Well I suppose we would have to define what 'lie' means in the sense of a
camera. If we assume that the camera only reports what light variations it
recieved, then the statement would be true. But if we attribute the subjective
human perspective to what the camera reports, it lies all the time. How many
times has a photo been snapped and the picture taker say that the photo does
not resemble what they saw?
I think you have to know your 'camera' (to include lens, light, film and
processor) to make the outcome speak your vision, which may be the truth -or
not. Isn't it more difficult to achieve the 'truth' we saw on film? If we could
capture that visible magic easily, would there be anything special about it?
The 'camera' has no soul of its own. As such it is not truthful or a liar any
more than a brush, pencil or clay. I don't think a photographer has the right
to claim the '...approach to nature in a spirit of inquiry, of communion...'
any more than the painter or sculptor. It isn't the tool or medium that creates
the art. It's the human perspective and talent directing available tools and
mediums.
-Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: Doggre@xxxxxxx
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: [OM] Cameras Don't Lie
"Only with effort can the camera be forced to lie. Basically it is an honest
medium, so the photographer is much more likely to approach nature in a spirit
of inquiry, of communion, instead of with the saucy swagger of self-dubbed
"artists".
Susan Sontag
Rich
|