Today in class, Dr. Clark was talking a lot about photography.
He was saying how photography has this reputation for being the most truthful representation, when in reality this veracity was never the case. There have always been staging and editing of photographs before or after capturing the scene, combining of different prints to get the desired finished product, etc. Then he made the observation that, unlike human sight, photography offers a tunneled view of things. He supported this claim with the fact that humans can turn and physically move so as to view something else, but you can't do that with a photograph. Photographs offer a narrow perspective of events, places, and people.
And this is true, but I think that human vision is guilty of the same thing.
How many times do we think we get the whole story by looking at someone or something? We read an article or two about an occurrence, feel informed, establish an opinion, and think we know what went on or what should happen to remedy the situation. We see what people wear, say, laugh at, etc., and begin to think we know who they are as a person, what they believe or think. We want so much to believe that the whole story is right there in front of our eyes, but it never is. The only thing we come close to entirely understanding are our own actions, and even our comprehension of ourselves is rather limited.
So I would put forth the following claim: photography is the *most truthful medium, because it unmasks human vision's own limitations.
Like photography, our vision is that of a tunnel, and quite naturally so. As humans, as organisms and animals, it's natural for us to be egocentric to one degree or another. I think we kid ourselves to say that we enjoy this freedom of sight and perspective that isn't limited, edited, or partial when in reality it is all of the above. Like photography, we never see the whole story; we never see a vision of something that isn't clouded by our own perceptions or experiences. Our reality is cropped, framed, and limited. Even after we experience something, how often do we go back and try to understand the situation, put a new spin on it, and even alter our opinion of what happened? Our reality is akin to the "reality" put forth by photography.
In that way, photography is very real, because it replicates human sight. So I would call it a "truthful" medium.
*I don't know if I would call it the "most" truthful, because I think that painting is similar to photography in many regards, but more thoughts on that later.
