on 2005/02/10 12:22 AM, Moose at olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> - To what extent is the photographer *trying* to tell the truth?
>> (Even if they compose, remove irrelevant distractions, burn/dodge,
>> etc, and of course it's a judgement whether these things interfere
>> with the essential truth of what's shown.)
>>
> And what IS truth? I sit down with my mom and brothers and we reminisce
> about past family events. The only thing is, we all remember them
> differently...
>> - If there has been a serious departure from reality, has the viewer been
>> informed?
>>
> And what IS reality...
New Age aside, there's a world of difference between trying to tell one's
version of the truth, and lying. Just look at Tony Blair... [Mandatory OT
content. :-)]
>> If not, are they liable to draw important conclusions from the image that are
>> wrong? That is, would they feel lied to if they found out?
>>
> Wonderful! Now the continuum from 'pure' photography to 'pure' graphic
> art has been conjoined with a moral continuum. Can fist fights be far
> behind? :-)
It's always up to us. And "moral" is not a dirty word, nor are morals
necessarily received from a burning Bush.
:-)
Andrew
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|