"Objectivity by the viewer of the photograph is not possible because people have preconceived thoughts, emotions, and opinions, that impact the way they react to a photograph. For example, if someone were to see one of the photographs from "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" without any information about the story, where and when the photograph was taken, or any other information about the image, they would still make their own assumptions about what they are seeing. These assumptions are based upon past experiences that cause us to predict what we are seeing in the image. Because of this natural response, it is impossible for the viewer to be completely objective."
The quote above is by Kerry Cromey. Here is my question to her and to all of you:
What about photographer objectivity? Assuming that is not possible either, where does meaning, or even truth, inhere in the interface between two completely different perceptions of the same image? And where does that virtual interface exist? Is there such a thing as a meeting of minds?
If an object is photographed, the picture represents what the object is. The object is what it is- so in that sense I think it photography can be objective. If our brains could interact with other brains independent of verbal communication, I think, cognitively, they would come to the conclusion that an apple is an apple, for example. They will see the same size, color, form, ect. It is when you attempt to derive meaning about that object when our own assumptions, experiences, ect. come into play. If I am trying to describe a red apple to someone that is color blind and that has never seen an apple, each of our ideas of what an apple is will probably be very different.
I agree with student4life. As a journalism major in undergrad, I learned that the most important value to maintain (besides truth of course) is objectivity- in photos and news stories. I agree with Kerry that objectivity by the viewer is not possible, but photographer and reporter objectivity certainly is. For example, in a situation like hurricane katrina- everything that the photographer can possibly capture is truth. Where perception, judgment, and visual interface come into play is when it comes time to decide which pictures get published for the public eye, and which don't. As we discussed in class, we saw many more images of the popular and internationally known New Orleans getting news coverage than we did poor, rural Mississippi.
To play devil's advocate, I'll say that because of the photographer's limited control over lighting, cropping, shadows, exposure, filters, and even the level at which the picture is shot (higher, lower, or even with the subject), photographs could possibly appear objective, when actually, there are a lot of choices the photographer had to "tell a story."
It is impossible to approach any form of art as unobjective; the artist carries with them all of their instilled learned values, both environmental and hereditary. To simplify to gender, a man and woman would both approach the subject matter from two universally different stances; both creating different end products as a result of genetic orientation. A child and a an adult both approach subject manner in two completely different sets of equations; objectivity is seen through the eye of an artist, for their own intent and motive. The deliberate use of composition, lighting / angling decisions, shutter speed and aperture both observe unique differences that create and compose objectivity through the artist's own intent. What 1 photographer / artist may reveal by using a large depth of field (F22 to establish background and atmosphere), 1 may choose to disregard focusing only on a subject with a limited depth of field, obscurring any background or environment that give context to the photo / final product.
This comment is just for fun--but perhaps if there were standards in place that determined what constituted "objective"--for example, pictures taken from a front angle, with the camera lens at 5.5 feet off the ground, using only natural lighting, and with each photographer using the same camera/settings/printing mechanisms/paper (just for example). If that were the case, then yeah, maybe photography could be considered objective (although the "standard" would have to be determined through subjective means). But that's not the case, and as so many have already mentioned-every photo is the result of choices made by the the photographer, who determines what is photo-worthy, how closely to zoom in on its subject, whether b/w or color would be more appropriate, whether to print on glossy or matte paper, with or without a white border...the list goes on and on. It seems to me that very few things (if any) that require human involvement can be considered purely objective.
As a society, we like to think of editiorial and/or documentary photography as objective and creative photography as subjective. This is not the case. No matter the subject at hand, the photographer has the power to skew your thought process one way or the other. Do you think during two months of research, Agee and Walker did not see a single child playing, laughing or smiling during their trip? They may have even captured this moment in a photo. But if this photo would have been selected we may not have felt as bad for this group of people as we do, or maybe just maybe we would have had the same impression and remembered the innocence of the child and how he or she is unaware of the conditions in which they live.
But the truth is, there is not a single child smiling in the entire series of photographs in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. And I for one, can not seem to find that objective.
While photography has widely been championed as fundamentally objective, used to validate both art and science, using photography as a medium to document 'reality' seems as asinine as relying on CNN to inform you about 'what's really happening' in Iraq. Excuse my controversial tone. As a photographer, every composition I create is laced with my discretion, each photograph is touched and manipulated by my choices. I thought this quote is on point:
“In photography you can never express yourself directly, only through optics, the physical and chemical processes. It is this sort of submission to the object and abnegation of yourself that is exactly what pleases me about photography. What is extraordinary is that, despite this submission and abnegation, the personality of the photographer shines through all the obstacles. In the end, images convey personality just as strongly as in a drawing.” (Brassai, quoted in Paul Hill and Thomas Cooper, Dialogue with Photography, New York: Aperture, 1982, pp. 40-41.)
Photo-journalism is a nice segue into the debate of photography as "truth," a claim you can oft hear touted in news media. Not to say that photographs cannot capture a moment, but the moment is always removed from its context, given a new name and a new meaning. Who's to say how the photographer manipulated his subject through language, facial expressions, body language, sounds, persuasion and choice of composition. ('to include or not to include?')
In my humble opinion, anything touched or created by humans lacks objectivity including science, journalism and documentary film. 'Truth' is a sensitive issue, as is 'objectivity,' and as postmodern theories drift into popular rhetoric, objectivity becomes null and void- it becomes an unattainable condition that humans will never fully grasp.
