose, the posture, the body, the face. It is a "fact" that she was directed, handled, and consumed. Why would all that not be part of the truth about her?</p>

<p>The photo also conveys important truths about a particular era and about Hollywood.</p>

<p>In some cases, the candid shot can be the biggest lie of all. I imagine there are photos, for example, of Richard Nixon playing with Checkers and his kids in the backyard that are unstaged and unposed and about as far from the truth about the man as one could get.</p>

<p>It certainly seems reasonable that one might prefer or want a different sort of picture and a different sort of truth to be shown (also). Except for very rare cases, no one portrait is ever enough. A lone portrait has the ability to tell truths. It will rarely tell THE truth.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Ilia - "Honestly, Charles, what in you opinion such a statment as 1+1=2 is lacking in to be classified as absolute truth?",</p>

<p>Here goes: Paulos interpreting Kurt Gödel's first and second incompleteness theorems in <em>Beyond Innumeracy</em></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>...any formal system of mathematics that includes a modicum of arithmetic is incomplete. There will always be true statements that will be neither provable nor disprovable within the system no matter how elaborate it is.</p>

<p>...his second incompleteness theorem states that no reasonable system of mathematics can demonstrate its own consistency. We an only assume the consistency of such a system; we can't prove it without making assumptions even stronger than that of consistency.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am a layman. I can't read Gödel. So correct me at will, here goes.</p>

<p>Making a statement like 1 = 1 only makes sense within the context of a reasonable system of mathematics that, according to Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, can't demonstrate its own consistency and still claim to be reasonable. If a reasonable system of mathematics claimed an ability to demonstrate its own consistency: it wouldn't be a reasonable system of mathematics. So, we can't have 1 + 1 = 2 without the assumption that 1 = 1. The statement that 1 = 1 is an assumption for convenience, isn't it? In the world of objects: where might we find one thing that is the equal of another? Things are different in the very least as to the point they occupy, don't even share the same time because they don't occupy the same space. Assigning a number to an object is a representation of reality within a formal system of thought, an abstraction of reality. Any formal system of mathematics, to be reasonable, must contain a subjective assumption. Nevertheless, we must make an assumption in order to have a reasonable system of thought.</p>

<p>The idea that 1 + 1 = 2 is a cherished belief; we can't be reasonable and claim otherwise. At least, that is how I read a Gödel interpreter. Like I say, correct me if I am wrong. I would appreciate the help, I've been struggling with 1 = 1 since I first heard it in elementary school. Everybody acts like 1 = 1, but to me that always seemed like a convenience, the road to hell being paved with good intentions.</p>

<p>In other words, 1 = 1 only at singularity. After that it is a crap shoot (as in dice with the universe).</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>Ilia "Dramatic photos from war can be better described as adequate emotional and/or informational message or otherwise better term can be found/applied."</p>

<p>Half jokingly a better term might be infomercial, but the word infomercial is crass.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Ilia -"What if NG shot was staged?"</p>

<p>Aren't all photographs staged in one way or another? That 'fact' makes photographs more or less true, different true, and something else.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>""A lone portrait has the ability to tell truths""<br>

<br>

Or just be part of the lie. You need more photos to tell the whole lie. This type of photography is rarely one or the other, lie or truth, ambiguity is mostly what is present, as Fred mentioned earlier. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, I don't think many of us cherish portraits of those we love because they provide us with ambiguity.</p>

<p>I think ambiguities can add to the reach, flavor, and effectiveness of a portrait because we are all, IN PART, puzzles to each other anyway, so ambiguity captures something real about the human condition. But a good portrait is about something much more than just ambiguity. It's also about more than truth or lies. We just happen to be discussing truth here, but I would never reduce a portrait to just that.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Also, when quoting, it's important to quote enough in order not to skew the original point being made. Here's the complete quote which I think makes a very different point from the partial quote you provided.</p>

<p><em>"A lone portrait has the ability to tell truths. It will rarely tell THE truth."</em></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, like I said above, I really don't think we disagree all that much, unless we are looking to do so for some reason. The quote in its full form actually already embraces the sense of ambiguity. That a lone portrait has the ability to tell truths and not THE truth would suggest that it leaves stuff out and is, therefore, at least in part, ambiguous.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ilia, staging is a very important aspect of all art and a lot of photography. Staging rarely suggests a lack of truth. Well, I shouldn't say that. A lot of people do assume that if something is staged rather than candid it can't express truth. I disagree with that assumption. Like most things, it depends on the intent, the execution, and the final product. Things can be staged to deceive, they can be staged to emphasize and/or recreate, they can be staged to create and express as in the truths we get from good theater. The great thing about truth is how many and varied are the routes to it.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Ilia - "I would think the term truth as used on this thread is vocabular mistake."</p>

<p>Truth as a word has a lot of meanings and contexts.</p>

<p>Fred - "That a lone portrait has the ability to tell truths and not THE truth would suggest that it leaves stuff out and is, therefore, at least in part, ambiguous."</p>

