Thursday, September 20, 2012
Do You See What I See?
By now you should have constructed a definition for Forensic Epistemology. As an expansion of your work, you might read this definition of epistemology, one part of an incredible resource for all things philosophical. For Tuesday morning, please read this interview with Errol Morris, in which he discusses the objective reality of photography, among other things. In your post, please engage Morris' position by considering whether there is something more objectively real about a photograph of a scene than about a scene its self. Consider, also, his discussion of the rules people have constructed for and around photographs. Are there those with which you agree? How does this interview affect your views on photography? How about on the existence of objective realities?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Morris believes that photographs can be deceiving and lead those looking at it to false conclusions. There is something more objectively real about a photograph of a scene than about the scene it self. A photograph can be viewed differently by different viewers. The photograph could be presented as reflecting a wartime scene, however the artist may feel the need to make the scene more or less activity. Using the example in the interview the ON and OFF photographs, one shows more activity than the other. Most likely this was done by the photographer to make the scene more interesting or to play around with the mechanics of the image. There is something more objectively real about a photograph because different people interpret different facts about the area and the background of when the photo was taken. Especially whether or not it was actually taken during the time of the event that it is trying to capture of if it is a remodel of an area that may look like where the event had taken place and what it may have looked like and what materials might have been lying around.
ReplyDeleteMorris’ discussion on the “rules” that have been constructed by photographers to keep the image as true as it possibly can be, are very frequently broken. I agree that if a photographer is truly trying to capture an image of a true event then these rules should apply, however, most of the time photographers want to capture the event but they also want to make the image interesting and something that will catch the attention of the viewer. I do agree that if you want to truly capture something, you should not alter it in any way because that would take away from the natural beauty and appearance of it. I think that these rules are ridiculous considering that most people only look at something that is interesting to them, so if they see a picture of what a place really looks like then they may not be as interested as they might be if the image was altered to make it more appealing to the eye.
This interview affects my views on photography by making me more curious about the image and whether what I am seeing is true or a make up of what is reality. There is also the subject of objective realities, is what I am seeing really what it is? And if not then how do I know that? Objective realities do exist in the sense that there will always be the underlying fact of the image, it is just whether or not the viewer is aware of it or not.
~A photograph is a still frame that captures a specific moment in time. Photographers choose what they want to capture, and have an idea of what they want their audience to see in the picture with “X, Y, or Z.” However society can only see it as X or Y. “The question of a photographer’s intentions and whether those intentions are in some way captured in the photographs they take.” Being in the moment comes with prior knowledge that can make you think differently- a bias, and just looking a picture has the viewer guess what the photographer was thinking. “The point is, it’s dangerous just to look at a photograph and assume we know what we’re looking at. Chances are we have no idea.” There are objective realities when looking at pictures because we don’t know everything. In a scene we know things like the temperature, things in the background, sound affects, and many other things that might influence us one way or another.
ReplyDelete~The rules people have made for and around photographs will help viewers look at photography more objectively real. A photograph is meant to capture one split second in time, and so these rules will assure that the audience will examine the photograph almost the same way the photographer wanted. However I will not have the same experience someone else might have when looking at the same photo. I completely agree with these rules when looking at photography. Photos are art, and a photographer specifically captured one moment to share with an audience, and that is how we (the audience) should look at it. We shouldn’t be able to move the image around and change should observe it in its natural state. If we were to not follow these rules, there wouldn’t be any point to photographers; we could just do whatever we wanted to.
~From reading this interview I’ve developed a stronger appreciation for photography. In future viewings I will make sure to follow these rules with hope I can only look at the single image, and not question its history, which is what the photographer wanted. By looking at an image it will make me wonder what I am actually looking at because there is probably so much more to the scene it was captured form.
~There really aren’t any objective realities because when looking at something you’ll never be able to just look at it. People have a part of them where they question things even it if it is as little as “when was this taken?” We can try to have objective realities by following the rules, and looking at things just the way they are, however this is virtually impossible, and we as humans are created with biases.
Morris believes that photographs have to be carefully analysed in order to be interpreted correctly. I agree with him because most of the times we choose to only view a photograph according to what we believe. Fully understanding how a photograph is posed is very important because there is something more objectively real about a photograph of a scene than about a scene its self. How a photographer takes a photograph reveals more about the scene than the scene itself in the photograph. For example during the interview Morris brings in the question of why the two photographs took by Fenton didn't look exactly alike but were given the same name and identification. The two photographs differ only by the arrangement of the cannonballs which were in the second photograph supposedly moved. This example illustrates how photographs have something real about them than the scene itself. It is very important to analyse the posing of the photograph because most of the times they are tricky and can mislead people
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with the rules that forbid people from touching and moving anything and instructing them to only observe. This is very important because the original scene is the one people are interested in and if people are allowed to touch and move things then they will change the posing of the photograph which is very important in inderstanding the scene. These rules help people to analyse the actual photography that hasn't been changed and give them the opportunity to brainstorm on how they view it.
