ku # 684-687 ~ truth or consequences
Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 12:54PM 
Lake Champlain ~ view of Vermont • click to embiggen
Lake Champlain shoreline • click to embiggenA few days ago Mike Johnston announced in an entry on his blog - (T.O.P.) - that he is a "radical" ...
.... What's the use of hunkering down in Plato's Cave and telling happy fibs about an idealized, romanticized ideal of wilderness that no longer exists? That's just not the story that matters. Here's another radical assertion: telling lies doesn't just promote the false; it also hides the truth. The only responsible
wildlife* photographers are scrupulous truth-tellers. No matter what or how they shoot. The rest have their heads in the sand. And they're asking you to put yours there, too.
*FYI, I struck the word "wildlife" in his statement because, for my self-serving purposes, that's how I want it to read. However, that said and IMO, I don't think taking that liberty would offend Mike inasmuch as I don't think he would object to how the statement reads without that word - that is that the only responsible photographers are scrupulous truth-tellers.
I believe that to be so because, taken in the context of his entry, he also states about the medium in general:
Trouble is, photography is all about the shadows, in the Platonic sense. Photographs are instantly, effortlessly specific. People spend an inordinate amount of effort and time in the cunning application of trickery to make them less so. But what photographs want to do is show the individual thing in all its quirky, specific individuality.
All of that said, anyone who has followed my various rantings and ravings, re: the medium's inextricable and intrinsic characteristic of its relationship to and as a cohort of the real - the one that distinguishes it from the other visual arts, will not be surprised that I agree with Mike's statement (even more so as amended). HOWEVER ...
... even though I also agree with Mike when he states that neither he nor I (nor anyone else for that matter) "own photography ... and it's not up to me to tell anyone else what to do, and anyway my base position has always been that everybody should do whatever they want to as long as it's not hurting anyone", I would nevertheless have to ask the question ...
If telling lies not only promotes the false but also hides the truth, are not those who "spend an inordinate amount of effort and time in the cunning application of trickery", the result of which is to obscure the truth about the whole of the natural world, acting irresponsibly?
IMO, another question that needs to be asked is quite simply - what cause are they serving?
BTW and FYI, considering that The Landscapist has had an extra 4,400 visitors in the last 6 days, most of whom were directed here from a link posted by Mike Johnston in an entry on T.O.P., I assume that Mike reads, at least on occasion, some of my stuff here on The Landscapist. So, Mike, if you're reading this entry and disagree with my liberty taking, feel free to let me have it.
gravitas et nugalis
It is worth mentioning that, for the most part, Mike Johnston's statements were made in the context of his entry about pictures of wildlife that are made using trained and/or captive animals. Pictures that are presented as being or appear to be of "real" wildlife in their natural habitat- even if perceived as such only because of the omission of caveats that state something long the lines of this picture was made with trained/captive animals or words to that effect. Pictures that, therefore, lie and deceive about the true state of well-being of wildlife on planet as it exists today.
TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR ON THE MATTER - It is strictly my extrapolation and application of this lie-and-deceive notion to encompass the whole of the natural world as it exists today.
Reader Comments (4)
Ah yes, Mt. Mansfield. Beautiful, ain't it?
"what cause are they serving?" lining their pockets? (In the sense of providing product to a gullible public.)
Or maybe they are saying, to coin a phrase, "you can't handle the truth".
FWIW, I have just as much problem with those out to make things appear worse than they are (and much news coverage seems to be going that way) as the pretty picture, saturation to 11 lot.
You are making one completely unfounded assumption here, and it's one that's common to many artists who take art quite seriously.
Art isn't about truth. It can be, and for that sort of work, your take is correct. But truth and the search for truth is not inherent to art itself, merely a single facet of art.
Mike's point is accurate as there are certain assumptions when one talks about 'Wildlife Photography', primarily that it involves actual wildlife in the actual wild. But in this your point and his fundamentally differ as you are painting with far too broad a brush here. Sometimes the entire point of the lie is to show the truth, sometimes there just isn't a lie or a truth involved, merely a very nice picture (and everything aside, there is nothing wrong with a pretty picture. It is art and frankly is often more true to the entire concept of art than much of what gets produced as serious art today).
Does the "whole of the natural world" include the motivations / foibles of humans as well? The contrived photographs of Gregory Crewdson and Paolo Ventura are trying to say something of man's effect on the natural world (or man's unnatural propensities, perhaps).