wgerrard
Veteran
Rats! You would have to bring that up. I deliberately avoided it because it seems like a never ending loop. If we decide that our perception determines our reality, then we could be led to conclude that anything we, as individuals, do not perceive does not exist.
Whatever "real" reality is, I'm satisfied that all humans, in a technical sense, perceive it the same way. Of course, as you point out, our perceptions are shaped by our experiences. Among other things, that's why a novel or a piece of music or a photo may prompt tears in one person and indifference in the another.
Time, I think, has something to do with this. The reality the camera sees and preserves on an image is independent of time. A photo does not begin at one moment in time and extend to another. Humans, though, need that awareness of the flow of events in time to grasp, or make up, the context that shapes our understanding of the reality a photo captures.
When we humans lack information, when we lack a complete set of data, we tend to fill in the gaps with information we manufacture based on our own experiences. We effect a variation of that behavior when we look at a photo. In other words, we make up a story. We might see, for example, an image of a man on his back on a sidewalk in a busy city and we immediately begin filling in the information gaps to provide the context our brains demand. We will seek a context that has a beginning and ending in time, even though a photo depicts something with a duration equal to the shutter speed. So, we may see the man on the sidewalk and assume he is drunk, or that he has fainted, or that he lost a fight, or that he was mugged, or is dead, etc. None of that synaptic activity, even if it conjures up the correct context, has any impact on reality.
Unless the photographer tells us what the reality of that photo is, in a narrative, a caption, or in a series of sequential images, each of us will likely fashion a slightly different reality for the photo. But, the photo of that man on the sidewalk depicts a reality that existed at a single instance in time, free of context and interpretation and our own experience-influenced perception.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Oddly when trying to get the attention of a Greek cat "ch-ch-ch-ch-ch" has absolutely no effect ... whereas "tu-tu-tu-tu-tu" has then round ones ankles in seconds ... and yes Greece can be a shock when one trips over a bit of Homer poking through into the modern world, or Platonism cropping up here now and then
PS in answer to the OP, yes they are real photographs once they are printed, it's their perception where it gets a bit contentious
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
This is, I think, the core of the matter, and why it isn't a 'simple' question.
Incidentally, I'm not convinced that we do all perceive things the same way. There is a fair amount of evidence that individual brain 'wiring' (or firmware, or mind, or whatever you want to call it) is shaped in early childhood. The real differences may be trivial, or they may be enormous. We don't know, and cannot know.
Cheers,
R.
hellomikmik
Well-known
real? everything is created by mind.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Oddly when trying to get the attention of a Greek cat "ch-ch-ch-ch-ch" has absolutely no effect ... whereas "tu-tu-tu-tu-tu" has then round ones ankles in seconds ... and yes Greece can be a shock when one trips over a bit of Homer poking through into the modern world, or Platonism cropping up here now and then
PS in answer to the OP, yes they are real photographs once they are printed, it's their perception where it gets a bit contentious
Dear Stewart,
There's that lovely Larry Durrell story about lounging around after a picnic and hearing a young man whom they could not see calling out for his girlfriend (or possibly cat): "Eurydice! Eurydice!" He pronounced it more or less "Every-diche!" which must have sounded even more haunting.
Cheers,
R.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
If they were enormous, we'd be in more disagreement about our individual perception of the material world. Where we do differ is about the values we attach to the perceived things and situations.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not necessarily. We may label very different perceptions with the same label. It's the question every philosophical child asks: do you see the same colour as I do when we use the word 'red'?
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
Yes, the island's are like that, magical at times.
Sparrow
Veteran
or ... there is a fundamental reality, that we each perceive
wgerrard
Veteran
Agreed, Roger, although I suspect the differences are far fewer, in number and extent, than the similarities.
In any case, though, our perception -- literally, an activity confined inside our skulls -- can't alter reality. That's why I make a distinction between the reality a photo can depict and our perception of the photo.
So, I think my answer to the original question yes, a photo is a representation of reality, distanced from that reality by the limits of the camera, lens, film, sensor, etc., and the impact of developing and post-processing. I don't accept the notion that reality is all in our heads.
ebino
Well-known
I agree.
usually topics like this are my favorite but this guy does not seem genuine. His last topic about chain gangs and so on was a good example, so I won't bother.
If someone else can formulate a similar question that makes more sense, then it would make for an interesting discussion.
Enoyarnam
Member
Ebino, I must object. You seem to have lowered the tone of this thread by resorting to an ad homeinin argument.
Suppose, I am a politician. I say 'the crime rate is too high'. The other persons says, 'how should you know? You are just a politician'. Instead of addressing the quuestion (is the crime rate too high?') the second party simply questions the character of the politician.
Tha's fine by me. It simply reveals your lack of understanding not mine.
Suppose, I am a politician. I say 'the crime rate is too high'. The other persons says, 'how should you know? You are just a politician'. Instead of addressing the quuestion (is the crime rate too high?') the second party simply questions the character of the politician.
Tha's fine by me. It simply reveals your lack of understanding not mine.
Enoyarnam
Member
Ebino, I have a further objection.
You imply that one of my revious posts was 'disingenuous'. I disagree. Moreover, I can give you reasons why. The previous post was an attempt to start a debate relating to the scale of ambition of photographers (myself included) on the forum. The terms I used are the same as those that Erwitt Elliott used in a published interview. My basic intuition was as follows; does one's involvement in a range of projects (whatever they may be) prevent one from working on one's masterwork (whatever that may be)? This is I imagined a practical concern for many forum members. It would be a sad day, indeeed, if this were not the case. There is simply so much talent on show, for this not to so.
