ACCOUNTING REPRESENTATIONS:

LENSES, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND

SCRABBLE

Elton G. McGoun
Bucknell University
Mark S. Bettner
Bucknell University
Michael P. Coyne
Bucknell University

Accepted for Presentation at the

Fourth Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference
4 to 6 July 2004
Singapore

ACCOUNTING REPRESENTATIONS:
LENSES, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND
SCRABBLE
ABSTRACT
This paper concerns three metaphors for accounting statements: lenses, photographs, and
Scrabble. These metaphors not only describe accounting statements but also affect our
interpretations of them and our behavior towards them. The lens metaphor has many
implications that accounting cannot live up to; however, that does not mean that it is an
inappropriate metaphor to express our aspirations for accounting. The Scrabble metaphor is a
somewhat pejorative metaphor that we may cynically apply to accounting, but it may also be
an effective means of criticizing mindless manipulation of accounting numbers. The
photographic metaphor, occupying a middle ground, might be the most intriguing of the
three. At an elementary level, it captures some simple truths about accounting, or at least
some simple statements we would like to be true. But as the complexities of the metaphor are
explored, they reveal a variety of intriguing ontological issues that concern accounting
statements.

I. INTRODUCTION
Accounting statements are signs that represent businesses,1 but what kinds of signs
are they? According to Peirce (1991), a sign is either an icon, an index, or a symbol. An icon
represents through resemblance, an index through causality, and a symbol through
convention. For example, a flame is an iconic representation of a fire (the flame is our
conventional image of what a fire is), smoke is an indexical representation of a fire (smoke is
caused by a fire), and the word fire is a symbolic representation of a fire (fire is how we
conventionally refer to a fire in our speech). Were accounting statements icons, they would
look like a business, were they indices, they would be the result of a business, and were they
symbols, we would have agreed that they represent a business. It would be easiest to make
the argument that accounting statements are indices; that is, they are necessary byproducts
(the smoke) of the operations of a business (the fire). A business could not operate without
generating accounting statements, and they signal to us that a business has been operating.
Some might challenge the word necessary. If businesses can operate without producing
accounting statements, then they are more symbols (the word fire) that we have agreed
represent the business (the fire itself). Others might challenge the word byproducts. For
many, if not most, constituencies, not only external but also internal, accounting statements
are all that is ever seen of the business, and they are not merely byproducts or traces (the
smoke) but iconic images (the flames) of the business (the fire).
The semiotics of accounting statements; that is, accounting statements as signs, is an
interesting academic issue. What transforms it into an interesting practical issue that affects
the functions of business, accounting, and finance, however, is the connection between
semiotics and metaphor. How we believe that accounting statements represent businesses as
signs is embodied in the metaphors we use to describe accounting statements.
These
metaphors not only describe accounting statements but also affect our interpretations of them
and our behavior towards them. A metaphor does explicitly state that something is something
else, even though metaphors are not identities. Although something is not identical to
something else, however, some aspects of it are indeed the same as for something else. Some
of these identical aspects may have suggested the metaphor and others are suggested by it.
What is of special interest concerning metaphors are not the similarities out of which the
metaphors came in the first place but the similarities which we subsequently discover, and
even create, as a result of the use of the metaphors. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) define
metaphors as ways of expressing one experience in terms of another. When we think and
speak about something as if it were something else, we are inclined to act in such a way that
it actually becomes more like that something else.
This paper concerns three metaphors for accounting statements (lenses, photographs,
and Scrabble) that correspond to the three forms of the sign (icons, indices, and symbols). If
accounting statements are lenses, then looking at them is looking at the business. They are
effectively icons. If accounting statements are photographs, then looking at them may also be
looking at the business. But what has distinguished photographs, from paintings for example,
is that they are the products of a technical process through which an original causes a
photograph. Accounting statements are indices. And if accounting statements are the board
game Scrabble, then they are consequences of the rules we have agreed upon for their
production. They are symbols. The following three sections (II, III, and IV) each consider
1

This statement uses Sebeoks (1994) very broad definition of a sign as any mark, bodily
movement, symbol, token, etc., used to indicate and to convey thoughts, information,
commands, etc. (Sebeok, 1994, p. xi)

one of the three metaphors and its implications for how we interpret accounting statements
and how we behave towards them. Of course they are not the only metaphors for accounting
statements, and they may not even be the most familiar. But they are representative and
suggestive.
The final section V is an overall summary of what the metaphors which form our
representations of accounting say about our beliefs concerning the nature of accounting. The
sequence icon to index to symbol of course reflects an increased distancing between the
sign and what it represents, and that is the sequence in which we present the three metaphors
for accounting. We believe that accounting as Scrabble is first used as a metaphor in this
paper; thus, it definitely postdates the metaphors of accounting as a lens and accounting as a
photograph. It might therefore be tempting to apply a historical interpretation to the sequence;
that is, accounting has become increasingly distant from business over time. It is also
possible, though, that the opposite has occurredthat we have increasingly come to see
business not as it is but as we account for it. Our representations may have become
increasingly abstract, but like metaphors which we no longer recognize as such, we may have
come to mistake our representations for the real thing.
II. LENSES AND ACCOUNTING
One of the most popular metaphors to describe the field of accounting is
Accounting is a Lens through which to examine company performance. This metaphor has
been used in both the context of auditing (Bell et al., 1997) and financial accounting
(Belkaoui, 1989). It has also been discussed in various accounting textbooks. To determine
what we can learn about accounting from this popular lens metaphor, a brief review of the
history and characteristics of some well known lenses (i.e., the microscope, the telescope,
and the eyeglass) is necessary.
When the microscope was invented and who actually invented the microscope is a
matter of some debate among scientific historians. Sometime between 1590 and 1610, Hans
Janssen and his son Zacharias are mentioned in the letters of William Boreel, the Dutch
envoy to the Court of France, as having invented a 20X power microscope. Roughly 50 years
later, Robert Hooke developed and used a device to observe slices of cork (bark from the oak
tree) using a 30X power compound microscope. He published his observations in
"Micrographia" in 1665 (Powell, 1999; Bracegirdle, 1994).
By 1673, Antony van Leeuwenhoek was discovering things with his superior
microscopes that no human eye had ever seen. Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria, free-living
and parasitic microscopic protists, sperm cells, blood cells, etc., using a 300X power single
lens microscope that he devised. This tremendous leap forward from the earlier devices has
led some historians to identify Leeuwenhoek as the true inventor of the modern microscope
(Coppedge, 2002).
There is also some dispute regarding the inventor of the telescope. This is mostly due
to the fact that around the time when the telescope is said to have been invented, many people
including Galileo seem to have claimed to have been its inventor. However, Hans
Lippershey, a spectacle-maker from Holland, is the man that most historians believe invented
the telescope in 1608 (Reston, 1994).
Regardless of the inventor of the microscope and telescope, when considering the
accounting metaphor it is important to consider the initial lack of faith the people of the time
had in these two lenses. For example, shortly after Lippershey invented the telescope, Galileo
developed one of his own and tried to show observers that this new technology offered
reliable representations of distant objects (Zik, 2001). Galileo faced a very skeptical public as
described below.

Galileo demonstrated his new telescope to prominent observers at a villa

outside Rome. When the telescope was pointed at the heavens many present
were not convinced that what they saw were satellites around Jupiter or
mountains on the moon. Observers were impressed, however, by Galileo's
ability to use his optic tube to read inscriptions carved on a distant building.
Julius Caesar Lagalla disputed the ability of the telescope to accurately show
objects on the moon; he nonetheless enthused that the telescope made it
possible to read the letters on the gallery which Sixtus erected in the Lateran
... so clearly, that we distinguished even the periods carved between the letters,
at a distance of at least two miles. " (Spiller, 2000)
The initial problem of public acceptance of the microscope was arguably even greater
than that of the telescope. In late seventeenth century literat ure, the microscope was
portrayed as a trivial, time-wasting, or intrinsically comical pursuit. The French philosopher,
Gaston Bachelard stated that the microscope constituted an actual impediment to knowledge in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries because it revealed things which were beautiful but
which could not lead to the acquisition of any new theoretical information, or which
suggested theories of the wrong sort, for example, the theory that the world was filled with
tiny little animals (Wilson, 1998). Indeed, well into the nineteenth century in Germany
where much of the microscopy work of the time was conducted, flaws in the microscope
continued to impede and interfere with scientific studies (Schickore, 2001).
However, over the years the perceived legitimacy/faith in the microscope and
telescope grew because of improvements in the instruments. For example, in 1672 Isaac
Newton greatly improved the magnification and clarity of the telescope by introducing the
first workable reflecting telescope. His invention greatly reduced the blurring common to the
refracting telescopes of Galileos day approximately seventy years earlier (Raffin, 1989).
With the current, ongoing technological innovations in the microscope and telescope,
the faith/confidence in the accuracy of what is seen in these instruments continues to improve
(Talcott, 1997). The microscope and telescope are now widely accepted as useful, legitimate
instruments for viewing very tiny objects or objects very far away.
Improving the usefulness/legitimacy of financial statements has been a long-standing
objective of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). For example, almost twenty five years ago the FASB issued the Statement of Financial Accounting Concept (SFAC) No.
2 which focused on what qualities make accounting information useful for decision making
(FASB, 1980).
SFAC No. 2 proposed that Reliability and Relevance are the two primary qualities
that make accounting information useful for decision making. According to SFAC No. 2
(Wolk, et. al 1989), to be relevant accounting information must:
1. Be timely
2. Have feedback value (in assessing earlier expectations) and/or
3. Predictive value.
In contrast, according to SFAC No. 2, to be reliable (Wolk, et. al 1989), accounting
information must have:
1. Verifiability (A high degree of consensus among independent measurers using the
same measurement methods.)
2. Representational Faithfulness (The correspondence or agreement between the
accounting numbers and the resources or events those numbers purport to represent.)

3. Neutrality (No biases by the FASB in the formulating and implementing of

accounting standards.)
With the improvement in accounting information systems in twenty-five years, a
strong argument can be made that the timeliness of accounting information has improved.
Reporting cycle preparation (i.e., closing of monthly accounting records) has been generally
reduced from weeks to just a few days (Burkett 1994). However, it is questionable whether
the publics perception with regard to any of the other attributes related to relevance or
reliability has improved.
The feedback value, predictive value and representational faithfulness of accounting
statements has been hurt by the false and misleading financial statements related to
accounting scandals involving companies like WorldCom and Tyco. In addition, while
accounting statements by their design are historical documents that are supposed to have
some relevance for future results, numerous critics question the value of historical s
tatements as a barometer of future performance (King 2003).
The perceived neutrality in the setting of accounting standards may also have been
damaged by the extensive political lobbying that is occurring with regard to the setting of
certain accounting standards. For example, for over ten years in the United States,
representatives from various industries have lobbied senators and members of Congress to
intervene with the FASB decision making process in accounting for stock options (Coyne,
2004). With regard to the issue of verifiability, truly independent measurers can and generally
do agree when using the same measurement methods. However, the independence of the
measurers of accounting information is in doubt in an era when public accounting consulting
fees for clients like Enron exceed the audit fees the firms receive.
While public confidence in the microscope and telescope has increased tremendously
over the years and continues to grow; the publics trust in accounting statements has
decreased, and the usefulness/legitimacy of accounting information has recently been
severely questioned. (Eichenwald, 2002). Like Galileo, the accountants of today are having
trouble convincing the public of the legitimacy of their instrument. Substantial improvements
in the accounting instrument and/or the publics perception of the instrument are needed.
The third lens we will discuss in this paper is the eyeglass. An eyeglass ideally should
present an image as it actually is. To put it another way accounting statements and eyeglasses
should present a transparent view to their respective users. Although all lenses must be
transparent to a certain degree (Enoch, 1998), it is particularly important that eyeglasses
present a clear depiction of an object as it actually is. The word transparent has a number of
definitions. The ones most appropriate for this discussion are:
1. Capable of transmitting light so that objects or images can be seen.
2. Easily seen through or detected; obvious.
3. Free from guile; candid or open. (Gove, 2002)
The first definition applies most appropriately to eyeglasses, while the latter two are
relevant to issues facing the accounting profession. Achieving more transparency (more
candor/openness) with regard to financial statements was one of the stated goals of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Accounting Reform Act which was signed into law in the United States on
July 31, 2002. As it is only a year and a half since the law was enacted, it may be too early to
see if greater transparency has been achieved (Rubin et al., 2003). However, in recent
months, the accounting profession has certainly mentioned the topic quite frequently.
A review of current accounting projects being examined by the Financial Accounting
Standard Board (FASB) shows a concentrated effort to achieve greater transparency with

regard to financial statements. For example, in its periodic public project updates, the FASB
stated the following related to its Business Combinations project:
The objectives of this phase (the second) of the project are t o improve
certain purchase accounting rules and practices to increase the transparency of
information to users of financial statements. (FASB January 5, 2004)
Similarly, in providing some historical context for their current and long standing
Liabilities and Equity Project, the FASB states the following:
The objective of the project is to improve the transparency of the accounting
for financial instruments that contain characteristics of liabilities, equity, or
both. (FASB December 18, 2003)
While these stated aspirations of the FASB regarding achieving greater transparency
are commendable, the profession has tried to achieve them in the past with limited success
(Monroe, 1995). In trying to address the reasons for the failure it may be helpful to briefly
consider whether in any field or endeavor there is a state of true transparency that can
eventually accessed and seen by all human beings.
What a person chooses to focus on when they look through any lens (i.e., a
microscope, a telescope or if you will, a financial statement) affects a persons perception.
Something may or may not be transparent/obvious depending on what a person chooses to
focus on and on the experiences a person has had before the observation. As noted above, in
Galileos time in ancient Rome, the people were neither impressed nor convinced that they
could see satellites around Jupiter or mountains on the moon. Yet observers were very
excited that Galileos telescope could read inscriptions carved on distant buildings. This
phenomenon drew their attention/focus.
Groundbreaking work on this issue of focus was done long after Galileos time by
Brunswik beginning in the 1940s and culminating with the development of his Lens Model
Theory in the 1950s (Belkaoui, 1989). The Brunswik Lens model is a paradigm with broad
applications to the study of decision making. Since its introduction, the lens model has been
the basis for hundreds of scientific studies examining a multitude of decision-making
variables. The lens model assumes that there are three basic elements in a decision-making
event: a decision maker, information, and a decision criterion. As the decision maker uses
information to make a judgment, he or she weighs the various pieces of information in terms
of relevance to the criterion. The quality of the decision reflects how well the judgmental use
of information matches the actual value of information; that is, the closer the decision maker's
policy for utilizing information is to the "objective" relationship of the information to the
criterion, the better will be the decision. (Taylor et al. 1996)
In other words, Brunswick proposed that complex stimulus patterns are processed as
if through a lens. The scattered stimuli are focused into a single perception of the
environment. This helps to reduce the complexity of the environment. The actual state of the
environment and the resulting perception may overlap, resulting in an accurate/transparent
perception. Or the actual state of the environment and the resulting perception may be far
apart (inaccurate perception) (Belkaoui, 1989). In short what is transparent may be in the eye
of the beholder
It is also important to consider that vast numbers of stimuli impinge upon our senses
at any given point in time. At any given moment, the perceiver must decide which stimuli or
cues to pay attention to and to use. Some of the cues may be useful while others may not. For

