I wrote a bit in my last reading response about this article, whoops. But I re-read it and found some more interesting things to comment about:
1. I definitely agree with the author in that labeling photographs with false information, for example referring to the Dome of the Rock as Solomon's Temple, is unacceptable because it is spreading this misinformation on to people who may not have any knowledge in the area, and are therefore more likely to believe it is true. From my point of view, photography is an attempt to portray to the public something as it exists in actuality, and therefore, incorrect captions and labels are a huge problem.
2. However, going off this first point and the arguments of the author, I do not think that photography can be completely objective, because after all, the photographer is an actual human being with his or her own biases and individual experiences, which in turn influences the objects that seem important to him or her, i.e. the photographs he or she takes. Personally, I think it is quite obvious that photographers will want to capture the religious essence of Jerusalem because of the huge importance for so many people. Yet this can definitely be done in a way which does not purposefully exclude the normal, everyday inhabitants in Jerusalem.
3. I think the desire for people living in "developed" countries, and in the Western world especially, to view "traditional" buildings and monuments as detached from people and civilization is actually quite common (I put these terms in quote because their usage is quite controversial, and I don't mean to be offensive by using them). The best example of this that comes to mind are the Pyramids of Giza. A lot of people think that these famous pyramids are located in the desert, or at least not near Cairo, when in fact, this picture is a more accurate portrayal:
I'm not saying that I find it acceptable that photographers portray other cultures and societies as "the other," or as "uncivilized," but I think it is a lot more common than we realize.
1. I definitely agree with the author in that labeling photographs with false information, for example referring to the Dome of the Rock as Solomon's Temple, is unacceptable because it is spreading this misinformation on to people who may not have any knowledge in the area, and are therefore more likely to believe it is true. From my point of view, photography is an attempt to portray to the public something as it exists in actuality, and therefore, incorrect captions and labels are a huge problem.
2. However, going off this first point and the arguments of the author, I do not think that photography can be completely objective, because after all, the photographer is an actual human being with his or her own biases and individual experiences, which in turn influences the objects that seem important to him or her, i.e. the photographs he or she takes. Personally, I think it is quite obvious that photographers will want to capture the religious essence of Jerusalem because of the huge importance for so many people. Yet this can definitely be done in a way which does not purposefully exclude the normal, everyday inhabitants in Jerusalem.
3. I think the desire for people living in "developed" countries, and in the Western world especially, to view "traditional" buildings and monuments as detached from people and civilization is actually quite common (I put these terms in quote because their usage is quite controversial, and I don't mean to be offensive by using them). The best example of this that comes to mind are the Pyramids of Giza. A lot of people think that these famous pyramids are located in the desert, or at least not near Cairo, when in fact, this picture is a more accurate portrayal:I'm not saying that I find it acceptable that photographers portray other cultures and societies as "the other," or as "uncivilized," but I think it is a lot more common than we realize.
 |
| Here's just one example. |
Yeah. Your mentioning of photographs of folks from distant lands reminded me about photographs of people with special rights (needs), and they are often shot zoomed up real close, too close. Such a close zoom makes everyone look like a monster. It seems disrespectful to photograph people inaccurately for shock value. It's some kind of freak show mentality. It's one thing to change, contextualize, or distort people's appearances in photographs in a creative artistic sense or for political satire, but it's another thing to distort people in a more documentary setting, and call it real or true.
ReplyDeleteI agree that photography is extremely subjective. Its subjective in how the photographer portrays an image, and subjective in what images are actually viewed by the public. I like how you used examples in your response, and I couldn't help but think of so many more. Every situation or place can be photographed but what these photographs depict does not make it the truth, which is something that is exemplified in Nassar's article. It also made me a lot more conscious of thinking twice about what I'm looking at, and not taking everything to be true.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the subjectivity of photography. Many photographers can have their own personal opinions on a lot of subjects, and inflict those opinions in their photography. This makes the viewer of the photograph have a somewhat distorted view of the image or subject. I think that this is what has happened with these early photographs. I think that the photographers wanted their viewers to believe that Jerusalem was just like what was taught in the Bible, when in reality it is a real living city with multiple different cultures and peoples.
ReplyDelete