What You See

After a slow saunter through The Frist exhibit of George Eastman photographs, I am inclined to speak on the fine line between reality and art. I've been mulling this topic around in my mind and within my fingertips for a while now. I will now attempt to thoughtfully and carefully convey my opinions/pose my questions...

Q: What is a photograph, really?
Q: Is it a depiction of what is real and true?
Q: Or, is it/should it be an artistic expression of what we all really wish the world looked like?
Q: Is it a visual representation attempting to combine all of the intangible sensory experiences?
Q: What should we feel when we look at a pretty picture? At a tragic one?

The museum's exhibit of photographs was brimming over with arguments for both reality and imagination. I think we could all agree to say that the realm of photography doesn't mutually exclude either. Sometimes, cameras record history; other times, they create unrealities. Edward Weston asks, "Why limit yourself to what your eyes see when you have such an opportunity to extend your vision?"

I think he would have been a Photoshop fan.

Below are some of my pictures from the last few weeks. I've posted them, realizing that out of context and without explanation, their meaning could be completely misconstrued. For this exercise, I've taken some liberties. Please...humor me.


In this picture, one might assume that my beautiful roommates are inhumanely tall. But, you know, of course, that it is just a matter of perspective. I took the picture from below, therefore creating the illusion that they are beasts.

It might appear as though I am in the midst of a windstorm. You must know, contrastingly, that I was indoors, and was simply (unsuccessfully) jowling.

Don't be fooled. This picture of my sweet friend, Elaine, is a complete misrepresentation of her disposition. Though she is depicted here as a menacing threat to your safety, she is, in reality, a non-violent type.

In the above, Keith looks legitimately crazed. Possessed, really. Let me put you at ease to say that, he is not, in actuality. Naturally, I just happened to catch him at an innopportune time.

So, you see, the camera can "lie." It can lead you to believe just about anything. Add photo editing into the mix and voila! - you can evoke just about anything you so desire. Manipulation? Sure, sometimes it is - when you see something and are under false pretenses that it is natural and accurate depiction of reality.

But, other times, it is infinitely more. Thoreau said, "The Question is not what you look at, but what you see." What do you feel when you look at a photograph of an orange-sky sunset? Do you experience even a small-twinge of the transcendent beauty of our Creator? Would that change if you learned that the image was amped up with CMYK color? Or, would you know that perhaps, on the day the photo was taken, there was an unrecordable beauty? Perhaps the aroma of the nearby magnolia tree combined with the temperate 65 degrees couldn't be translated onto film? Maybe, just maybe, the photographer just wanted to recreate what his/her camera was incapable of doing justice? Do you feel lied to?

I don't. I think photographs are to their takers as words are to a writer. Sometimes they're not enough. But, they're all we have. They're the only means we have of trying to tell the world what we're thinking; what we're seeing. Even though they aren't always sufficient, they're what we've got.