A few days back, one of my friend and I were discussing the truth of glory. How history narrates truth is amazingly subjective. The victorious write from their perspective, and somehow the perspective of the defeated is moved under the shadows. For me this thought is even more daunting, because as a documentary photographer, I’d like to believe that once I am gone, my photos will contribute to understand the history.
But, is it so? Are photos really a trustworthy representation of reality? Is there a reality, or truth? After hanging up the phone, these questions clouded my mind. Of course photos are real; they represent everything in front of the camera. I don’t stage my photos, so I know that I have not interfered with reality in the scene. Or should I say that I have not interfered with reality in the scene consciously?
I think the later would be a correct statement, because I take photo of what I find interesting, or worthy of a story. It doesn’t mean that there is no story going on behind my back. Subjective selection of the scene makes the reality in the photos, very subjective. This subjectively selected reality is then served to viewers, who look at the images through filters of personal emotions, experience, information, and culture. So, it seems like reality is narrated and understood subjectively through photos.
This very thought blurs the line between truth and illusion, or between reality and imagination. But there can be another perspective. While studying history, it is important to know the story from other side also. The same can be said for photography. All of the subjective realities narrated by individual photographers collectively represent, a bigger reality, a bigger picture, a landscape where various islands are joined metaphorically to each other through bridges made by photos.
Photos are like windows. They show a portion of what is outside. It is not complete, but it is not at all false. Hence, it is a bite size reality, which is easy to chew and, comfortable to digest in most cases.