Eugene Smith, Errol Morris, and bagged puppies

bdcolen

So last night in the Harvard class we had our discussion of the Errol Morris book, "Believing is seeing..." And I began the discussion by showing the goofy puppy picture I posted below. What, I asked, is happening here? How did the bag get on the puppy's head? Did the puppy do this, in which case it's funny? Or did a human do this, in which case it's at least mildly abusive? What "truth" can we take from any straight forward photograph that contains an honest rendering of precisely what th photographer saw in the viewfinder?

RSL

None, because a photograph is a symbol, not reality. There's no more "truth" in a photograph than there is in a painting. But we can, perhaps, learn something about the photographer by seeing what he selected in the viewfinder, and by using the available evidence to help understand what he left out.

torags

Whoa... heavy duty answer Russ.

It makes sense

M38A1

...and I'll add to Russ's comments there's the personal bias developed through life experiences we all have that factors into the interpretation and evaluation of what is visually digested.

lensmole

Question: What "truth" can we take from any straight forward photograph that contains an honest rendering of precisely what the photographer saw in the viewfinder?

My answer would be that the material world exists independently outside the context of our mind as opposed to the material world existing within the context of our mind.

bdcolen

torags wrote: »

Whoa... heavy duty answer Russ.

It makes sense

Not really, Raggs - because we know less than nothing about the photographers of most photos we see - particularly news or documentary photos - and we also usually have no information about what choices the photographer had when he took the photo. So while it makes sense to say that all we know about a photo is what we bring to it, what we bring to it in most cases has little or nothing to do with the photographer. So perhaps whatever 'trust' we have in the ultimate veracity of an image has more to do with where we see the image, what we feel about that medium or venue, and what we think about the subject of the photo. So sticking with the picture at hand, and forgetting you know me and what I've already said about the photo - puppy with a bag over it's head? Are you a dog lover? Are you a sucker for pictures of little animals? Then of course the puppy is being teased. But is the photographer teasing it, or is some else teasing it? You don't know, because you have no idea what's outside the frame. On the other hand, you either have no interest in, or even dislike puppies, then of course the stupid dog got it's head stuck in the bag - after all, they are always getting into things, making messes, and causing trouble. But wait! Is it's head caught in the bag, or had it just dipped into the bag a few seconds before this was shot, and then pulled back out literally two seconds after the photo was taken?

All of which is to say - forget the photographer, unless you know something very specific about the person - and consider the photo, and what it might be saying. And truth?

torags

I disagree.

The photog makes the choice of what to include in the image. While it may be a true rendering of a "part" of what he/she sees; the photogs selection can give an entirely different experience than what the human eye sees.

If you want to express a bias (or drama), many times exclusions have almost as much value as inclusions.

don't take my word for it , listen to our politicians

lensmole

It seems to me that the photographer frequently proves to be rather elusive and the photograph a reflection of the photographers anonymity .

RSL

I'd agree with BD when it comes to the photographer who shoots pictures for the local newspaper. Generally speaking that photographer is told what to shoot and when to shoot it. A newspaper shot by one photographer looks pretty much like a newspaper shot by another photographer. The photographer's outlook on life is certainly going to be reflected in his pictures, but we'll rarely have enough samples to draw much in the way of conclusions about him.

But it wasn't long ago that BD pointed out correctly that a major difference between HCB and Gene Smith is that for Henri, composition -- the art in the picture -- was the thing. His approach to the world was pretty antiseptic. On the other hand, Gene's approach was oriented very much toward making universal points about human experience rather than simply making art objects. It strikes me that BD's last sentence conflicts with his earlier observation.

But in the long run, it seems to me the question of how the dog's head got into the bag is trivial next to the question of why BD made that picture.

Richard

bdcolen wrote: »

All of which is to say - forget the photographer, unless you know something very specific about the person - and consider the photo, and what it might be saying. And truth?

