"Fair Witness"

kbg32

kbg32

neo-romanticist
Local time
11:36 AM
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
5,613
Location
New York, New York
View My Gallery
We all here know of and should know David Lykes Keenan's work and hopefully forthcoming book "Fair Witness". Reading his kick starter where David quotes that he borrowed the the title from Robert Heinlein's book, "Stranger In A Strange Land" got me thinking. Are we as photographers just onlookers, witnesses? Or in doing so, the act of photographing, does it require some amount of participation, however small?
 
jsrockit said:
The act of framing is your participating... you are telling the viewer what to look at by framing it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this fully. The act of directing the viewer is one component that creates an artist out of a photographer.
Otherwise an unmanned surveillance camera would do.
 
Maybe I'm looking for some answer more esoteric. Like, to know love, you have had to be in love..... or something or other... One can't just walk through life as a witness....

John, Andy, clicking the shutter is participation along with framing, as well then...
 
That's true. Framing is an equation of where and when. So yes, when to click the shutter is part of it.
Exposure, dof, viewable media.. etc... is the rest of the equation .
The whole is the photographers interpretation as witness.
Whether to a more literal view or, an abstract view it's always an interpretation in some way.

By Literal I mean accurate as can be made of actual events.
By Abstract I mean for example: a high key image with shallow DOF or a silhouette etc...
 
"What colour is the house?"

"It's yellow this side".

The testimony of a Fair Witness from "Stranger In A Strange Land" (admittedly from memory, but close enough).

Which side to I decide to photograph? The yellow side? Or another?

Cheers,

R.
 
What colour is the house?

What colour is the house?

A Fair Witness is prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe. For example, a character in the book is asked to describe the color of a house seen in the distance. The character responds, “It’s white on this side”; whereupon it is explained that one would not assume knowledge of the color of the other sides of the house without being able to see them. Furthermore, after observing another side of the house one should not then assume that any previously seen side was still the same color as last reported, even if only minutes before.


Roger Hicks said:
"What colour is the house?"

"It's yellow this side".

The testimony of a Fair Witness from "Stranger In A Strange Land" (admittedly from memory, but close enough).

Which side to I decide to photograph? The yellow side? Or another?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
This is very interesting for me as a scientist because my whole work-related way of thinking is exactly like that, drawing conclusions and making assumptions from partial observations. Thanks for sharing!

AusDLK said:
A Fair Witness is prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe. For example, a character in the book is asked to describe the color of a house seen in the distance. The character responds, “It’s white on this side”; whereupon it is explained that one would not assume knowledge of the color of the other sides of the house without being able to see them. Furthermore, after observing another side of the house one should not then assume that any previously seen side was still the same color as last reported, even if only minutes before.
Click to expand...
 
"A Fair Witness is prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe."

Speaking as a photographer, not a scientist, we all make some from what we observe. We make choices. Choices on subject, how we compose to when we press the shutter... beginning with what camera we use, what film, etc., etc.. I don't believe one can be a casual witness to anything anymore.

wit·ness
[wit-nis] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to see, hear, or know by personal presence and perception: to witness an accident.
2. to be present at (an occurrence) as a formal witness, spectator, bystander, etc.: She witnessed our wedding.
3. to bear witness to; testify to; give or afford evidence of.
4. to attest by one's signature: He witnessed her will.
verb (used without object)
5. to bear witness; testify; give or afford evidence.

noun
6. an individual who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator, or eyewitness.
7. a person or thing that affords evidence.
8. a person who gives testimony, as in a court of law.
9. a person who signs a document attesting the genuineness of its execution.
10. testimony or evidence: to bear witness to her suffering.

As a photographic witness, one is making conscientious, conscious decisions. A conclusion is the photograph.

Forgive me, I am trying to make a point and I am not sure it is coming through. I am only using David's title to his book as an example. It just made me think. It is not to denigrate his work or philosophy.
 
I've long had my doubts about Heinlein's "homespun philosophy" and by "long", I mean for around 50 years. H.Bruce Franklin's analysis of Heinlein's output, "Robert A. Heinlein, America as Science Fiction" discusses pretty much what I find problematic in the books, particularly the later ones.

As to this "Fair Witness" rubbish, I think it's pretty typical of his output. He was a great one for writing stupid things convincingly. I cannot see that there can ever be a completely reliable witness, human or mechanical, because there is no way to make a truly objective record of an event.

As others have said above, if you use a camera to record events, you make choices of what to record, how to record it, when to record it. All these subjective decisions, in my opinion, simply make a mockery of the concept.
 
My take on this is that if you're photographing someone or something and then showing that photograph to someone or, via the internet, to the world, you are participating in what you photographed - at least to some extent. An extreme example would be photojournalists in a war zone. They tend not to stand in "no-man's land", they are usually alongside one side or the other - even if they are trying to be pure "observers".

The bigger question, for me, is whether by participating we, as photographers, change anything or influence the outcome of whatever event we are photographing. This could be as a result of affecting the end result or just the viewer's perception of what we photographed.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
. . . He was a great one for writing stupid things convincingly. . . .
Click to expand...
Well, if not convincingly, then at least entertainingly, mostly with a right-wing and very American slant: "An armed society is a polite society"

Though if I recall correctly -- it's been a very long time since I read much of his work -- he had a somewhat revisionist attitude to the age of consent.

Cheers,

R.
 
"An armed society is a polite society"? If this is right wing and has an American slant, it certainly is not true. Kids kill over sneakers, jackets, cell phone, etc.. Someone might assault you over a seat on the subway or if they feel you might be "looking at them wrong".
 
kbg32 said:
"An armed society is a polite society"? If this is right wing and has an American slant, it certainly is not true. Kids kill over sneakers, jackets, cell phone, etc.. Someone might assault you over a seat on the subway or if they feel you might be "looking at them wrong".
Click to expand...
Dear Keith,

I didn't say it was true, or even convincing: just entertaining. Civilians going armed is ever rarer in most countries, as is the idea of merciless self reliance: most people quite like the idea of law and order, not to mention old age pensions. Heinlein was very much of his time -- look at his views on voting rights and military service in Starship Troopers -- and it is a time that (mercifully) has passed.

Cheers,

R.
 
Oh, I think he could be right. Unfortunately not everyone has the guts to go armed and our society has mistakenly taken the attitude that our police forces are able to protect them.

Silly gooses! An unarmed society is subject to much greater harm in the long run, but most people are only interested in the short run. There are always violent souls about who would like nothing better than to control you for their own good. 🙂
 
Pioneer said:
Oh, I think he could be right. Unfortunately not everyone has the guts to go armed and our society has mistakenly taken the attitude that our police forces are able to protect them.

Silly gooses! An unarmed society is subject to much greater harm in the long run, but most people are only interested in the short run. There are always violent souls about who would like nothing better than to control you for their own good. 🙂
Click to expand...
Highlight 1: Why and how?

Highlight 2: Quite. Which is why most societies try to deny them access to weapons.

Cheers,

R.
 
kbg32 said:
"An armed society is a polite society"? If this is right wing and has an American slant, it certainly is not true. Kids kill over sneakers, jackets, cell phone, etc.. Someone might assault you over a seat on the subway or if they feel you might be "looking at them wrong".
Click to expand...

I think the quote was meant to mean that the whole society is armed, not just the thieves. Changes it a bit...
Neither here nor there though..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AusDLK
FAIR WITNESS is #1
Replies
16
Views
3K
danielsterno
danielsterno
Back
Top Bottom