Best regards
Eugene.
You imply that one of my revious posts was 'disingenuous'. I disagree. Moreover, I can give you reasons why. The previous post was an attempt to start a debate relating to the scale of ambition of photographers (myself included) on the forum. The terms I used are the same as those that Erwitt Elliott used in a published interview. My basic intuition was as follows; does one's involvement in a range of projects (whatever they may be) prevent one from working on one's masterwork (whatever that may be)? This is I imagined a practical concern for many forum members. It would be a sad day, indeeed, if this were not the case. There is simply so much talent on show, for this not to so.
Best regards
Eugene.
Enoyarnam
Member
Morry Katz - thankyou for your reply. I agree that all photographs are representations that are a result of a photographer's reaction to a scene. However there has to be something else that is going on, in addition to this. Is a painting no more than a painter's reaction to a scene or to a sitter?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Eugene,
Your phraseology is sometimes a little Delphic, and besides, I'd not necessarily rely on Erwitt as a linguistic philosopher instead of a photographer.
But to address the question in post 35, no, I don't think that involvement in a range of projects (whatever they may be) [need] prevent one from working on one's masterwork . To think otherwise implies that one's masterwork is one's only work, which would be unusual.
Also, of course, the word 'masterpiece' has changed meaning a lot. Originally, it was widely understood to mean the work which marked one's transition from apprentice to guild member, a 'master' who could himself train apprentices. Add 'journeyman' if you prefer the Masonic hierarchy.
But because a 'masterpiece' was commonly produced under artistic and technical pressure, rather than financial and economic pressure, it might well be the best piece of work that a mediocre journeyman ever did. A good craftsman, on the other hand, would surpass his previous masterpiece with something else.
Also, 'masterwork', 'masterpiece' and 'magnum opus' (all different) are a matter for others to decide, not the artist/craftsman himsef.
Cheers,
R.
Your phraseology is sometimes a little Delphic, and besides, I'd not necessarily rely on Erwitt as a linguistic philosopher instead of a photographer.
But to address the question in post 35, no, I don't think that involvement in a range of projects (whatever they may be) [need] prevent one from working on one's masterwork . To think otherwise implies that one's masterwork is one's only work, which would be unusual.
Also, of course, the word 'masterpiece' has changed meaning a lot. Originally, it was widely understood to mean the work which marked one's transition from apprentice to guild member, a 'master' who could himself train apprentices. Add 'journeyman' if you prefer the Masonic hierarchy.
But because a 'masterpiece' was commonly produced under artistic and technical pressure, rather than financial and economic pressure, it might well be the best piece of work that a mediocre journeyman ever did. A good craftsman, on the other hand, would surpass his previous masterpiece with something else.
Also, 'masterwork', 'masterpiece' and 'magnum opus' (all different) are a matter for others to decide, not the artist/craftsman himsef.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Last edited:
Enoyarnam
Member
Buzzarkid - hello. I agree. One of the unique qualities of a photograph lies in its open-endedness. Clearly, the reproduction of an original is more than just a representation of a scene. It is also an invitation for a viewer to occupy the precise space and moment when the image was captured. However, I do see how the question is as irrelevant as you suggest.
Why pose the problem at the level of abstraction that you do? Clearly a photograph is more than simply an accurate if admittedly partial representation of reality. However, it seems to me that it is also something more than that. It is that extra something that I am trying to find out about.
Why pose the problem at the level of abstraction that you do? Clearly a photograph is more than simply an accurate if admittedly partial representation of reality. However, it seems to me that it is also something more than that. It is that extra something that I am trying to find out about.
Enoyarnam
Member
TBarker, hi. Yeah, I tend to agree. The reason why I value the photographs that I take is because they provide me with a relatively accurate (though admittedly partial) representation of on'e subject matter at a particular moment in time.
Enoyarnam
Member
Roger H - thanks for your comments and your clarifications. The mistakes, as you point out, are all mine! Hey, I have heard a lot about you from Andrew at Bernard Hunters, Bedminster. He is one of my photographic suppliers.
Jamie123
Veteran
Ebino did not resort to an ad hominem argument. He merely pointed out that he does not think you're being genuine but he was not basing any kind of argument on this.
Your question is nonsense. Even with a benigna interpretatio I have a hard time making sense of it. I assume you're trying to ask something like "Can there be objectivism in documentary photography?". That by itself would be a fairly vague question but at least one could start trying to clarify it and start debating but your question is all over the place. First of all, what do you mean by 'real'? Do you mean 'truth'? The cup of tea on my table is real but it would make no sense to say of it that it's the truth. Truth is normally ascribed to, to use a technical term, propositions. And then we'd have to discuss in what way an image can contain a proposition.
But let's take a step back and look at the word 'representation'. What's the relation between a photograph and that of which it is a photograph? Causality? Similarity (which is a can of worms)? Isomorphism?
What do you mean by 'documentary photgraphs'? I suppose you don't mean the sum of all documentary photographs but the photographic genre called documentary photography. If you're question related to 'reality' then it wouldn't really be a question restricted to a specific genre.
Anyways, that's just a broad outline of what's wrong with your question. What really irks me is the way to try to assign deep philosophic meaning to your question by phrasing it in a way that clearly exceeds your vocabulary. And to top it off you make it a one-liner so it leaves no room for any kind of meaningful discussion as we can only guess what the question is supposed to be.
Last edited: