Photography's paradox: when seeing is not believing

Truth and photography: The relationship between truth and photography.

"I heard it through the grapevine" suggests unreliable rumor-mongering, but "seeing is believing." As a culture we have long had a tendency to equate fact with being able to see something before our own eyes. That is why photography is often viewed as inherently more objective than even factual reporting. Within our language, our bias in favor of the truth of what we can see is evident. Hearsay (second-hand testimony) is not admissible in court, but eyewitness testimony is often allowed.

However, there is ample evidence to suggest that even seeing something in a photograph can be a kind of a lie. The most obvious example of this phenomenon are the many airbrushed photos of models that make their subjects look much more beautiful than people in real life. But even non-photoshopped images can be deceitful. A carefully staged wedding picture with a bride's train falsely scattered with rose petals is the work of a photographer's artifice. It is a cliche, not emotionally truthful. Conversely, an elaborately staged photograph can reveal a greater truth, much like an impressionist's depiction of a scene in paint. Annie Leibovitz's images of celebrities in costume or a photographer who dresses him or herself up as a different persona in a clearly ironic fashion (such as a woman who might dressed in drag to show the culturally constructed nature of gender) may be examples of more emotionally and intellectually truthful forms of photography than candid snapshots that falsely show a happy family.