Tuesday, March 08, 2005


Concerning Cosgrove's comment that people believe that photography is memetic and that the photographer is a witness that adds validity to the memetic image - is that really true? Is that photograph of the earth shot from the moon more personalized because an astronaut composed it as opposed to the Hubble telescope images? And today with digital manipulation, does anyone trust the validity of photographic images anymore?


umaysay said...

I think that the the discourses around the photograph have a power to create validity to the photograph. If some social entities drive a discourse on a picture to a certain direction, people may read the same thing as the created discourse from the picture. So, I think that it is important to ask who uses the picture with what purpose.

Kevin said...

I definitely believe that the development of digital manipulation has adversely affected the credibility of photography, especially in the realms of journalism and strategic communication. It is much too easy for someone to manipulate an image so it will appear the way they want it to.

An example that comes to mind is the UW's insertion of an African-American into a picture of a group of students on the cover of its student application form. Doesn't photography in general lose some credibility each time something like this occurs?

Mark said...

I wonder if people are truly being as critical of new digital images as we might hope. I think this especially comes into play when you factor in the ubiquity of images like 22727 and Earthrise. Regardless of what they may have been when first developed they have become such an integral part of the public's understanding of space and representations of the Earth I'm not sure we'd be able to tell the difference between wether it's real or not. Remember, reality is perception and these images have significantly colored our perception of reality.