urban ku # 133 ~ 'truth'
Monday, November 12, 2007 at 09:34AM 
Wildness close to someone else's home • click to embiggenRichard Avedon wrote, "All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
On my long journey home from Pittsburgh, I was actually thinking along these lines about the picture presented here. I made it from the window of friend's loft (where I was staying) while I was in Pittsburgh. It certainly qualifies for Wildness gallery - it's just not wildness close to my home.
In any event, I was thinking about this picture because, in a way, it defiantly stands in direct contrast to the preferred visual image of Pittsburgh as decreed by the Pgh Chamber of Commerce. Those pictures almost always present a dramatic view of the city skyline as seen from the top of Mt. Washington (not actually a mountain, MW is a very steep and high hillside right across the river from downtown Pgh. The pictured view is always dressed in a soft, alpenglow-like light which gives a jewel-like presence to the cities many glass enclosed towers.
It could be said that these pictures, in their own visitors-bureau-porn way, could be said to be 'accurate' - the view does exist and it is, at times, bathed in a soft glowing light. But ...
Once a visitor or resident descend from the lofty geographic and pictorial heights of Mt. Washington, the (by far) most commonly encountered view throughout the city is much more akin to that pictured above. In fact (and in 'truth'), the cityscape is mostly that of a worn-out, run-down, rust-belt urban environment. Somewhat depressing, in fact.
So, both representations are, in fact, 'accurate' but it would be my contention that only one of them is 'truth'.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote, ",,,first you quote Avedon's famous line where the first word of the second sentence is "NONE" and then you conclude your little editorial by saying that your image (or images like yours) "is truth". So logically you are saying that your photograph should not be included in Avedon's generalization. Somehow, unlike most of us other mortals, you are privvy to actual Truth.
Only in your mind, Mike.
My response: "the truth" may, in fact, be only in my mind. Something that I think is true for most of us - we all have our own 'truths', many of which turn out to be shared' truths. But that's not really my main point.
If Avedon was implying that in and of themselves 'none of them is the truth', I am inclined to agree ,at least up to a point, but only if the pictures are presented in a void/vacuum. IMO, 'in a void/vacuum' means without the benefit of words. With words, many of them are the truth.
Reader Comments (7)
I recall having a similar conversation with the Economic Development Officer for our area. First, she criticized my images of the area as "not realistic". So I sent her some realistic images. Then she complained that they "aren't marketable".
Well, no shit.
The plain fact is that the area is, for the most part, ugly as hell. When I go looking for photos I'm panning for gold. It takes a lot of wandering and driving to find the interesting bits that I do. They are in no way representative of every day life in the Neutral Hills.
You'd think that someone in charge of tourism would know better.
Franky, this picture would be marketable if you applied the rule of thirds, rather than dividing the image into quadrants. I read about that technique on a photography website.
I think it also needs more saturation. [bfg]
Let me get this straight - first you quote Avedon's famous line where the first word of the second sentence is "NONE" and then you conclude your little editorial by saying that your image (or images like yours) "is truth". So logically you are saying that your photograph should not be included in Avedon's generalization. Somehow, unlike most of us other mortals, you are privvy to actual Truth.
Only in your mind, Mike.
Mark,
My sincere apologies. I have no idea why I referred to you as "Mike". One of those horrific brain farts, I guess. But I'm sure you've been called worse names!
Paul
I thought addressing Gravitas as Mike was deliberate and existential.
To "the wife",
Deiberate? Absolutely not. Existential? Perhaps, but not likely.
The "truth" (if such a thing actually exists) is that I had just exchanged some emails with Mike Johnston (of TOP) and apparently still had him on my mind.
I see that so far other readers have avoided Mark's invitation to express their thoughts on "truth", like it was a visit to the dentist. I'm not surprised. Once you force yourself to stop and think about such a nebulous concept, you realize that you know almost nothing about it. "Truth" is like "Beauty" and "Art". Everyone thinks they know what it is until someone asks them to define it. In that instant, they realize they haven't a clue.
That's not a criticism; the "truth" is, neither do any of the rest of us.