Intention and Artiface

The article 'Intention and Artifice' focuses on the reality or lack there of in the world of Photography. This article was extremely intriguing and discussed a lot of important questions. On page 3 the writer makes a statement that i really loved in referring to what photography actually is, calling it "fossilized light." That phrase just stuck in my mind and i thought it perfect. Usually we think of photographs as solid objects but it is really just a freeze-frame of how our eyes absorb the light of a certain scene.

Later the author mentioned that for many conventional artists (painters, sculptors, etc...) "truth had really been another word for convention" That statement works perfectly with the still images of the horse running. The popular opinion of horses being completely off the ground at moments of their run was destroyed by the high-speed still frames of a horse showing at least one foot always on the ground. Does that really make the paintings of horses suspended in the air any less beautiful or realistic? My opinion is no. Sure it is not actually possible, but thats one of paintings strong points. It can make images look extremely real even though they technically are not possible.

Along this lines of 'what is real', the story about how a cement factory explosion was passed off as the russian nuclear reactor. With the ability to capture real images in a sequence that displays events happening (film), the human brain is able to be tricked again. Very few people know what a nuclear plant really looks like especially when its exploding. I think its interesting that in the age of film and broadcast news the necessity for the visual information is so great that if the real image can't be found another one will be substituted. 

The story about the russian farmers substituted for vietnam POWs shocked me. I didn't know it was possible at that point in time to manipulate photos so extensively. What really shocked me though was that i could tell the picture was messed up some how. It just didn't look write, the middle man's face was not proportional. I suppose thats a testament to the age i grew up in that i can look at a photo and tell 'i think that has been doctored'.

Near the end of the article George Lucas makes a statement that both scared and excited me (I also really like George Lucas). Anyway, he mentioned that we won't be able to comprehend now what will be happening to still images in the future. First thought: 'Wow, there could be some really cool things', but on second thought:'the line between reality and what is shown could be so blurred that they become indistinguishable, and that scares me.'