This article opens with the quote “Is a photograph true to nature itself, or is it possible to lie with a camera?” (203). It’s so thought provoking. Especially since the camera in Riis’ time required ten minutes to set up, he had time to pose the picture however he wanted to. Did he abuse this power for his advantage? Riis certainly had good intentions trying to reveal the lives of those living in the tenements, but did he use their lives to get further as a journalist?
Think about photographs today. When was the last photograph you saw that has not been edited on Photoshop? Where was this photograph? Probably not in a magazine. Or any sort of advertisement. Which poses the question: If photographs were left unedited, would anyone even pay attention to them? We are surrounded by lies from advertising companies all over the world, who believe that we will not buy their products if their photographs are not retouched. The sad thing is that they are probably right.
I do not understand why Riis hid his work as a photographer from his family. If he was truly a great photographer, as many people thought, was he not proud of his work? Why would be not share that pride with the ones he loved? Riis’ photojournalism was clearly very important to him, as he published a book on it, but it is sad to think that his family did not realize this passion of his because he never told them. Would you tell someone if you were truly passionate about something?
No comments:
Post a Comment