Response to Photography as a Weapon

Photography as a Weapon - Errol Morris Blog - NYTimes.com

It is true that we tend to believe that photographs present the truth, but often it depends on the picture’s context. In journalism we rely on the reporters to give us visual information, either to aid interpretation or to provide evidence. We trust them. But of course, if the publication is not one with whose views we identify, we are much quicker to dismiss this photographic “evidence.” Based on the type of periodical, for example The New York Times versus a tabloid, we have certain expectations of realism or sensationalism.

The thing is, in art, we do no mind the manipulation of photography because the photograph represents the opinion of one person, the artist. Conversely, periodicals are supposed to be unbiased, working for the public good to heighten readers’ awareness of a subject. The difficulty with photographic documentation is that the photographer is always making choices about how to make his picture. The framing and inclusion of objects, focus, aperture, shutter speed, color, black and white, all are choice that influence how a photograph is interpreted. We are quick to accuse photographers of fraud, even without the use of Photoshop,  because we feel cheated of the truth, forced to see something only one way. It becomes very personal and about our own right to freedom.

Perhaps this is why grainy photography and film documentaries work so well. We think that the truth is being presented as it is because the photographer did not have time to contemplate his composition.

A photograph tricks us into thinking it is reality because our eyes process images of the surround world everyday, But photographs are not what we see, it is what someone else gave us to see. Photography can be interpreted and employed in a myriad of ways. Morris aptly concludes his essay explaining how photographs can supply both sides of an argument; speaking to the altered photograph of four Iranian missiles, he write “Photographs can be used — to borrow Heartfield’s phrase — as weapons. They can be used to warn us about the dangers of impending war. They can also be used to ratchet up the blind forces of rage and unreason that drag us into conflict.” It is the  context of a photograph  that makes all the difference.