ich again is another falsehood. When a photograph is taken and an event captured, the past and future are irrelevant. The instant taken by the camera is true and factual. Everything that led up to the photograph and everything that follows leaves the instant photographed, and the consequent truth, unaffected. The truth conveyed by the photograph may be harder to decipher, but remains a truth regardless. Berger uses an example of a landscape photographed, page 91, to describe the effects of broken continuity. Berger claims that the light and the weather are taken from their setting and the photograph becomes ambiguous. Nothing is ambiguous about the actual instant photographed. The light and weather captured by the camera were the same light and weather as the instant of the photograph. Berger does not even attempt to apply a meaning to a landscape in his essay. Berger excludes landscapes because they are not ambiguous. There is nothing to dispute about the lighting or weather of a landscape, but the photograph must still carry a meaning. The reason Berger fails to apply meaning to landscapes is that he is unable to draw upon his own life experiences and psychology to create a mythical truth, or a personal truth. The truth is not personal; it is universal and singular, thus escaping Bergers imagination.If the photograph were to be replaced back into its surrounding time, fixing the continuity, would the meaning differ? Would Berger now be able to invent an ambiguous meaning for the photograph? Nothing from Bergers personal past could influence the landscape captured within the photograph; thus Berger is unable to assign meaning. When Berger is unable to assign meaning, the photograph must be clear and lucid, not ambiguous. The singular truth behind the photograph has not allowed Berger any room for a personal reading.Another example of Bergers attempt to falsify photographs by creating meanings for them occurs when discu...
