Creating Decisive Moments
In this week’s reading, Lutz and Collins go into great depth examining the way in which National Geographic magazine constructs meaning in each article published. In class, we discussed how this is done utilizing image-captions and article layouts, but we did not focus very much on the construction of images themselves.
Lutz and Collins briefly reference “The Decisive Moment” of a photograph, and how it is “imbued with historical significance” because it is “a moment like no other” (59). “The Decisive Moment” refers to Henri Cartier-Bresson’s methodology of photography. Cartier-Bresson thinks the moment captured in many images are impossible to recreate; images are ‘one-of-a-kind.’
Here is a video in which Cartier-Bresson talks about “The Decisive Moment:”
In the video Cartier-Bresson suggests that you have only one chance to capture a moment, saying:
“You can’t correct [a photograph]. If you have to correct it, it’s a ‘next picture.’ […] Sometimes a picture has disappeared, and there’s nothing you can do. […] Life is ‘once’ forever.”
In an age of digital creation and editing, I find this intriguing. The topic of digitally editing images is a touchy one. It seems that many people feel the most accurate depiction of the subject matter is the most correct version. But in my opinion, if an image is not “correct” we can improve it.
But what makes an image “correct”?
National Geographic regularly edits its images in order to create what the editors believe is the correct meaning of an article. Lutz and Collins provide examples where editing the images perpetuate myths about other cultures, such as when a native women’s skin colour was darkened. This is obviously an abuse of digital editing technology.
Lutz and Collins additionally mention the famous National Geographic magazine cover in which the Egyptian pyramids were digitally moved closer together. The editor explained the changes could have been captured if the photographer was standing in a different place. In my opinion, this is a more understandable use of digital editing. The ultimate purpose of such changes was not to change the meaning of the image, but to improve its aesthetics and make the horizontal photograph usable on the magazine’s vertical cover.
Why, if people are unhappy with photo editing, are they not angry about improving camera technologies? Cameras are now able to capture images that would previously have required editing. Does that not mean that the ‘reality’ of a subject is more likely to be captured?
All this is disputable, but thinking about this has made me believe that it is impossible to capture ‘reality.’ These shadows of reality are never clear, and digital editing technologies are no different from the cameras themselves. Like Cartier-Bresson, we can view a photograph as a sketch. We are creating decisive moments.
All this is disputable, but thinking about this has made me believe that it is impossible to capture ‘reality.’ These shadows of reality are never clear, and digital editing technologies are no different from the cameras themselves. Like Cartier-Bresson, we can view a photograph as a sketch. We are creating decisive moments.