example, the sight of smog may be less valid for the detection of air pollution than the density
of automobiles. Yet people rely more heavily on the less valid appearance of smog.
Most people (i.e., financial analysts, individual investors) reviewing quarterly
financial statements focus on a few or perhaps only one key indicator of quarterly
performance like Revenues, Net Income or EPS. They rarely look at the complex footnotes
related to things like financial instruments and pension liabilities (Byrnes et al. 1998). A
question arises whether these key indicators are really just serving as the equivalent of smog
blurring issues, distorting a companys performance and hindering transparency. Or to put it
in terms of Galileos experience, people may be focusing on symbols on a building when they
should be looking at the stars.
Some people are optimistic about the possibility of achieving greater transparency
within the foreseeable future, because of the potential harmonization of accounting standards
into one world wide set of standards. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)
and the FASB issued a memorandum of understanding in October 2002 marking a significant
step toward formalizing their commitment to the convergence of U.S. and IASB standards
(Hansen, 2003).
The reason for the optimism is partly related to the view that FASB standards are too
rule-based and that a more principle-based approach for setting accounting standards would
better serve the public and the goal of greater transparency. The rationale for this view is that
under a principle-based system accounting professionals would not be able to so easily
follow the letter of the law with regard to an accounting standard but not the spirit of the
law (Sleigh -Johnson, 2002). For example, in an era of financial accounting standards of
extreme complexity and numerous detailed reporting requirement rules for items like
derivatives and special purpose entities (Patterson, 2003), any apparent transparency that
is achieved is limited to highly specialized accounting professionals.
While this argument has some merit, the prevailing counter argument is that the
adoption of a more principle-based approach would give companies too much discretion in
the application of accounting standards. A principle-based system without clear guidelines
could lead to more extensive accounting irregularities and less transparency than the current
environment.
Given the difficulty of achieving transparency of financial information as well as the
current problems accounting is experiencing related to the legitimacy of the information in
financial statements, one would have to be wearing rose-colored glasses to say that
financial statements are currently being perceived as true icons and that looking at these
statements is really looking at the business. As previously noted, a great deal of attention has
been devoted to the decision-making usefulness of financial reporting information over the
past three decades. Our concern in this paper is not so much with the usefulness of the
financial reporting process, but with the implications of the lens metaphor to describe
financial statements.
As evidenced by a blindsiding of corporate scandals surrounding the likes of Enron,
Global Crossing, and WorldCom, it appears that investors and creditors have limited success
using financial statement lenses to examine these and other scrupulous entities. Perhaps the
lenses were clouded. Perhaps users focused the lenses on the wrong cues. Perhaps somewhere
in the transformation of objects and events into symbols, meaning was lost. Then again,
maybe financial statements are not really lenses at all.
Lenses have virtually no utility unless they are capable of capturing a subject at the
focal point. And even the most expensive Nikon camera is of little use unless the lens cap is
removed before attempting to use it. Thus, in the context of a lens met aphor, it is plausible
to conclude financial statements serve no implicit purpose other than to focus upon, and
thereby reveal to the user, information related to the transactions of a particular reporting
entity. This

