The camera never lies: The partiality of photographic evidence
Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis p. 70- 84
During the discovery of photography, the image was still suprème. In the nineteenth century, even the most acute minds almost uncritically accepted the photograph as evidence. In the meantime, however, the most world famous news photos are known to depict a 'reality' more or less manipulated by the photographer. The same is true of many images and scènes from documentaries. In his article, Brian Winston claims that, properly considered, this implies the liberation of the realistic image. The image no longer has to carry a burden that in fact has always been too much for it. However, awareness of photography's manipulative character also implies that the cultural status of the (photographic) image must be determined anew.
|Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision|
|Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis|
|Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).|
|TMG Journal for Media History; Vol 1 (1998): Verbeelding; 70-84|
Winston, Brian. (1998). The camera never lies: The partiality of photographic evidence. Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis, 70–84. doi:10.18146/tmg.68