From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/08/03-11:25:30 AM Z
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Clay wrote:
> My hastily expressed opinion at yesterday's meeting was that digital
> photo technology has removed the very idea of objective truth from
> photography altogether, since nearly any damn thing can be done in
> photoshop. So maybe we are being freed to do whatever we want, with
> whatever process we want, in the pursuit of a 2 dimensional
> representation of an idea, thought or feeling, in somewhat the same way
> that the invention of the camera freed painters from the strictures of
> objective realism. ... cut
I think this discussion has failed to make a crucial distinction -- that's
between "art" and journalism. Fred Ritchin's book of 1990, "In Our Own
Image: The Coming Revolution in Photography," dwells at some length on the
loss of credibility for news photographs sure to come with the digital
"revolution." In fact this has not happened, or not any more acutely than
in the past (after all didn't the soviet union airbrush out apparachiks no
longer in favor?).
The reason I believe is VERY strict oversight by the newspapers
themselves... a recent case at, as I recall, the LA Times, being
instructive. The photographer simply combined two photographs taken of the
same scene at the same time simply to improve the composition. When this
was discovered, he was fired.
As for "lying" in "art" photography, it's always been done, often by
rephotographing a composite -- there are books and books of instructions.
It's just easier now -- assuming you have the digital equipment & patience
to climb the learning curve.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST