"It is because photography has no language of its own, because it quotes rather than translates, that it is said that the camera cannot lie. It cannot lie because it prints directly...And yet photographs can be, and are, massively used to deceive and misinform." (Berger 96)
This quote from Another Way of Telling was intriguing to me for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, I believe that, fundamentally, this quote forces us to question the nature of truth overall. If the camera does not lie, does that mean it always tells the "truth?" Or is it just a perspective on the truth? In that manner, is that why photographs can be used to deceive?
I do not believe I could ever truly answer these questions completely or with any certainty. However, this quote did remind me of a statement a teacher I had once made that has had a lasting impact on me. Although I was only in 5th grade, I forever remember Mr. Mugulda's words of wisdom, "Numbers never lie, but liars figure." Throughout my educational career, and in my own personal readings and analysis, I have always kept this nugget at the forefront of my mind. When interpreting numbers, two schools of thought usually prevail in my estimation: 1) the belief that all numbers are objective and carry heavy argumentative weight or 2) we make narratives out of numbers and it is the narratives that are more important than the numbers. I realize this is a rather crude summary, but it should do to illustrate my point. I've always taken Mr. Mugulda's statement as splitting the difference. Hence, numbers are objective, yet they can be manipulated in ways to present a narrative.
This concept would appear to apply directly to photography. The camera quotes, and the quotes are a direct representation of reality. However, since a photograph only represents one particular instance of reality (an instance that can be chosen among many or possibly staged), it inherently would seem to carry a certain perspective of reality along with it. Berger seems to really drive this point home when he states, "The camera does not lie even when it is used to quote a lie. And so, this makes the lie appear more truthful...Yet the quotation, placed like a fact in an explicit or implicit argument, can misinform" (97).
How has everyone else interpreted this dilemma of the camera quoting from reality yet pictures being able to lie and mislead? Do we agree with Berger's analysis?
I'm glad you used this quote! Partly because I've had a problem with agreeing with him that photographs can't lie--or rather, tell the truth. And I agree with you that this places the idea of "truth" into question--what does Berger mean by truth? I'm reminded of the book's concept of the ambiguous photo--and somewhere between the ambiguity and understanding, meaning is made. With that in mind, can an ambiguous photo show the truth? Unless we mean truth to be personal or cultural truths which then dilutes the meaning of truth to work in any context we wish it to be in. Things to consider.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Berger's assessment of a photograph as a quotation but I am conscious it as only one metaphor among many for analyzing photographs. I think Berger is guilty of idealizing his discipline when he says "the camera cannot lie." Of course it can't - only people lie - but should we distinguish the discipline, its tools, its methods, and its products from the people guiding it? I don't think so. To do directs our attention away from the the fact that behind every photograph is a person who took the picture.
ReplyDelete