For starters, there was the quote, "Of course, maps, photographs, films, and other media are never innocent"
What does this mean in relation to how photographs depict archaeology? If photographs are never innocent, does that mean the past is never represented in an innocent way? I think it does imply that the ancient world is always represented in a way that is manipulated by the person taking the picture. For example, if a photographer displays an image of only a flower, it may look like a beautiful photo. But if you take a step back and show a larger frame of where that flower is, perhaps you see that it is in a sewer or an ugly setting. How does this drastically change your intake of the feeling or display of the photo?
for example, this,
as opposed to this,
http://www.jennifervandahm.com/2011_07_01_archive.html
Relating to this, also in the Van Dyke article, "images lend a rhetorical advantage to arguments precisely because their optical consistency lends to the appearance of objectivity and neutrality, yet they are always situated and highly selective." If a photographer chooses to only represent the flower, he is manipulating the photo in a way to constrict what the viewer takes out of the photo. How does this affect archaeology? If perhaps, a photographer only take a photo of a beautiful artifact, but not the war scene it was from, for example, how are the viewers manipulating to believe a positive rather than negative image of the past?
"Images derive their power to persuade from this false transparency," is also said within this article. This eloquently explains the power that photographs have to represent things as completely factual. When considering the public, how many people truly believe all photos are fact? Photographs are truly powerful in just that; it is all too common that photographs are believed without question, leading to dangerous believes or misinterpretations of the past.
Is this photo real?
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNJ-zJFUMxHSVvX92cUatH3XzJ12AR2QeGp74tW3IWNAJ3jQDHoF6xlttVtDAzNAwkAM9zNAcTAQmYLYPHcrdA3ouU0f__eKiRniEjiDpKRUJzjzXvTKh6WpcZCOBSrdKBQCoyeb7pPGYb/s1600/ladies+of+Teviec.JPG
To sum this up nicely, the article also says, "photographs provide an illusion of objectivity and accuracy, but there is always an eye behind the camera, and a hand on the development process, that directs what a viewer sees." What does this mean for archaeology? Photographers have to be careful when representing archaeology as to not change what the true information is when considering what they capture in their photos. But how do they do this? Is it important to tell the public that all photographs are manipulated? Will this lead to too much mistrust about photographs on a large scale? What should archaeologists do to ensure that the photos of their findings are the closest they can be to being factual? And, how aware are photographers of how much power they have to manipulate photographs?
It seems like archaeology photos can also be manipulated with cropping. I would probably look at the beauty of an artifact if it was zoomed in on but once it is in the context of a war I would see it as sad not beautiful. Cropping obviously makes a huge difference. Obviously there is manipulation.
ReplyDeleteI think photos that are edited in some way whether it be cropping or rearranging the artifacts should be labeled. That way a viewer can fully understand what the are looking at with open eyes.
I feel like there's definitely varying levels of deliberate falsifying of photos. There is always bias in a photo just from the fact that someone took the picture, but some photographers may not be trying to sway people's beliefs with their photos, while others might.
ReplyDeleteThere is power in the hands of the photographer, but only if they realize it. There is a lot of belief swaying that can be done if the photographer wants to (like in those war photos where one crop shows soldiers killing a man, but cropped the other way it shows them helping him). Photographers need to be wary of this.