Response to Susan Sontag Blog-Post

In Plato's Cave, Susan Sontag conveys the idea that photos are becoming the reality instead of real objects and experiences. She feels that “a photograph passes for incontrovertible proof that a given thing happened,” regardless of the fact that photographers manipulate the angle and view of their subject to get that perfect shot, which records the image in a way that distorts the true reality of the scene. Sontag feels that photographs are “no generic exception to the usually shady commerce between art and truth. Even when photographers are most concerned with mirroring reality, they are still haunted by tactic imperatives of taste and conscience.” Meaning that a photographic image does not portray the object like it really is because all the manipulation techniques photographers use to capture their subject in a certain way.
Although I do agree with Sontag that photographers use special angles and tricks to butter up their image, withdrawing from the true physical reality, I think that she overlooks her onlookers and the purpose of particular photographs. Not all photographs are meant to show the looker what a scene looks like in reality. Many photos are taken to show you the feeling of being there. For example, a picture of a waterfall taken at a certain angle can make it seem more vast then it is in real life. But waterfalls are an amazing aspect of life, and being up in a forest somewhere with a small waterfall is still an awesome naturalistic experience. If the photographer can catch the right photo to portray this feeling of nostalgia and pass it on to the looker even though they weren't there, then it is a part of reality achieved that is harder to do in a painting or drawing. Lots of photographers want you to feel the feelings of being in the certain place they are capturing so they thrive to get the best shot. Making a photo seem more dramatic than it is in reality is an attempt to share a part of the scene and a way for the photographer to communicate their feelings of being there to their audience. No the viewer wasn't there, but with the best efforts you can get a tiny taste and leave the rest for longing and imagination. I also think that Sontag slightly overlooks her audience. Today the technological world is full of ways to manipulate photographs and it's almost to be expected now. Lots of people are not naive and automatically assume the photograph is an exact figment of reality. Adobe Photoshop has become a regular partner in lots of photography, and a person is just as likely to comment on an editing style than the actual image, acknowledging that the photograph has been manipulated. Of course there are people who see what they see in a photo and imagine that if they jumped inside it's frames it would be just like that in real life. But overall society is becoming accustomed to the power of technology and the distortions that can come with it.
My second paragraph is a countering paragraph because I acknowledge the truths in Sontag's article but then I go on to explore my own ideas that I think she overlooked. I do not disagree with her statements but I don't think she took into account all the values of photography. At first I came to terms with her passage, then I argued the other side. Being very interested in photography myself I used information from things that I have personally done and seen.