How Valid is the claim ‘the camera never lies’? (Part 10)
January 7th, 2007This given I do not believe that such technologies make the view of the realist any less relevant. Furthermore I do not believe they outdate or make obsolete the camera, or the photograph. I am typing this essay on a computer using a keyboard to spell the words but I made notes previously with a pen. Similarly the social shaping of technology will describe changes in how we as humans view reality with greater detail and greater understanding and so in one sense ‘clearer truth’, just as the digital picture is clearer than that created by the Daguerreotype. On the subject of truth and meaning, in the context of society, politics economics and culture I can understand the view of the cultural theorist who explains the photograph as a text, open to many interpretations based on codes and conventions. In understanding images like this Taggs’ analogy (or categorisation) of comparing the history of photography to that of writing explains the cultural theorists view point well. The image is a text, built on language and within its context it is to be read, deciphered and understood for whatever reality the reader constructs of it. As I have mentioned through out this essay though the realist has a valid point, which to me, does not contradict the cultural theorist view but in fact compliments it. The camera is a tool, like a pen, but unlike a pen it is more accurate and specific in its design and specification and as a result less open to creative manipulation by the writer of the visual text. Strictly taken out of context and isolated, the camera alone is impartial as a machine, an inanimate object, a recording device. The pen cannot be described quite like this because in order to use it to any degree of sophistication the writer must be versed in language. The camera though has no such requirement and as such incorporates a higher level of impartiality than the pen, although this simply restricts the boundaries of imagination that can be fed through it in comparison to the potentially more versatile pen. Though I have not discussed such means of deception as digital image manipulation via software programs I do not believe these to be of great importance since it has been my intention to try, although it has been difficult, to stick closely to the subject; and that is the camera itself.
In conclusion, the camera never lies; only the users of its product may construct deceitful representations of reality by using it, as a tool, like a pen, in ‘writing’ contextually embedded visual texts, since in isolation the image has no meaning therefore by itself it cannot lie.
Bibliography (for whole essay)
Berger, A. A. (1991) Media Analysis Techniques. London: Sage.
Boyd-Barrett, O. (1977). Media imperialism: Towards an international framework for an analysis of media systems. In J. Curran, M. Gurevitch and J. Woollacott (eds.), London: Edward Arnold.
Easton, M. (2006) The politics of happiness (Online Abstract) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4809828.stm [Accessed: 23/05/06].
Lister, M. (1995) “Introductory Essay” in The Photographic Image in Digital Culture. London: Routledge.
Robins, K (1995) “Will the Camera Move us Still” in Lister, M (ed) The Photographic Image in Digital Culture. London: Routledge.
McQuail, D. and Winhahl, S. (1993) Communication Models for the Study of Mass Communication. Singapore: Longman.
Mills, R. (2006) Visual Texts (Online Abstract) http://wwwdev.scu.edu.au/schools/hmcs/core/commun/pdf/topic06.pdf [Accessed: 23/05/06].
Saussure, F. (1966) Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. (1949): A Mathematical Model of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.