Imbrigotta, Kristopher. “History and the Challenge of Photography in Bertolt Brecht’s Kreigsfibel.” Radical History Review. Issue 106 (2010): pg. 27-45. Print.
In his article, “History and the Challenge of Photography in Bertolt Brecht’s Kreigsfibel,” Kristopher Imbrigotta uses Bertolt Brecht’s “photogram”, to explain how photos and words are dependent on each other. Imbrigotta observes how “we as media and information users have come to depend on the narrative power of the image to grapple with the ever-changing complexities of life” (28). Throughout his essay, Imbrigotta repeats the fact that photographs show us what things do, not what things are. In chapter three of his book “Criticizing Photographs”, Terry Barret explains similarly to Imbrigotta’s ideas about how photographs can’t say a lot on their own, how they require more in order to understand them. As Imbrigotta feels that photos require words, Barret feels that photos require many kinds of deep interpretation. Barret explains how photos will lack connotation, and will just denote objects, unless they are interpreted by the viewer. In contrast, Imbrigotta is talking about bringing out the truth in photos, while Barret questions whether photos carry any truth at all, explaining how good interpretation doesn’t necessarily equal truth. Both Barret and Imbrigotta believe that photos need more than just presence to mean something, but Imbrigotta describes the formula for portraying the “truth” in photographs, while Barret describes how to find meaning (connotation) in photographs. This source relates to my research question of finding the relationship between photographs and “the truth”, because Imbrigotta explains how photos cannot display truth on their own. Imbrigotta’s article helps me understand the fraud meaning photographs can carry, without full explanation. Imbrigotta observes, “Photographs question truth while simultaneously suggesting verisimilitude” (29). I will use this source to help my reader understand the concept of how images can appear to mean one thing, but actually mean something totally different; that photographs do not always portray “the truth” on their own.
