Monday, April 02, 2007

Photojournalism is "objective".

Photojournalism is "objective". Instead of telling "stories", photos are chosen for holistic interest, a slice that is judged significant through an event that may or may not be judged significant. Because visual interest is often associated with traumatic experiences, a fair number of the major events of the day are reported, but also a cross-section of interesting minor events that, taken as a more-random sample, yield a more objective overall world-wide "picture".

What would constitute a truly "random" sampling of photographs? What does God see?

And yes, I realize that I'm confusing "objective"'s two meanings, both the metaphorical and the photographic. This is intentional, as are the potential dual meanings of "picture" and other terms that seem to have parallel or harmonious meanings in both the realm of images (CF. Wittgenstein's aphorisms) and our notion of truth. Despite what they say about Photoshop, seeing is still [closer than reading to] believing.

No comments: