After watching The True Meaning of Pictures, I realized that everything that a photographer chooses to be within a frame is everything that viewer understands and sees. I believe that a lot of things can be misconstrued or even misunderstood. Many times, a photographer can intentionally include (or not include) key elements into a frame to impose a feeling or belief onto the viewer, also seen from The Plaintiff Speaks reading. I believe that a photographer has a certain idea about the finished product before they even release the shutter on their camera. Each photograph has to be planned and carefully composed so as not to misconstrue anything about their intent on any given image.
I find it so interesting that a photographer can have certain intent on a photograph, but the perception and interpretation is completely different from one viewer to the next unless the photographer is there to explain his or her intentions. I believe that a photographer can make photographs that portray things accurately and truthfully. I believe that a photographer can be honest in his or her photography. I think that if a viewer knows that a photograph has been altered, and then a photograph is ok. But what is the line that separates intent and interpretation? What can be considered “real” in photography?