Capturing Reality: The Illusion of Objectivity in Photography

Susan Sontag, the late essayist and cultural critic, declared “photographs furnish evidence” and “a photograph passes for incontrovertible proof that a given thing happened.” Such faith in photography’s objectivity, however, is fundamentally misplaced. From the moment the photographer frames the shot, a photo is already an abstraction of reality guided by human choices. As Ansel Adams, renowned landscape photographer, put it: “You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” The photographer’s unique visual perspective – what catches their eye and the way they choose to compose the image – inserts subjectivity into the photographic process from its inception.

As photography critic Phillip Knightley concluded, it was likely “an inventive and brilliant fake.” Here, subjectivity is inserted not in the photograph’s production, but through the photographer’s coordination of events. Other ways photographers manipulate reality include telephoto lenses to flatten perspective or wide angles to exaggerate scenes. The preparatory choices involved in taking any photograph undermine notions of photographic objectivity.

But decades later, critical examination revealed it exemplified problematic power dynamics between privileged photographers and vulnerable subjects. To the contemporary viewer, it raises ethical questions about exploitation and consent in documentary photography. The photograph itself has not changed, but its meaning transforms depending on the viewer and sociocultural context.

Roland Barthes, influential literary theorist and philosopher, further contended in his seminal book Camera Lucida that a photograph’s meaning is also unfixed until the specific moment of viewing by a particular individual. “It is not until I find myself before a photograph,” Barthes explained, that the image’s “whole life is posthumous.” For Barthes, a photograph’s essence could only be unlocked subjectively by the viewer at the time of contemplation. The interpretation of a photograph thus depends not just on cultural context, but is continually shaped by each viewer’s distinct acts of perception.

At a fundamental level, the subjectivity of perception arises from the mind’s role in processing visual stimuli into meaning. Philosophers have long pondered whether objective reality exists at all or if humans only ever perceive reality through subjective experience. René Descartes notably theorized that we can never directly grasp external objects like photographs, only mental representations of them constructed by our consciousness. Perception is thus an active process shaped by our minds. Modern neuroscience supports this view. When we look at a photograph, patterns of light activate neurons in our visual cortex, which the brain must interpret. This neural processing filters visual information through past experiences, memories and biases before we can make meaning from it. As neuroscientist Anil Seth explains, “Perception and reality are not the same thing.” We thus can never perceive an objective reality unmediated by the subjectivity hardwired into our cognitive processes.

Does this imply photographs have no factual value since they cannot portray absolute truths? Not necessarily. But we must approach photos with an awareness of their subjectivity. Photos powerfully shape collective memory and historical narratives precisely because of their persuasive illusion of objectivity. Recognizing the distinction between truthful documentation and subjective perspectives allows us to wield photography responsibly. While photographs may not represent an objective reality, they do reference real events that occurred in time and space. Certain basic facts can often be assumed from the contents of a photo itself. And the information conveyed by documentary photos can complement other sources like written accounts or data analysis to compile evidence.

Yet photographs alone cannot tell complete, unvarnished truths. Harvard scholar Tanisha C. Ford explains that social power dynamics have long allowed the photographic medium to “promote oppressive myths” and “reinforce public lies” by freezing selective moments divorced from context. Historian Deborah Willis likewise warns that photographs “seduce us into believing that they represent the whole story.” By acknowledging the subjectivity inherent in all aspects of photography, we can assess images with appropriate scrutiny. Rather than taking photos as absolute proofs, we should weigh them as meaningful perspectives that both reveal and obscure truths about our complex realities. The relationship between photography and reality is ultimately an intricate dance between facts and illusions, revelations and distortions.

While no photograph perfectly mirrors reality, the medium still holds immense power to expand human perception and shape collective memory. The key is cultivating what Sontag described as “an ecology not only of real things but of images” – appreciating photographs not as impartial reflections but as images freighted with meaning by their creators, subjects and viewers. Photography can never wholly capture an objective reality. But that does not diminish its capacity to spark insight, convey beauty and bear witness. We must simply approach the photograph aware that truth comes filtered through various layers of subjectivity and leverage the medium thoughtfully. For only by questioning the objectivity of the world captured in photographs can we begin to perceive both the opportunities and limitations of photography’s remarkable ability to document lived experiences.