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.
