Interesting analogy with the vegetables, but one that I find is incorrect. I see two ways to look at this. One, that there was some point in time where the mediums used to express facts rather than fiction was inherently boring (on account of their content). Two, that each person has their own perspective, and that this is why some people see (for example) a documentary as boring, while others see it as informative. I tend to lean towards a compromise between the two, in that both apply equally for everyone, and that something that is supposed to be "good for the viewer" can be boring or interesting, depending entirely upon the viewer and their personal opinions. On a side note, I do agree with the second part of the analogy; there are some examples that are better at informing the audience of something than others (this is always true --> nature of competition).
On the "adapting" of photography, I had actually read this article when it was originally published (on the NYTimes) and found it extremely interesting. I had heard and personally seen some of the so-called "photoshop effect", and I am not sure exactly how I feel. I do feel critical of the news mediums using this method (or at least when they label something as a "true" story), as manipulating a photograph is not actually showing the truth. As we discussed in class, it is really ingrained in our culture that photos are simply a "shot of the past", as in, they are exactly a particular moment of a specific event that happened in the past, a "snapshot". Anyways, relating to documentaries, I do feel slightly betrayed, if you will, as this is a complete manipulation of the truth. For example, if one were to photoshop a political figure into an extremely incriminating situation (such as a strip club or something), it could easily destroy their career, whether or not it actually happened. As it stands in today's society, it is very easy to say something, but very hard to "take it back". This brings up a question of ethics, which is much too long to add to a blogpost... Maybe we can discuss it in class...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To continue your intriguing exploration of photographic manipulation, Miheer, I wonder about where the line should be drawn regarding the claim that 'manipulating a photograph is not actually showing the truth'. If I adjust the contrast in a photo, that counts as manipulation, but I'm guessing that wouldn't be considered impeachable. Even the Kent State photograph in the 'Photo fakery slideshow' seemed to some a defensible manipulation (removing the pole above the kneeling woman's head). In a documentary, if I rearrange the video/ audio of what a person is saying to make it more coherent (say with the rest of the film's narrative), perhaps that is defensible too. Something to keep chewing on.
ReplyDeleteBtw, I enjoyed your tags. In case I ever want all of the posts concerning 'vegetables', it should be easy. :)
Do you think it would be easier to just cast all photos as fabrications to begin with and work backwards to determine what is and isn't real? Or would that be too unreasonable?
ReplyDeleteI have to say I agree with Miheer a lot. In our society it is very easy to have your reputation defamed because of something someone made up. People believe too easily what they hear and that can ruin careers and lives. If people took the time to accurately find all the facts on a situation many controversies could be advoided.
ReplyDelete