assertion may not be valid, however. The fixation on the reporting entity at a focal point is a
possible limitation of conceptualizing financial statements as lenses. Alternative financial
statement metaphors enable us to reveal financial statements in a context entirely separate
from the economic enterprises that they ostensibly measure.
III. PHOTOGRAPHS AND ACCOUNTING
The balance sheet is a snapshot of the corporation. This textbook metaphor reinforces
for students certain attributes of the traditional image of accounting: the production of an
accurate image of the business at a single point in time. Another entailment of the metaphor,
that accounting is a technical process independent of the accountant, is not necessarily
intended but is not undesirable. The metaphor has other less desirable implications of which
students more gradually become aware: (1) accounting is a consequence of the technologies
of its production; (2) accounting privileges the point in time of which it is an image; (3)
accounting is a consequence of the decisions of the accountant; and (4) accounting can be
manipulated. But there are still other, more subtle, implications of the metaphor: (5) the
business can become more of a consequence of accounting than accounting is of the business;
(6) accounting is experienced in a socio-cultural environment that determines its reception;
(7) accounting permits a single point in time to be replicated, distributed, and preserved; (8)
the appropriation of the image of the business in the form of accounting statements empowers
accountants. In short, the ontology of accounting is quite different than that of the business.
Once an image has been created, such as accounting as an image of the business, it takes on a
life of its own.
As noted in the introduction, it is not clear whether a photograph is an icon or an
index. This confusion is a consequence of the photographs dual roles of documentation and
duplication. (Savedoff, 2000) The technical process by which a photograph is created
documents the existence of the objects in the photograph. In order to have been
photographed, they must have been in front of the camera, and their presence there caused
their image to appear on the photograph. The photograph as a document is an index of the
objects in it. For whatever historical or cultural reasons, we also believe that this technical
process faithfully duplicates the appearance of the objects in the photograph as they were
when they were in front of the camera.2 The photograph as a duplication is an icon of the
objects in it. In the intended sense of the textbook metaphor, accounting statements as
photographs are therefore accurate (duplication) records (documentation) of business
operations.
We do not intend to question photographs as documents, because it is just this
documentary role that distinguishes photographs from paintings.3 Unless something existed
in front of a camera using an technical photographic process to record its image, it isnt a

Although the photograph may be understood, at least in part, as a construction of the

photographer, and as itself transformative of the objects it presents, it may nevertheless
irresistibly be seen as presenting us with a record of fact. (Savedoff, 2000, p. 50)
3
I call photographic referent not the optionally real thing to which an image or a sign
refers but the necessarily real thing which has been placed before the lens, without which
there would be no photograph. (Barthes, 1981, p. 76) and The important thing is that the
photograph possesses an evidential force, and that its testimony bears not on the object but on
time. From a phenomenological viewpoint, in the photograph, the power of authentication
exceeds the power of representation. (Barthes, 1981, p. 88-89)

photograph, as much as it may look like one. 4 But we can certainly question the documentary
nature of accounting statements. Any set of numbers which obey certain rules can be an
accounting statement, and such synthetic statements are quite common in pedagogical
material. Of course such an accounting statement is a painting and not a photograph,
although we never use that pejorative metaphor. It is, in fact, quite closely related to the
metaphor of accounting statements as puzzles or games and will be dealt with in greater
detail in the following section.
Whether photographs are duplications is the more interesting issue for us. Earlier
statements on the philosophy of photography conflated the roles of documentation and
duplication and stressed the objectivity of the image. (Savedoff, 2000)
The production by automatic means has radically affected our psychology of
the image. The objective nature of photography confers on it a quality of
credibility absent from all other picture-making. In spite of any objections our
critical spirit may offer, we are forced to accept as real the existence of the
object reproduced, actually re-presented, set before us, that is to say, in time
and space.
Photography enjoys a certain advantage in virtue of this
transference of reality from the thing to its reproduction. (Bazin, 1979, p.
144)
The photographic image is the object itself, the object freed from the
conditions of time and space that govern it.. . . [The image] shares, by virtue of
the very process of its becoming, the being of the model of which it is the
reproduction; it is the model. (Bazin, 1979, p. 145)
In these passages, we see how the photograph as document is naturally taken to justify
the photograph as duplicate. In a nearby passage, Bazin points out that the French word for
lens is objectif. The only difference between viewing an object through a lens and
taking a photograph of it (also through a lens) is the chemical/electronic process which
captures and preserves the image instead of the human eye and mind. 5 One process is just
as objective as the other, although looking at a photograph of an object taken through a
camera lens does place us at a greater distance than looking at the object through a
microscope, telescope, or eyeglass lens. Once again, the textbook use of the photographic
metaphor of accounting