9 comments:
"Objectivity by the viewer of the photograph is not possible because people have preconceived thoughts, emotions, and opinions, that impact the way they react to a photograph. For example, if someone were to see one of the photographs from "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" without any information about the story, where and when the photograph was taken, or any other information about the image, they would still make their own assumptions about what they are seeing. These assumptions are based upon past experiences that cause us to predict what we are seeing in the image. Because of this natural response, it is impossible for the viewer to be completely objective."
The quote above is by Kerry Cromey. Here is my question to her and to all of you:
What about photographer objectivity? Assuming that is not possible either, where does meaning, or even truth, inhere in the interface between two completely different perceptions of the same image? And where does that virtual interface exist? Is there such a thing as a meeting of minds?
If an object is photographed, the picture represents what the object is. The object is what it is- so in that sense I think it photography can be objective. If our brains could interact with other brains independent of verbal communication, I think, cognitively, they would come to the conclusion that an apple is an apple, for example. They will see the same size, color, form, ect. It is when you attempt to derive meaning about that object when our own assumptions, experiences, ect. come into play. If I am trying to describe a red apple to someone that is color blind and that has never seen an apple, each of our ideas of what an apple is will probably be very different.
I agree with student4life. As a journalism major in undergrad, I learned that the most important value to maintain (besides truth of course) is objectivity- in photos and news stories. I agree with Kerry that objectivity by the viewer is not possible, but photographer and reporter objectivity certainly is. For example, in a situation like hurricane katrina- everything that the photographer can possibly capture is truth. Where perception, judgment, and visual interface come into play is when it comes time to decide which pictures get published for the public eye, and which don't. As we discussed in class, we saw many more images of the popular and internationally known New Orleans getting news coverage than we did poor, rural Mississippi.
To play devil's advocate, I'll say that because of the photographer's limited control over lighting, cropping, shadows, exposure, filters, and even the level at which the picture is shot (higher, lower, or even with the subject), photographs could possibly appear objective, when actually, there are a lot of choices the photographer had to "tell a story."
It is impossible to approach any form of art as unobjective; the artist carries with them all of their instilled learned values, both environmental and hereditary.
To simplify to gender, a man and woman would both approach the subject matter from two universally different stances; both creating different end products as a result of genetic orientation.
A child and a an adult both approach subject manner in two completely different sets of equations; objectivity is seen through the eye of an artist, for their own intent and motive.
The deliberate use of composition, lighting / angling decisions, shutter speed and aperture both observe unique differences that create and compose objectivity through the artist's own intent. What 1 photographer / artist may reveal by using a large depth of field (F22 to establish background and atmosphere), 1 may choose to disregard focusing only on a subject with a limited depth of field, obscurring any background or environment that give context to the photo / final product.
This comment is just for fun--but perhaps if there were standards in place that determined what constituted "objective"--for example, pictures taken from a front angle, with the camera lens at 5.5 feet off the ground, using only natural lighting, and with each photographer using the same camera/settings/printing mechanisms/paper (just for example). If that were the case, then yeah, maybe photography could be considered objective (although the "standard" would have to be determined through subjective means). But that's not the case, and as so many have already mentioned-every photo is the result of choices made by the the photographer, who determines what is photo-worthy, how closely to zoom in on its subject, whether b/w or color would be more appropriate, whether to print on glossy or matte paper, with or without a white border...the list goes on and on. It seems to me that very few things (if any) that require human involvement can be considered purely objective.
As a society, we like to think of editiorial and/or documentary photography as objective and creative photography as subjective. This is not the case. No matter the subject at hand, the photographer has the power to skew your thought process one way or the other. Do you think during two months of research, Agee and Walker did not see a single child playing, laughing or smiling during their trip? They may have even captured this moment in a photo. But if this photo would have been selected we may not have felt as bad for this group of people as we do, or maybe just maybe we would have had the same impression and remembered the innocence of the child and how he or she is unaware of the conditions in which they live.
But the truth is, there is not a single child smiling in the entire series of photographs in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. And I for one, can not seem to find that objective.
While photography has widely been championed as fundamentally objective, used to validate both art and science, using photography as a medium to document 'reality' seems as asinine as relying on CNN to inform you about 'what's really happening' in Iraq. Excuse my controversial tone. As a photographer, every composition I create is laced with my discretion, each photograph is touched and manipulated by my choices. I thought this quote is on point:
“In photography you can never express yourself directly, only through optics, the physical and chemical processes. It is this sort of submission to the object and abnegation of yourself that is exactly what pleases me about photography. What is extraordinary is that, despite this submission and abnegation, the personality of the photographer shines through all the obstacles. In the end, images convey personality just as strongly as in a drawing.” (Brassai, quoted in Paul Hill and Thomas Cooper, Dialogue with Photography, New York: Aperture, 1982, pp. 40-41.)
Photo-journalism is a nice segue into the debate of photography as "truth," a claim you can oft hear touted in news media. Not to say that photographs cannot capture a moment, but the moment is always removed from its context, given a new name and a new meaning. Who's to say how the photographer manipulated his subject through language, facial expressions, body language, sounds, persuasion and choice of composition. ('to include or not to include?')
In my humble opinion, anything touched or created by humans lacks objectivity including science, journalism and documentary film. 'Truth' is a sensitive issue, as is 'objectivity,' and as postmodern theories drift into popular rhetoric, objectivity becomes null and void- it becomes an unattainable condition that humans will never fully grasp.
Post a Comment