Our forum discussion on the photograph proposed by Néstor has finally come to an end. I guess we all agreed that we must be careful when using photographs as sources, since photographs are far from being objective reproductions of reality. Among the different ideas you mentioned, I’d like to summarise the following:
- Photographs don’t show the complete context in which a situation takes place.
- Photographs imply a person (photographer) who decides what to portray.
- Photographs are usually accompanied with a text that may guide or bias our interpretation of the image.
- Photographs can be easily altered using digital means.
In the case of Néstor’s pic, my opinion is that the label “cannibalism” is forcing us to see something that, according to what you have been discussing, may not be representative of the situation the camera originally captured. As you very well mentioned, the man’s eyes and expression, his posing for the camera, the fact that somebody else is holding the arm, and so, seem to dispel the hypothesis of a cannibal act.
I think this debate should teach us that we cannot blindly trust photographs. As a way of conclusion, I’ve published a post entitled Trusting photographs, which you can read at If I may say so… You’re all invited. And remember we're still discussing the Schism in the Anglican Church? I hope to see you commenting there as well.
6 comments:
Hi,First,I do not believe in the existance of cannibalism since Beth Concklin and Arens, recognizable anthropologists account for its inexistance, as I exposed in my presentation. Then, I did not propose this photograph. The prestigious corporation Google did it when I wrote 'cannibalism' and the pic appeared. So, as any other ordinary person who trustes in a recognizable company like Google, I picked it up for you to draw your own conclusions. Finally, photographs can be altered by any means, either by technological or in a laboratory of photos. But, how can I alter a picture taken from a POLAROID cammera. In this sense, supposing a person argues that he has taken several pics of an U.F.O with his POLAROID canmmera, then one can believe in him since the POLAROID takes instant images and under no means can these pics be altered. Unless the pic is, obviously, introduced in the Photo Shop and then it turns out to be a fake. But the original canoot be distorted.
The photograph proposed by Néstor is a quintessential example of the idea that photographs are far from being objective reproductions of the world. This photo, which appears in Google showing the existence of cannibalism, blatantly represents a different idea. It would be of great interest to gain its the real meaning.
"The prestigious corporation Google did it when I wrote 'cannibalism' and the pic appeared."
Careful, Google is just a search engine. Picture it like a non-discriminating machine which simply indexes what people like you and me (and also 8 year-old children) place on the web.
"But, how can I alter a picture taken from a POLAROID cammera?"
It'd take three minutes using a scanner.
Nonetheless, it's clear that you don't believe in cannibalism and that the picture wasn't intended to be taken as valid. I just want to make a point on how easy it is for a skillful hand to alter images. And I don't mean any kid playing around with Photoshop 3... If this picture was modified, it was done by someone who knows how to do it.
Hi MJ, okay by using a scanner and introducing the pic on a PC programm is obvious that one can achieve a change even in less than 3 minutes. But,I mean, how can be altered the original instant pic with comes from inside the cammera. It cannot be done it. Unless one somewhat opens the cammera to starts touching the plastics inside it. An original of a polaroid is an original. Bye
I subscribe to your opinion there. Unfortunately, we cannot access originals. Nor can we be sure that a supposed polaroid is really a polaroid - unless we're taking the picture, that is.
Yes, totally agree with you, that's why I said an original. Well, bye.
Post a Comment