Photographer Richard Avedon once stated "All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." What do you think he meant? Do you agree or disagree, defend your position.
To start of i do agree with the quote said by Richad Avedon. The reason being is that I, myself beleive in the same concept that all phtographs are accurate yet don't tell the whole truth. I think this quote has a deeper meaning than most people think. This quote relates to real life and the reality of life as well as photographs. A photograph is an image taken out of time, and is simply a glimpse of a precise moment caught on camera that will never happen again. No matter what the photo is of, it is accurate in that it reaveals how things were/are. The picture is completley accurate based soleley on the fact that if the things portrayed in the picture never existed we wouldn't have been able to see that specific photograph. On the contrary however, a photo cannot depict the truth of a moment. In order to know the truth of a moment captured in a photograph, one must be physically involved in capturing the image. To put things into a more realistic perspective I will give two examples. If we were looking at a crime scene, a picture of a person being murdered could be presented. Indeed the body is actually there so in reality it is accurate because it's not like the photographer captured something unreal. However, you could come up with numerous theories about how this person passed away. But your theories may not be entirely correct. Only one person truly knows the truth behind that picture. The photographer always has something in mind but wether or not we truly know the truth behind the picture is what makes this statement true. Another example is when you're looking up pictures of a certain country that you would love to visit. I have experienced this before. When a photographer takes a picture of a city or country their goal is to make the place look astonishing in order to upload it to the interenet for everyone to enjoy. At a specific moment in time, with the right lighting and an effecient camera they captured the city where it's beauty shines the most, so yes it is accurate. However when you later visit that city or country you find that the picture you saw before you came, doesn't look like what you had imagined. It is because the photograph made you picture something in your mind that was far from the truth. In conclusion, a photograph shows you exactly what was visible from a given perspective at a specific moment in time, a time the photographer wanted you to see. The truth relies upon observing something over time and in detail. I can see a photo of someone in the air. Did they jump or are they falling? The truth can not be determined by looking at the picture.
For starters, I do agree with the quote. Not only because it's true, but because it holds a another meaning behind it that most people won't understand. "All photographers are accurate" just this line means that all photographers take photos that need a split second to be taken. And long with that, they only capture a split second on the time it was taken. The photo is accurate because it does shoe what was happening during that time. But it also doesn't show the full picture. See, if I take a picture of my artwork when its done, it only shows how beautiful the picture looks when it's done and polished. But it doesnt show the hard work and sweat that was put into making this picture. It doesn't show the days I stayed up awake to make this picture and make sure its at ts best. And that's exactly what this part means "None of them is the truth" and in reality, none of them shows the full truth or the full story behind the picture. For example,a picture of someone crying, tears are obviously showing, but are they tears of pain, or tears of joy?. Nothing can be determined by the end picture but rather the whole story and the entire process of capturing that valuable moment in time.
-What I think the photographer meant is that all photos are an accurate display of a moment in time that was captured through a camera lens. However he also said that not photos are telling the truth. I agree with this because i believe most photos are misguided and are portraying an affected moment in time taken out of time. I feel like most photos are manipulated by the photographer and the real scene is completely different, as if he alters the reality in front of him to hid desire. I do agree with this and my main reason for supporting this is that when you see a photo in it's raw state it a second taken out of place and due to that to me it is like a sentence out of context that is accurate but does not tell the whole story.
i agree with the photographer because first i believe it myself. and i think it's very true that they re accurate because without them we wont know what happened and the picture won't ever happen again so it captures a 1/125 of a second that no matter what won't happen again.i don't think they're true because for example we just laugh in a photo even if were not happy during it. so t describes something not true
To start of i do agree with the quote said by Richad Avedon. The reason being is that I, myself beleive in the same concept that all phtographs are accurate yet don't tell the whole truth. I think this quote has a deeper meaning than most people think. This quote relates to real life and the reality of life as well as photographs. A photograph is an image taken out of time, and is simply a glimpse of a precise moment caught on camera that will never happen again. No matter what the photo is of, it is accurate in that it reaveals how things were/are. The picture is completley accurate based soleley on the fact that if the things portrayed in the picture never existed we wouldn't have been able to see that specific photograph. On the contrary however, a photo cannot depict the truth of a moment. In order to know the truth of a moment captured in a photograph, one must be physically involved in capturing the image. To put things into a more realistic perspective I will give two examples. If we were looking at a crime scene, a picture of a person being murdered could be presented. Indeed the body is actually there so in reality it is accurate because it's not like the photographer captured something unreal. However, you could come up with numerous theories about how this person passed away. But your theories may not be entirely correct. Only one person truly knows the truth behind that picture. The photographer always has something in mind but wether or not we truly know the truth behind the picture is what makes this statement true. Another example is when you're looking up pictures of a certain country that you would love to visit. I have experienced this before. When a photographer takes a picture of a city or country their goal is to make the place look astonishing in order to upload it to the interenet for everyone to enjoy. At a specific moment in time, with the right lighting and an effecient camera they captured the city where it's beauty shines the most, so yes it is accurate. However when you later visit that city or country you find that the picture you saw before you came, doesn't look like what you had imagined. It is because the photograph made you picture something in your mind that was far from the truth. In conclusion, a photograph shows you exactly what was visible from a given perspective at a specific moment in time, a time the photographer wanted you to see. The truth relies upon observing something over time and in detail. I can see a photo of someone in the air. Did they jump or are they falling? The truth can not be determined by looking at the picture.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, I do agree with the quote. Not only because it's true, but because it holds a another meaning behind it that most people won't understand. "All photographers are accurate" just this line means that all photographers take photos that need a split second to be taken. And long with that, they only capture a split second on the time it was taken. The photo is accurate because it does shoe what was happening during that time. But it also doesn't show the full picture. See, if I take a picture of my artwork when its done, it only shows how beautiful the picture looks when it's done and polished. But it doesnt show the hard work and sweat that was put into making this picture. It doesn't show the days I stayed up awake to make this picture and make sure its at ts best. And that's exactly what this part means "None of them is the truth" and in reality, none of them shows the full truth or the full story behind the picture. For example,a picture of someone crying, tears are obviously showing, but are they tears of pain, or tears of joy?. Nothing can be determined by the end picture but rather the whole story and the entire process of capturing that valuable moment in time.
ReplyDelete-What I think the photographer meant is that all photos are an accurate display of a moment in time that was captured through a camera lens. However he also said that not photos are telling the truth. I agree with this because i believe most photos are misguided and are portraying an affected moment in time taken out of time. I feel like most photos are manipulated by the photographer and the real scene is completely different, as if he alters the reality in front of him to hid desire. I do agree with this and my main reason for supporting this is that when you see a photo in it's raw state it a second taken out of place and due to that to me it is like a sentence out of context that is accurate but does not tell the whole story.
ReplyDeletei agree with the photographer because first i believe it myself. and i think it's very true that they re accurate because without them we wont know what happened and the picture won't ever happen again so it captures a 1/125 of a second that no matter what won't happen again.i don't think they're true because for example we just laugh in a photo even if were not happy during it. so t describes something not true
ReplyDelete