I was not surprised that photography has been manipulated throughout the years, even in most recent, famous photographs; even if not known, it’s still expected. However, I think that to really analyze what photography is, one must look at the more general category in which photography lays: communication. Communication is the key to a society, as it shapes not only the spread of ideas, but also the development of an individual. But it is never perfect. News broadcasts, magazine articles, commercials, and other modern forms of media give people impressions of how life exists on the world and how it is “supposed” to be. Because of this powerful amount of influence, one would think that the messages should be as factual and unbiased as possible. Realistically, however, it is well known that such sources of information often as purposefully skewed for entertainment, monetary, and political reasons.
But is photography different? Well, no. Framing comes into question, color, angle, etc. What about what's happening behind the camera. There's countless issues. Even word of mouth, which is and has always been regarded as one of the most trustworthy forms of communication, suffers to flaws that exist even in speech. The game of “telephone” has taught us that certainly sufficiently. Even a mechanical issue like background noise or stuttering could affect the message.
The bottom line is that all forms of communication fail to work. One could even point out that converting an idea or emotion into words or expressions is, in itself, faulty. What we need to focus on more than whether or not something exists as a perfect representation of reality is how to critical think and judge ideas and opinions to get the best grasp of reality for ourselves.
Very interesting categorization, Gabe -- and I think very useful. Photography is indeed a form of communication. I wonder, though, whether this captures all of it -- after all, it's an art form, too, right? Can it be both, in the same way that the (creative) written word can be both communication and art? If so, does this affect your claims at all?
ReplyDeleteWell art can be argued to be anything, especially if there is some directly stated or implied effort by the creator. I do agree that photography has very artistic undertones (or even overtones), but I see little to no relation to how this impacts the element of communication. As a form of communication, it can be strong but will always remain largely imperfect. As a form of art...(insert anything regarding anything).
ReplyDeleteI think the statement "The bottom line is that all forms of communication fail to work," is a little all-inclusive, and sort of judgmental. I understand your points about photography and film in that way, but I think it's a fairly bias to say all other forms of communication are no good, too. "Communication" in general is even a difficult concept - where do you draw the line? Published works, the Internet, conversation, a smile?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kelly, your conclusion is too harsh. I do agree with you in that communication may have its faults, but to claim that it fails is going too far. As you stated, the purpose of a photo or a news story is to convey a message, communicate, and I am not convinced that they are not effective. Your point that they show a false reality assumes that everyone must live by the reality you believe in, that the photographer cannot simply portray his or her own view as truth. Of course, as with all opinions, these views should be taken with the understanding of an inherent bias, but not discarded as a failure to communicate.
ReplyDelete