Traditional and digital matte paintings for films are paintings which are intended to
resemble photographs when projected on the screen, but are surprisingly unlike photographs
when viewed closely. Savedoff (2000) notes that painting may more accurately represent
how we see than photographs. Photorealist paintings are very much more like photographs,
but how intentional the resemblance is is a more complicated matter.
5
And thisfor I come at last to our main subjectprecisely this is the function of
photography. . .Here is a new and accurate visual memory, a perfect record of what the brain
must necessarily forget or confuse. Here is an art that truly imitates the given nature, in the
proper meaning of this much-abused phrasean art that carries on in the spirit of nature, but
with another organ, functions which the given nature imperfectly performs. Photography
imitates memory, so that its product, the photograph, carries out the function imperfectly
fulfilled by the mental image. The virtue of photography is to preserve the visible sembla nce
of interesting things so that the memory of them may be fixed or accurately restored.
(Santayana, 1981, p. 259-260) Snyder and Allen (1975) point out, however, that there is
nothing within us corresponding to a photographic image.

statements equates the accounting statements with the business of which they are an
image. It is very much the equivalent of the lens metaphor.
A closer look at photographs challenges their duplicative powers.
Photographs transform their subjects. They have the power to make even the
most familiar objects appear strange, the most chaotic events appear
structured, or the most mundane items appear burdened with meaning.
Photographs seem to reveal to us things that cannot be seen with our eyes
alone. (Savedoff, 2000, p. 2)
But how do photographs do this? The most obvious answer is that no technology is perfect,
if it were even possible to assess perfection. The qualities of the lens, the qualities of the
chemical film or the electronic CCD, and more importantly the skill or lack thereof of the
photographer or electro/mechanical surrogate setting focus, aperture, shutter speed, flash,
etc. all have profound effects on the image. And like photography, the technologies of data
collection affect financial statements.
A more interesting answer is the selectivity necessarily exercised by the photographer,
who chose one sight over an infinite number of others to be preserved for extended viewing.
Fry (1998) has said in reference to art that we only really see what exists only to be seen, and
the photograph preserves a selected sliver of reality to be seen for the sake of seeing. (Sontag,
1977) The photograph has a special importance not only because we are in a position to
spend more time seeing it and devote more conscious thought to it than we could if the sight
were to pass by us in our daily routine. We spend more time seeing it and devote more
conscious thought to it than we would if the sight were to pass by us in our daily routine
because the photographer chose it so that we would do so.6 We are not only able to use our
own eyes in a different way, but we are also able to use someone elses eyes. It is not
surprising that there is a photographic way of seeing quite different from our normal way of
seeing. (Sontag, 1977) And like photographers with their photographs, accountants choose
which events to record and how and when to record them. There is as much an accounting
way of seeing as there is a photographic way of seeing. 7
Although recent advances in digital technology have made the process easier and
more sophisticated, it has always been possible to manipulate photographs. While the
manipulated photograph may remain a document in that all of the objects within it did indeed
appear in front of the camera at some time, it is not a duplicate in that they did not necessarily
appear in front of it at the same time or in the same arrangement. A more common, and
simpler, form of manipulation is the posed photograph, in which objects in the image
appearing to have been arranged naturally were in fact arranged by the photographer.
Accounting statements purporting to have been captured in the normal course of business are
of course also often posed.
All of the preceding entailments of the metaphor of accounting statements as
photographs, both intended and unintended, can be interesting but are not unexpected. The
most provocative qualities of the photograph are a consequence of its being a real object in its
own right and not simply an record (document) or image (duplicate) of a real object. And it
is these qualities which suggest the most provocative entailments of the metaphor.
6

Every depiction is an interpretation. (Maynard, 1983, p. 157)

We must not ignore the impact that both photographers and accountants have. They
dont just select something for representation, they alter it in the process. (Arnheim
7