This interview has greatly affected my sense of viewing photography. Now I know that "false ideas adhere to photographs like flies to flypaper". From this day on, I will be more carefully while interpreting a photograph and also I will change how I view photographs. I am going to start analysing photographs and not just get the idea of the scene in the photograph.
According to my understanding, there are no objective realities because people tend to interpret things in a different way because beliefs and emotions get involved. Morris helped to fully understand that what we see can sometimes be false and that it is important to analyse something in order to get a good idea of it.
"it’s dangerous just to look at a photograph and assume we know what we’re looking at." In this interview Morris bashes two photographs taken of a battlefield after the fight, one photo has cannons on the road, the other doesn't. In Morris's opinion photo's show X,Y, and Z, but in most cases onlookers really only see Y and X or Z and Y. Viewers are never usually able to see what photographers want them to see. The alteration made to one of the photographs was what sent Morris into a tizzy though. To me photography is like art, it should be open to interpretation, and if this means the photographer is going to take some editorial liberties then so be it. But this is not how Morris feels. Morris believes that there are rules to be followed in the world of photography, guidelines that should be followed. The difference between art and untouched photography is hat with those photographs what you see is what you get, whereas with art onlookers are allowed some room for the imagination to wander. I will always believe that photographs should be an on lookers playground, not a museum. But I do understand how Morris could see photographers alterations as a bending of the truth, especially when it comes to historical evidence. But I do stand by the idea that people see things as they see them, what one man sees as tears of joy, another my see as tears of sadness.
ReplyDelete"The fact that there is no such thing as a true or a false photograph." This is the opinion with Morris takes after discussing one perplexing case with his interviewer. Morris discusses what the effects of changing a scene for a photograph were. In one case, the photographer took a picture of a road with cannonballs on the side. He then moved the cannonballs onto the road to, Morris believes, effect a more interesting shot.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion on the subject has yet to be formed, but I can say that it seems to depend upon the eyes of the beholder. Sometimes, photography is more of an art from than it is a means of objectively recording something, and vice versa. The fact is that a photograph cannot be one without the other. By taking a picture, an "artistic" picture, the artist captures the objectivity of themselves, because all of their circumstances led them to take the picture, they are taking the picture as a product of their objective reality. Their picture represents their intentions and their disposition, and, in doing so, documents their time and all the factors at play in the photograph. On the other hand, a photographer who tries to objectively reproduce a time or place cannot do so, because by when one observes something or records something, they invariably change it. By moving the cannonballs, did the photographer create a piece of art or simply a more accurate truth?
From my research, Forensic Epistemology is a study of knowledge based on justification and a logic setting. In the interview with Errol Morris, he talks about his opinion of a photograph’s reality and objectivity. First, a photograph can be taken by different people, and it may turn out very different feelings for the audience depending on the perspective of the photographer. Also, the audience view the photograph in different ways due to their own preference and taste. The same photograph can have totally meanings for two people. Although the photograph is objective in some way such as the substances existed in it, the same substance can mean differently due to its surroundings and the place where the photograph takes. People can even use softwares to change the photographs in order to make it have the structure they want. However, a scene itself is very subjective as well. Every person is different which means that every person may hold a slightly various opinion on the same scene when they go there. Their main focuses are different, and they want to look for different aspects in the world which shapes their opinions.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the rules that are stated in the interview made for the photographs, but the reality is that it is almost impossible to take a photograph without a point of view. It means that whenever a person takes a photograph, he/she has a reason to take it, and it becomes his/her point of view. These rules are just trying to limit the subjectivity of a person when he/she takes a picture, but they do not change the nature of taking a photograph. People can still be tricked by the photographs and their first personal impression of it. In addition to the people who take the photographs, the audience can even enlarge the subjectivity of the photograph by adding their personal interpretations. As a result, my conclusion is that there is nothing that is purely objective in a photograph, and as long as it is a photograph, it has already been interpreted by at least one person. The objective realities is not existing in the world because whenever people get to know something, they are understanding it in their own ways.
The point Errol Morris seems to be driving at relates to the emotion a photographer is portraying with his/her photograph. Or to be more specific, the posing of a photograph in order to incite certain emotions from a viewer. Also, the fact that “False ideas adhere to photographs like flies to flypaper”. That is because leaving something open to interpretation immediately takes away its objectivity.
ReplyDeleteThe familiar rules for photography mentioned in the interview are as follows: You will move nothing. You will touch nothing. You will observe the scene as it is. You will be the proverbial fly on the wall. You will inspect but not change. You will use available light. You will not try to enhance the scene.
