I'm currently rethinking my life. Or at least part of it. Am I truly as much a visual person as I had before supposed? Or am I merely a creation of an age when “images play a prominent role in determining American values and assumptions?” Chapters three and Seven of “Seeing and Writing” have the common theme of photography and how we view it.
The whole idea of a photograph is that it is meant to capture a moment. But is this true at all? We can all argue that it progressively becomes less the case the more “Photoshop” continues to take over, but was it ever really true? Even in photos with absolutely no alteration, we can't assume they tell the whole story or even an accurate one.
So it goes even with essays and even personal accounts. James Nachtwey's “Ground Zero” relives a very momentous incident that happened to him at Ground Zero on September 11. And though I thought the piece to be very accurate, it still wasn't the whole story. Nachtwey wasn't interested in telling the whole story, but merely showing us where he was and what it looked like. Or at least as far as he perceived it. This isn't to say that photography is any more free of bias.
Last year I went to an annual festival of color with my girlfriend and got a couple of really good picture of her covered in an array of bright exciting colors. To my family in distant parts of the country who have never met my girlfriend, it would seem they almost tend to judge her more off of those pictures than what I say about her. Which is silly because the context was completely removed. They inaccurately viewed her as a spontaneously free spirit who would douse herself in color on a whim.
Those pictures are a valuable capture of a moment, but they were taken from my perspective. Its a perspective that I understand and appreciate, while for others it would not have the same effect. So it is when we see or read anything in the media. We can't seem to take anything at face value anymore, but then I don't really remember a time when we ever could.
I think you're right. Pictures don't tell the whole story, or even necessarily tell the actual situational context. But I would like to pose a question to you: Does anything short of experiencing an event ever successfully tell the whole story? I'd like to say no. But stories and media aide in conveying these stories. So you are perfectly justified, and right, in your explanation of this phenomenon with interpreting photographs. But I believe that that is the point of these media outlets. They are merely shadows of the real world, up for interpretation by the viewer.
ReplyDelete