<p>Part of the ambiguity in a portrait is that its hard to know of ourselves or others who/what/how/where/why/when the true person is. We have impressions and make them.</p>

<p>Fred - "Do you ever feel truth instead of or in addition to knowing it?"</p>

<p>Which I interpret as a question about how do we "know". Personally I get most of my information through introverted intuition. Intuition feels right, but is often just plain wrong. The most irritating thing for thinking types who know me is that I often have absolutely no reason for being right. Intuition isn't a reliable way of knowing anything so I have to be dismissive of 'felt' truths to survive.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>One of my favorite forum participants, Luis, who's been inactive for a while, used to speak of the importance of "micro-expressions" and how many of them can whiz by in the course of a photo shoot or a moment. I can relate well to what you're saying about impressions we have of people.</p>

<p>Another thing to consider is that many portraits, in addition to or instead of being about the individual who is the so-called "subject", are also about expression per se and humanity in general. We can relate to portraits of people we don't know because we recognize things in them that we see in others and in ourselves.</p>

<p>Sometimes, we are even fooled by portraits, thinking that we know the essence of the person pictured when, instead, we are being shown something significantly human and relatable that we may then have a tendency to project onto the person whose likeness is in the portrait.</p>

<p>It's also possible, ironically, to catch someone NOT being themselves, so a viewer can be fooled into thinking he's seeing something more characteristic of the person than it actually is.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Which I interpret as a question about how do we 'know'."</em></p>

<p>Only in part. It was more intended as a question about how we relate to the world and to truth in other ways besides through knowledge.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Fred - "Only in part. It was more intended as a question about how we relate to the world and to truth in other ways besides through knowledge."</p>

<p>I don't know but somehow that can all come together for a photographer in making a photographic statement. Anyone felt it all come together for them in a particular picture, whether theirs or another's?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Anyone felt it all come together"</em></p>

<p>I'm not sure what you mean by "it all" coming together?</p>

<p>For me, photography is first and foremost a visual and a sensual experience. So, the combination of thought, sense, gut, and emotion do come together when photographing and through photographs, to varying degrees.</p>

<p>As for photographic statements, I tend to make them and find them more in series or bodies of works than in individual photos. I'm not sure if you mean by photographic statement something that leans toward the literal or propositional. Looking through some of my work, I chose <a href="/photo/11680731&size=lg">THIS ONE</a> as a statement photo, though I think the statement is different, stronger, and more comprehensible within the context of my overall work than it would be taken strictly individually.</p>

<p>In terms of another photographer, I always thought <a href="http://mirrormirror.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c7dce53ef01630632dd5b970d-pi">THIS ONE</a>, by Leibovitz, made a statement, and an amusing one at that.</p>

<p>Stieglitz's <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Alfred_Stieglitz_%28American_-_The_Steerage_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg">STEERAGE</a> is a good statement photo, both in terms of politics and in terms of photography as a medium and an art.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>By using the word statement I was avoiding using the word truth, looking for examples of photos more broadly. "All come together": you've said it with "combination of thought, sense, gut, and emotion". And thank you for your examples and explanations.</p>

<p>It's an exception when I add meaning to a photograph at the time I take it. Here's one where I had intention: <a href="/photo/14270713">http://www.photo.net/photo/14270713</a>. (The series tells the story of Spike's demise and how I felt about the feral cat. Spike didn't have a chance man, although he might really have been taken by a Cooper's Hawk, also an ambush predator). So to attempt my answer to your question of 'felt' and knowledge: I'm not sure what precise meaning there is in Spike hanging out with doves, but I <em>feel</em> the meaning without being able to say what it is. I wouldn't even want to try words out on it. Whatever truth or meaning or statement is expressed visually in that photo: I think it would be diminished or compromised beyond repair with words.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<p>f/5.6 lets in four times as much light as f/11.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, I agree on a couple of fronts.</p>

<p>The photographic statements don't always translate to words, but seem to have a visual/sensual/emotional/intellectual gestalt that sort of takes over. It's a bit like the rhythms found in music. How would one adequately describe them if they could only use words?</p>

<p>And you said something important, which helps avoid a frequent misunderstanding.<em> "It's an exception when I add meaning to a photograph at the time I take it."</em> When we talk about meaning, statement, interpretation, truth, etc. it's often assumed that we've intentionally considered all that as we're taking the shot or even post processing the shot. Not necessarily, though sometimes this stuff is considered during the process or even in advance of it. More often, it's what results from a natural and flowing process. Meaning can be imparted in so many ways without it being deliberate or specified in advance. It is also, to a great extent, contextual.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Dan - "f/5.6 lets in four times as much light as f/11."</p>

<p>Approximately, but for all intents and purposes that is a good rule of thumb. ;)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Re: the photo of Spike with the doves, and the series . . .</p>

