It is frequently claimed that (1) there is a sense in which a photograph is always an instance of documentary photography and, (partly because of this) (2) photography is fictionally incapable. I will argue that none of these claims is right. I will briefly address (1) contending that it is a mistake to confuse the documental character of a photograph (the causal relation with the source) with the documentary genre, which it may or may not belong to. I will then argue that (2) only holds if one endorses a very narrow view regarding the nature of the practice of photography.
Photographs, I will further claim, can indeed represent fictional entities/events by photographic means. In this way, I will be partially on the side of theorists who defend that photography is fictionally capable (Carroll, Currie, Warburton). Yet, I will offer an alternative argument to support this view.
Fiction, Nonfiction and Deceptive Photographic Representation