The camera never lies. So many ways of approaching this: my concern is with the philosophical dimension of the question. Many have written about the physics of light and the camera itself, however, I would like to approach this essay subject from the perspective of truth construction. Recent events in Iraq may prove interesting here: the soldier shooting an unarmed man? I assume a considerable emphasis is upon context here? From some early readings, I gather that the French scholar Jean Baudrillard may have something to say here in light of his concept of simulacra and simulation? As an essay question, it certainly provokes one’s existing beliefs of the significance of Truth within photography. Friends and I have talked endlessly around the question! I would be very much interested to hear what the international community of thinkers has to say on this long held assumption. Any recommended readings would be much appreciated… tom.
the camera never lies because a lie, as opposed to an error, is a fact of will. a statement is not a lie for being invalid, or for being false. it is a lie when it is used as being true when it is in fact false, or vice-versa, when the user knows it, to serve a purpose.
a lie is then a matter of psychology rather than epistemology, and untill there is such a thing as the psychology of the camera, talking about cameras lieing is a moot point.
for about the same reasons, an image can not lie. i suppose we could say that images in themselves can not lie in the same way that weapons in themselves can not kill. lies is something we make up for ourselves.
A camera only shows a part of a story it does not explain the entire story. If you could base events all from a picture life may, nay would be far to simple. For example when you see a picture of an event that has happened to you and you remember the event as if it were happening, the sounds, smells, tastes, emotions, and so on come rushing to you. Now for someone who was not there they only have a small detail of what happened. They can never fully understand the value or importance of it unless they were there.
Well after that little ramble I hope I have made some sense.
Some great insights thankyou all. Would anyone however be able to recommend any possible readings in answering this question? I’ve thought about Richard Rorty’s book: ‘‘Objectivism, Relativism and Truth’’ perhaps being of some use? Many thanks.