In my opinion, these rules may or may not be followed depending on the purpose of the photograph. If a photograph is to provide historical evidence, then the above rules should be followed. However, more often than not, photography is used as a means to express the artist; not to show everything as it is, but to slightly (or considerably) skew it so that it represents the artist’s feelings better and the message it wants to portray to the audience. Enforcing these rules upon a creative work of art would be meaningless. The point of an artistic photograph is not to provide an objective reality.
However, in my opinion, even photographs that follow those rules don’t provide an objective reality. While all of the people may be seeing the way the photographer experienced the landscape, they are not experiencing the landscape themselves when they look at the photo. An experience is so much more than just sight. It is also smell, taste, hearing and touch. A photograph robs us of four of these senses. Some may argue that this makes the photo objective, but it doesn’t. This is because people experience the actual photograph in different ways. We might all be seeing the photographer’s experience, but we are all experiencing the photograph in a different way. We smell hear and touch different things while we are experiencing the photograph. Even that simple viewing cannot be considered objective.
In comparison, a picture of a scene is more objectively real then the scene its self. When a viewer looks at a picture, they do not know what context the picture was taken in, unless there is a caption. So there is no opinion to cloud the viewers objective observations about the picture. When a person is in a scene or watches a scene, the person had pretext about the scene. This relates to what Errol Morris said about pictures, "They decontextualize things. They rip images out of the world and as a result we are free to think whatever we want about them.". This is why "the rules" are made, so that if someone alters a scene and then takes a picture of it, then the viewer's objective observations are not tainted by the photographer's opinion. Errol says that it is wrong that if these rules are followed then the truth will pop out. I agree because how is "the truth" determined? Who says what the truth is? This article has affected my view of photography. I will know try and make my own assumptions about photos before reading the caption. I will also consider what the photographer was trying to make me think or feel. I do not believe that there is such thing as an objective reality. Everyone perceives reality differently, and has a different opinion.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing about a picture other than the picture itself that is objective. A picture is objective because it has incarcerated what was within the frame of the lens to create a still reality and no matter if the items in the picture were not originally there or were is irrelevant because in any given picture, what was there, was there. What is in a picture is objective; unless one intentionally denies that truth or has a mental condition that allows them an alternate vision than one without. The construes and the miscellaneousness of accompanied feelings and thoughts provoked by the photo are what make a photo subjective. A photo shows what is within the frame, but what is within the frame may be and most likely will be seen differently by different people because the viewers may have certain pre-existing emotions or antecedent exposures with what is in a picture. The photo will be the same but because of particular bygone involvements, the viewer’s connotations of what is in the picture will create diverging perspectives and judgements. Throughout the interview, Morris makes his position clear about photographs: they are neither true nor false. I can understand what he means when he tells Weschler that photographs are just photographs and they are neither true nor false. I disagree though. Photographs can be true and false, varying upon person. Photographs can be controversial because people have different opinions. Opinions cannot be true or false, which is ironic because one’s opinion may be that they can be true or false.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I do and do not agree with the rules that pertain to a “true” or “real” photograph. I agree because if nothing is touched or tampered with, the viewer sees the essence and beauty or hideosity or both of the image. It is “true” or “real” because it is raw. I disagree because simply due to the compromise of an original scene, it does not mean the scene did not happen or it was not there, the image is simply more effective and appealing if things are arranged or placed in a certain position. A photograph can still be “real” or “true” is compromised so long as the message is not a lie or an exaggeration. This interview has in fact altered the appeal of photograph to me. I used to be fascinated by photography because of what the artists offered to the table and I simply accepted their definition of the image. Now, reflecting on my reactions, I feel stupid. Stupid for not questioning anything and going along with the artist. Now, when I see a photograph I will see many things because I will connect with the photograph, not the photographer. I will have my own knowledge of the photo, but not the truth, because there is no one truth to a photo, because there is no one knowledge of a photo, because there is no one conception of a photo. As Weschler said: “that you take these photos and come to believe things, to know things, to what extent it is possible to know anything...How and whether it is possible to arrive at the truth of anything.” And at another point Morris makes a fine point stating: “photographs do something tricky. They decontextualize things. They rip images out of the world and as a result we are free to think whatever we want about them.”
*Opinions cannot be false
DeleteIn the end, I realized “(I’m) continually having to question what (I’m) seeing, how (I’m) seeing,” and that with that established, I’ve accepted I won’t know the truth about anything and that I might actually know the truth about certain things. I don’t even know if I will know the truth after death. I’ve accepted all possibilities and settled with lack of knowledge of the truth of the existence and validity of knowledge. I have my own objective reality, as well as every other human being. People see, hear, smell, feel (through touch), taste, understand, experience and feel (emotionally) differently. No one person’s reality is identical to another’s. Your objective reality is not another’s.
ReplyDelete“The deeper you dig into, shall we say, the truth of any given photo, the odder things become, and often the more doubtful.”
“There’s some kind of fiendish absurdity to the world.”