Helen Byrne
11/11/14
11/11/14
So the question is; can the camera lie? Or is it the
instrument that can evidence the truth? The theory behind it all allows us to
question its accuracy and makes us reflect upon previous artists work and the
arts of today.
We initially think that images present belief or trust that
shows the true and unbiased story, as the camera has captured it as evidence.
However with these feelings towards photography, it makes us question the truth
of the camera when reflecting upon manipulation within the advertising, marketing
and photojournalistic industry and just how far they go with representing the truth.
When looking back at the history of photography and its
theory, Louie Daguerre produced the first ever way of recording something
photographically, this was then called the Daguerreotype. The process of which
to record an image was to place a silver-plated sheet of copper within a large
camera box, then expose the image to daylight, to be developed in mercury flames
and stabilized with salt water. From this you believe that this method was a
truthful way of evidencing what we couldn’t see by using the nature of daylight
to produce the image, as nature nor the process of development of the image
using chemicals cannot manipulate or change the scenario. This is similar to
the work of William Henry Fox Talbot as he produced photograms by placing an
object on light sensitive paper and exposing it to light, therefore all he is
doing is recording what he has seen, showing the truth of the photo and
resembling the accuracy of the camera.
However Malcolm Daniel states in his study of ‘The Invention
of Photography’ that “Photography had a dual character – as a medium of
artistic expression and as a powerful scientific tool” of which Daguerre
produced photographic evidence for both ideas. This creates controversy with
the idea of the truth of the camera, well is it the camera or is it the artist
behind it that can manipulate the truth? Is the camera just a machine for which
the photographer uses?
Allan Sekula argued that Photography had no specific
content, but was suspended within art and science which has been floating
around for decades similarly to what Daguerre was practising. He states in his
essay ‘The Traffic of Photographs’ that “we are invited to dance between the
photographic truths and photographic pleasures with very little awareness of
the floorboards and muscles that make this seemingly effortless movement
possible”. This suggests that the camera is the tool of which ‘we dance around’
and used to bend and play with the truth suggesting that the camera is just the
process or machine of which to record something that they had seen. Is it actually
the artist behind the camera that can manipulate the meaning of an image?
Roland Barthes is another artist which similarly agrees with
Allan Sekula about how the camera is the machine that we use to record
something, this is quoted from his book ‘Camera Lucida’, “What the Photograph
reproduces to infinity has occurred only once: the Photograph mechanically
repeats what could never be repeated existentially.” This basically means that
the photographs authenticate past experiences and gives us proof of what has
happened. He also stated that "Photography never lies: or rather, it can
lie as to the meaning of the thing, being by nature tendentious, never as to
its existence," so what he is trying to say is that to explore or to
record something it can’t lie, but where it is not truthful is the person who
is recording it. All the camera can do is document and evidence something to
say it was there.
Therefore is it the photographer? Are they playing with the
truth through camera controls and imagery features such as perspective and
composition or through manipulation like double-exposures, or though post
production. Or can it just be how the viewer or how the subject views the image
as to whether the image is telling the truth or not, we can, as an individual
twist the meaning of the image just by our own opinions on what it is that is
trying to be portrayed.
Manipulation is a technique that is used more frequently
within today’s society due to the time differences and era and what technology
was around. However in camera manipulation was around back when Daguerre
created his daguerreotype, he would have been able to use composition and
framework to manipulate your view of a subject this therefore supports the idea
of the photographer manipulating an image and that the camera is telling the
truth, it is how it is photographed and perceived as to whether the image is
truthful.
Sontag supports this as she uses photos as evidence for the
wildest of ideas or even for documentary subjects to make it believable, and
has stated in her Book on Photography that “Photographs furnish evidence. Something
we hear about, but doubt, seems proven when we’re shown a photograph of it.” Meaning
it can be used to proof that something is going on within evidential reports;
for example within military camps and to evidence terrorism and abuse towards
detainees, people would make statements with no proof, once they have seen a
photograph it made it become real and gave it some form of humanity and reality
which made it stand out and made it believable.
August Sander also has the same approach with his social
documentary, where not only was it to record and document but also to enlighten
and creatively educate the viewers and people around him so the images would
give them an insight to the subject and it would stick in their mind more than
just stating it and making a point.
In today’s society editorial and advertising photography has
become such a large part of the photographic industry and always raises a few
hairs on whether it is believable or not. As editorial is the clash between
seeing and wanting to see, this is done within post production changing the
image from its original to make it appear better than it actually is, playing
with the truth and its accuracy. Similarly advertising photography glamourizes
products and bends reality testing our existing knowledge.
Overall I believe that the camera never lies, the truth of
the photograph lies as much within the context of which it is being viewed as
the image itself with camera manipulation or through post production.
Bibliography
Barthes, R. Camera Lucida
Sontag, S. On Photography
Daniel, M. MetMuseum. William
Henry Fox Talbot (1800–1877) and the Invention of Photography [Online]
Available from: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/tlbt/hd_tlbt.htm
[Accessed: 11th November 2014]
Sekula, A. CAA The Traffic in Photographs [Online]
Available from: http://monoskop.org/images/d/d1/Allan-Sekula-traffic-in-Photographs.pdf
[Accessed: 11th November 2014]
Edwards, S. Socialism
and the Sea [Online] Available from: http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/obituary/socialism-and-the-sea
[Accessed: 11th November 2014]
Nelson, K. A Thumbnail
History of the Daguerreotype [Online]
Available from: http://daguerre.org/resource/history/history.html
[Accessed: 11th November 2014]
Daniel, M. Daguerre
(1787–1851) and the Invention of Photography [Online] Available from: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dagu/hd_dagu.htm
[Accessed: 11th November 2014]
Middleton, N. Photography
& The Uncanny [Online] Available from: http://www.nicholasmiddleton.co.uk/thesis/thesis5.html
[Accessed: 11th November 2014]
Sontag, S. On
Photography [Online] Available from: http://www.susansontag.com/SusanSontag/books/onPhotographyExerpt.shtml
[Accessed: 11th November 2014]
