Reading Response- Nassar Reading

This reading was very intriguing to me. As someone who 1: has spent a lot of time in Israel/ Palestinian Territories and 2: is a photographer, the ideas in Nasser's writing hit home for me.

He mentions that "Photography bought 'the past into the present more than ever before, changing the way people experienced their personal past and the collective past of history'" This made me think, because while I fully agree with the personal past idea, the idea of collective past is a little out of focus for me. As I believe I have mentioned in past blog posts, the idea of the collective is very vague. The way in which individuals identify with a collective interest or narrative is determined by each individual, and so I am not quite convinced that photographs are able to properly project the images of collective past.

Furthermore, Nassar mentions that "Not only do photographers manipulate reality through the use of special settings, effects  techniques, lighting and positions, but the photograph itself acquires various meaning depending on the viewer's previous knowledge of its subject and his/her reaction to it." This statement is loaded with ideas. First, I agree that there is a level of creative license that each photographer takes in displaying the images which he/she sees with their own eyes. Nonetheless, the subjects are still the same. In the world of socio-political photography, there could be two photos of the same subject, for instance a protestor at a large rally, that could portray the individual in two different manners. The subject is still the same. To an individual viewing the photo, the photo could either be taken at face value as they see just the individual, or could be seen by either opposing viewpoint, as the background and other subjects in the photo are taken into consideration. So while the image documented by a photo is largely up to the portrayal of the photographer as well as the viewer, the subject always stays the same. Furthermore, I think that the work on the photographers side largely effects how "good" the photo is, rather than how viewers read into such photo.

Nassar later brings up the idea of captions. I'll be completely candid and say that, while photos that I have taken are frequently published in the newspaper and various websites, I often disregard the captions. Yes, I have to write captions for my own photos, but when I am viewing the photos of others, I most often focus strictly on the image itself. This may be a result of my background in art, which led me to photography, rather than a foundation in journalism, but viewing photos this way also allows me to create my own interpretation.

When I choose not to read captions, I am able to visualize myself in the photo, and create my own experience and interaction with the subject(s) rather than attempt to understand the experience of the photographer. I think that captions are extremely limiting, and in many cases, even when not opinionated, can alter one's view of the photo.

That's my two cents, I'll leave you with a few photos that I took in Israel and the West Bank. I will not caption these in order to leave them up to your own interpretation, but if you want the backstory, leave a comment and I will try to give you the most unbiased story as possible.