All you can say with assurance is that it appears to be a dog with a bag on its head. That's it. It can still make you laugh (or angry), and if you happen to already know more about the circumstances you may have an entirely different reaction. But truth solely from one image whose provenance is uncertain? You gotta be kidding. In fact, truth from any single source seems dubious. Science--which has the most rigorous method for determining what's true--typically requires independent replication of experimental results before an observation will be considered a fact.

MarkR

Interesting that Mike Johnston had a similar article fairly recently about the importance of context: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/context.html

David_S85

If I had posted a pic of one of my cats that had crawled into an empty grocery bag on the floor, as they are want to do often, I would have people accuse me of tossing the cat in there.

Don't worry about it. Sometimes a picture is just a picture.

M38A1

Is there a way we can test this via an assignment?

For instance: A penny on a piece of paper.....


Seems fairly benign with those two objects, but I'd bet we would all have a different image presented based on something as simple as a penny and a piece of paper.


.

torags

M38A1 wrote: »

Is there a way we can test this via an assignment?

For instance: A penny on a piece of paper.....


Seems fairly benign with those two objects, but I'd bet we would all have a different image presented based on something as simple as a penny and a piece of paper.


.

Maybe nothing is benign on this forum...

Moving Pictures

M38A1 wrote: »

Seems fairly benign with those two objects, but I'd bet we would all have a different image presented based on something as simple as a penny and a piece of paper..

Canadian or American penny?

M38A1

Moving Pictures wrote: »

Canadian or American penny?

Ah, grasshopper see the light.

Heads or tails
Piece of paper, what size? Color? What kind of edges?
Orientation of paper?
Orientation of coin?
Location of coin on paper?
Camera angle?
Inclusion/exclusion parameters?

and so forth...... So yes, we would all bring different perspectives for such a simple pair of objects.


.

bdcolen

torags wrote: »

I disagree.

The photog makes the choice of what to include in the image. While it may be a true rendering of a "part" of what he/she sees; the photogs selection can give an entirely different experience than what the human eye sees.

If you want to express a bias (or drama), many times exclusions have almost as much value as inclusions.

don't take my word for it , listen to our politicians

Raggs, I love ya, but you totally missed the point of the response. All I was saying is that since we usually know nothing about the photographer and his or her personal biases, we have to take photos at face value, and decide what we think of them based on what we see, rather than on what the photographer did or didn't intend. That's all.

bfjr

bdcolen wrote: »

Raggs, I love ya, but you totally missed the point of the response. All I was saying is that since we usually know nothing about the photographer and his or her personal biases, we have to take photos at face value, and decide what we think of them based on what we see, rather than on what the photographer did or didn't intend. That's all.

Thank God!

I been reading these and thinking, I must be doing something wrong.

For all my life I just look at images and decided if I like or not, I really never bother with the who or why took it part. If I really like then I look deeper.

Also I guess I'm an optimist, since I rarely question the honesty of photographs.

I do remember back in the day when Leo Leoporte and Steve Wozniack created a lovely Xmas card in PS from a blank file
that for all the world looked like a Photograph. I was depressed that night :cry

I do the same with movies, music (especially), never can seem to remember the band, singer etc. but know the tune from start to finish !

torags

bdcolen wrote: »

Raggs, I love ya, but you totally missed the point of the response. All I was saying is that since we usually know nothing about the photographer and his or her personal biases, we have to take photos at face value, and decide what we think of them based on what we see, rather than on what the photographer did or didn't intend. That's all.

Sounds right, thanks for the clarification.

That said, I always question what I read, see and am told. Part of it has to do with me learning how to manipulate people in my sales career - the other part is I'm naturally skeptical (could have a cultural basis)

bdcolen

We should all question what we read and see. But that does not mean that much of it is not true.

torags

bdcolen wrote: »

We should all question what we read and see. But that does not mean that much of it is not true.

OR not.. a picture does not a story make; even tho' we seem to attribute more than the pic deserves. IMO