I just read an excellent interview with Ami Vitale by The Adventure Life. The interview, thankfully, did not focus on gear or the technical side of photography, but instead gave us a good idea of who Ami Vitale is, how she works, how she survives, and a great feel for how she covers the stories.
Is objectivity an illusion? What does objectivity mean to you? Is it something journalists should strive for? Why or why not?
[Ami Vitale said…] “Yes, I believe objectivity is an illusion but I also believe that there are a multitude of viewpoints and that no one “Truth” exists. I believe that unless we understand and give voice to these perspectives, reason remains veiled. Ignorance in each other’s stories leads us to assume we know them. It allows us to maintain perceptions of differences based on our own preconceived notions.”
I mostly agree with that. The phrase “no one ‘Truth’ exists” really threw me at first. Actually, I started writing this post to contradict what she said, but now having read it again a couple times, I think I see it a little differently. To start, I would make that a small t…but that is nit picking and most people would not catch the subtle difference.
If read in the context of covering stories and trying to understand others’ perspectives, I would agree that there is no one truth. Meaning, there is not that perfect set of photographs or those perfect words that say everything just exactly as it truly is, was, and will be. Who would deny that? It is a matter of wording, to some degree.
Going back to the big T Truth, though, this quote touches on a deeper reality. Reality, and thus truth, is extremely difficult to nail down, in a photo or with words, and I would not even say that is the end goal of photojournalism anyway. So, let’s just leave photojournalism for a moment.
Let’s call this spiritual photography. There is a reality, a Truth, present at all times and in every place, filling all things. So, is it possible to photograph that? I would say no. However, surely it is possible to photograph certain facets, images, reflections, or indicators of that true reality, though.
I do not seek to bring this out in every single photo. Sometimes it is good enough to just take a cute photo or a snapshot, but I still seek that reality. I want my photos not to force my point of view (which is more what I think Ami Vitale is talking about anyway…and trying to not do), but to try to dig for the deeper reality, call it the backstory or the Grand Mystery of Things. It is not about what I want my photos to communicate, but rather that I want my photos to make a hard link between the beauty of Truth and the viewer of the photo.
[…] This post was Twitted by CooperStrange […]
I think she is using the words truth and viewpoint interchangably… Even before “big-t” truth, things must get objective, even if we can’t discern the objective truth from our viewpoint doesn’t mean it isn’t there…
Perhaps she would have been more clear to say that we can’t claim to definately know the truth in many situations and the journalists job is to provide as wide a window for viewpoint as possible…?
I love trying to capture elements of the big-t Truth in photos too, though I don’t often have much success, but that’s down to my photography rather than lack of subject!
That is a good way to say it: “even if we can’t discern the objective truth from our viewpoint doesn’t mean it isn’t there”. I do not want to be too hard on her. It seems like what she is trying to say is that we should not go into situations trying to force our perceptions and conclusions into the story we tell, but rather we need to become a part of the situation (as much as possible) and “walk a mile in another man’s shoes” kind of thing, and THEN tell the story. I think dropping the “truth” bomb makes it hard to see the rest of the comment.
Here is another quote from Ami Vitale (from an interview with Matt Brandon) on the topic of truth:
“It is not that it is incorrect. It is very true, very often. Truth, I think, is…I mean, truth does not really exist. Truth is a variety of viewpoints. That’s how you get to a truth, you have a multitude of viewpoints. If you just have one narrow perspective, it is just a piece of the truth. …It is not that it is not that anything’s wrong, or a lie, it is just that it is one tiny piece of it.”
The first few times I read this, it sounded like, “there are many truths”. The more I read it, though, the more I like it. It is sounding more like, “Truth is not something that you can over simplify: it is broad, it is mystical, it is sometimes hard to define in mere words.”
Just a thought.