My thoughts on "literal image"
Looking for an image or topic discussion to fit the "literal image"element of this question is quite interesting, whilst looking at the definition of literal ( taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration."dreadful in its literal sense, (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text."a literal translation from the Spanish"). It raises interesting contradictions when used in the context of an image. As a photographer I try to portray as much information in a frame as I can, or enough that I deem necessary to give the viewer enough information to see my own way of thinking, but on reflection never enough to challenge my way of understanding the situation. I am taking a small still in the vast protean of the environment I am in. So I guess I am always expressing my inner world, or inner thoughts, but can this really ever been seen as literal representation of anything?. To take an image showing a literal representation would require that moment to have an almost zeitgeist quality to it. I would have to be able to show objectivity what is happening before at the time and after the image was taken. Taking this information in the medium of portraiture, I would have to capture the person who they were before during and after the image was taken. But surely my presence in the documentation of that moment is changing the moment that I was trying to capture. So in response I never allow the individual to show a literal representation of themselve. Any feedback on my opinion on this matter or discussion would be warmly welcomed.