In Doug DuBois’s interview conducted for the article by LensCulture, I really related to how the vibe a subject gives off can actually be very different from their actual personality. In DuBois’s interview, DuBois says the photos only seem real and genuine, but what’s really happening is the audience projecting how they feel about the photo based on first impression. This makes me think of the classic cinema method, The Kuleshov Effect. This method involves two shots: one of the subject, and another of the object the subject is looking at. What happens is that the pairing of the two shots makes the audience feel a certain way about it, but the object can be anything and the audience derives meaning based on the two shots back to back in editing. As a filmmaker, what I must disagree with DuBois on is that his combination of images aren’t used to betray the audience. I don’t doubt that his choice in the images he puts in his collection aren’t meant to manipulate the audience, but DuBois is choosing certain images for a reason, and there’s something driving that. The only reason why I disagree with showing the most “real” depiction of things is that the artist always has a voice. I learned this as a filmmaker and that skews my opinion, but if I approach this from a filmmaker’s perspective, all films are trying to convey something. Filmmakers actually try to manipulate the audience to feel certain ways, for example, despair, loss, confusion, hope, etc. With any art, it’s impossible to create a completely neutral piece. Thinking back to last week’s unit on lighting; the light ratio, exposure, and shadows have an effect on the vibe of the photo. Nothing is without meaning.
