I've been thinking about bullshit lately, and how it relates to photography. This came about after i read an interview with Harry G. Frankfurt, a Princeton philosophy professor, who wrote a book titled "On Bullshit."
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
One of his most intriguing ideas is that bullshiters are greater enemies of truth than liars are, because the liar offers something in contrast to the truth and therefore must have a concern for what the truth is. The bullshitter, on the other hand, operates without any regard for the truth. He or she has a separate agenda, and will try to make a case that may or may not be based on truth. Questions of truthfulness to not even enter into the equation. Bullshiters actually erode the perceived importance of truth, by simply ignoring it.
It's therefore possible that bullshit, which we seem to tolerate and even expect (and sometimes even appreciate, elevating our friends to the status of "bullshit artist" ...) is even more insidious and potentially harmful than lies.
A few forms that bullshit can take are rhetoric (communication intended to persuade someone to action or to a different point of view), sophistry (communication based on specious arguments and often confusing, false logic ... attempts to bamboozle people into agreeing with you), and spin (communication that reframes the context of a fact or situation, with the intent of changing its meaning). And possibly also "truthiness," our 2005 Word of the Year, courtesy of the Colbert Report.
So, what about photography?
Photography's relationship to the truth has been a heated topic since it was discovered. The old discussions have been resurrected lately, since the ubiquity of digital technology now makes it easier than ever to convincingly and fundamentally alter an image.
Those with sophisticated views of the medium often shrug this off, saying that photography has always lied, always will. But I've argued that photography has a relationship to the truth that is fundamental, and that is different from any other visual medium's relationship to the truth.
This relationship does not mean that a photograph can't lie, distort the truth, put a spin on the truth, or obscure the truth. But it does mean that any image that is truly photographic in origin--made by capturing an image from nature with a substance that's sensitive to light--has a certain relationship to objective reality. And therefore, it has a relationship to the truth. It will retain this relationship unless non-photographic means (paintbrush, airbrush, photoshop brush, etc.) are brought to bear with such a heavy hand that its original nature is demolished.
In other posts I've quoted semiologists, who call photography's relationship to its subject matter indexical. An indexical image is one that was in some way connected to or caused by that which it depicts. Other examples are fingerprints, footprints, wave patterns in beach sand.
At first I was going to suggest that photography can lie (your political enemy airbrushed out, a supermodel composited in) but that since it's the nature of the medium to concern itself with the truth, it cannot bullshit. Only media like painting and drawing, which don't have to concern themselves with objective reality can bullshit.
But a few seconds of reflection convinced me that this idea was ... um, bullshit. It seems obvious that there are a million ways a photograph can indulge in rhetoric, sophistry, spin, half-truth, and humbug. And a painting can avoid objective reality by concerning itself with fiction, allegory, or fantasy ... none of which are bullshit. And of course, a photograph can be about these things too.
So I don't have a conclusion. But i wanted to throw out the idea that there is something unique about photographic truth ... and therefore something unique about photographic lies. And perhaps also photographic bullshit.
Thoughts?
Bookmarks