I finally got around to having my first tutorial with Karen and I do feel that it was very constructive. It feels that I am being given a lot of freedom to pursue avenues of research that I think are relevant and I do find this very empowering and I have a real sense of ownership over my MA.

We agreed on various points, such as the plan that I detailed in a previous post is not cast in stone but is flexible, though there are checkmarks along the way to ensure progress is made. We also agreed that an agenda should be set in advance to help the tutorial have direction and focus and that I would email either some written work or a progress report 1 week beforehand to provide a context for the tutorial.

I also explained that I feel that I am looking at the notion of photographic truth and that I have made some preliminary research on the subject. It turns out that there are two types of truth, which struck me as being rather paradoxical that you can have two versions of the truth, both being as valid as each other! The first notion is called the conducive theory because it is conducive to how the world works. This version applies mainly to the physical world and helps to support how the physicality of the world works, such as fire will always give off heat or that feathers are soft. It is this type of truth that is mainly used in the sciences such as physics or biology because they are dealing with subject matter that is empirical.

However, the other version of the truth deals with beliefs and is called cohesive and this is because the truth that is formed is supported by a series of beliefs that support each other. This means that there needs to be a certain amount of cohesion between the different beliefs, that elements of one belief are reflected in another belief and form a framework that sticks together and supports itself.

It is this version of the truth that I find more interesting because it supports beliefs and beliefs form the signified part of the sign in semiotics and so consequently help to support the notion of photographic truth. For instance, I see a picture of a car and I think of travelling to a destination because the car represents traveling and journeys, I don’t think of baking a cake when I see a car because there is no connection between the object and the thought or sentiment. In other words, there needs to be a correlation between the object and the thought for the sign to work. So, because the signifier corresponds with the signified the signified has an element of truth because it is using the cohesive version of the truth. This I really need to delve deeper with as I’ve only read one article at http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2015/01/29/What-is-Truth.aspx and so needs more deeper and substantial research before I start expanding further.

We also discussed studying a photographer who has made a career out of photographing celebrities. It was suggested that I look at Annie Leibovitz, who has been photographing celebrities since the 1960s and she does seem like a good candidate for the following reasons:

1. There is a substantial body of relevant work to analyse

2. I can study the phenomenon of the gaze from a male, female and gay perspective.

3. I can psychoanalyse her personal photographs and compare this to her professional work

4. There is substantial critical reviews of Leibovitz’s work to draw upon.

I also suggested that I wanted to use narrative a common thread running through the thesis and by concentrating on a certain photographer would naturally give the thesis a narrative. So, I could start by discussing Leibovitz, then the image and finally the viewer and the critical analysis that her work has received.

Overall, it was a very positive and constructive tutorial that has given me direction and focus. My next actions will be to look deeper at the work of Leibovitz and this will take the form of creating a biography of her with a time line of important works. I need to delve deeper and find out more about the two notions of truth and see about relating this back to the photograph.

But there is another idea that has got me interested and this involves intelligence and how that uses information and beliefs and how it is connected to creativity. I think there are two forms of intelligence (and more research is definitely needed!), which are fluid and crystallised forms of intelligence. The fluid form of intelligence is stronger when younger and the older people get, the more crystallised their intelligence becomes. This is because of the forming of beliefs in how the world works makes the framework of knowledge stronger and so less likely to change, whereas in younger people, because they lack experience, are more likely to make more flexible jumps in their thinking because of the lack of a framework. So, it will be interesting to find out if peoples creativity changes over time due to the change in intelligence, but I am reluctant to do this as I feel that I could be staring down a very very deep rabbit hole that is going away from what I plan to be doing.