<p>Very moving photo, including the depth of field, overall play of focus between spike and the doves, the way posture and color suggest your relationship to Spike and the tricky environment of the "spiked" fence on which they're perched. Something ominous seems to be looming, but Spike right here seems to be emerging as heroic. There's a lot in this photo that is beyond words, that depends on the visual, on atmospherics, on intangible qualities. It does seem one of those photos where a lot came together.</p>

<p>From the series, I don't get his demise and relationship to the cat. Not seeing them in the same frame may be part of that, but maybe there are reasons for that. I'm not perceiving the cat as menacing, though there seems the most potential for that in <a href="/photo/14126053&size=lg">THIS</a> shot.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Thanks Fred, I appreciate that. And in the series, as in reality, whether the cat ate Spike just isn't known. I have my suspicions, and because of that ominous lack of closure I set aside what had been my plans for a children's book. Instead Spike is eulogized.</p>

<p>I know neither for how long he was able to live his natural and intended life among his wild cousins, nor how old he might have become. All I do know is that for exquisite and incomparable moments he was free. The cage abandoned, he used that freedom not solely for his own will. Instead Spike made many friends. He adopted a flock, more so than they having adopted him, and he became their early warning system. Though the flock measured their own distance from Spike, Spike nevertheless was always first to call the alarm and take flight from danger, whether that danger came from the air or from the ground. Spike devoted himself not just to his own safety, but to the safety of his entire group.</p>

<p>We don't know how Spike spent what were to be the final hours of his short life. We can imagine that day to have been for him like any other. Rising with the sun to preen with his compatriots and exchange greetings, ever watchfully searching for sustenance and moisture, and enjoying the long breaks he gave himself during his busy day: these acts were the fabric of his typical day.</p>

<p>All I know for certain is that Spike is gone, his watchfulness silenced, his chirping stilled forever. Somewhere a broken hearted child grieved for Spike having found his freedom. To that child I say, Spike lived on. I too can grieve for Spike's passing from my life. Yet Spike lives on in the gift he left us, the gift of his example to us of a life well lived.</p>

<p>To Spike: <a href="/photo/14275923">http://www.photo.net/photo/14275923</a></p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Truth</p>

<p>Is it a truth we exist on a burning ember travelling through space as a fungus consuming ourselves? Life is really really very similar on the genetic level.. so, how really different from a banana are we. Similar genetics. Yes, we claim we are self aware.</p>

<p>Does a God exist to give purpose and belief to this cannibal fungus which feeds on itself. Probability will argue that there is no proof for existence or non existence only speculation. So, probability would say belief is the logical choice. Hell could not be a pleasant experience.</p>

<p>A photograph holds a truth to the viewer and photographer very dependent on their individual perception of truth.</p>

<p>A story being told which relates to a truth as they see it, invokes emotions, feelings, and a journey to a higher place. Perhaps touching the skirts of God as some might see it.</p>

<p>A few thoughts.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"So, probability would say belief is the logical choice."</em></p>

<p>An interesting and challenging proposition. </p>

<p>Many believers in God seem to prefer faith to logic, so yours is a different approach.</p>

<p>I'm very respectful of those with faith in God. Logical approaches to God, on the other hand, seem not to work (for me).</p>

<p><em>"Is it a truth we exist on a burning ember travelling through space as a fungus consuming ourselves?"</em></p>

<p>A case can be made for the truth of the first part of your statement. "Fungus consuming ourselves" seems more of a metaphor and more opinion than truth.</p>

<p><em>"Does a God exist to give purpose and belief to this cannibal fungus which feeds on itself."</em></p>

<p>My answer is no. I appreciate that others' is yes.</p>

<p><em>"Probability will argue that there is no proof for existence or non existence only speculation. So, probability would say belief is the logical choice."</em></p>

<p>By the same reasoning, disbelief would be as logical a choice. But, as I said, I don't think this is a matter of logic and prefer the realm of faith, which I find rich with its own creativity and rewards.</p>

<p><em>"Hell could not be a pleasant experience."</em></p>

<p>Certainly one approach to it. I like what Mark Twain and William Shakespeare have to say about it.</p>

<p><em>"Go to heaven for the climate, hell for the company."</em> <strong>--Twain</strong></p>

<p><em>"Hell is empty and all the devils are here."</em> <strong>--Shakespeare</strong></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>By the way, Allen, I'm curious to know why you brought hell into the discussion. As far as I can remember, it wasn't being discussed and you didn't mention it in your OP. How does it relate to the discussion in your mind?</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Allen - "A story being told which relates to a truth as they see it, invokes emotions, feelings, and a journey to a higher place. Perhaps touching the skirts of God as some might see it."</p>

<p>I had to come down a notch or two to appreciate the fullness in a small bird's life. Story, an element of the best photography: I think moves us and we don't know why, can't explain why.</p>