Sometimes I argue that photography has enshrined the superficiality of experience. It has contributed to the over-valuation of appearances to a point where image has (subconsciously) replaced the reality as reality. – Gang Badoy
I get excited whenever someone calls me over the landline. It is partly attributed to the surprise that the caller assumes I’m home coupled with the mystery factor of not knowing who that person is (I don’t have caller ID). in an age where we’ve replaced our landline with mobile phones, we hardly get surprised by who’s on the other line. We can reject the call if we don’t want to talk to the other person and make up some excuse like “hey I was at the spa and had cucumbers in my eyes so I couldn’t answer.”
In a similar light…
Is it better, as a tourist to have never seen a picture of your destination so that there are no pre-conceived notions of what the place looks like?
European Food Festival @ Serendra March 2007
Can the same be said for photography? I see many great pictures of the sights – that look so much better than the actual image itself. Is picture perfect an oxymoron? Here’s a simpler analogy: food stylists for instance try as much as possible to make the dish look really good on camera. Take for instance how appealing a Big Mac looks on the product shot. Not that it has anything to do with Sharon Cuneta, but does the real image justify what the consumer was led to believe?
This isn’t a bash on photography. It is actually a reaction to a post made by Gang Badoy about photography and how it can be used as a double edged sword. The first side is here. And the “>other side here.
Leave a Reply