Before we continue we should define the limits and parameters
of what a "manipulated" image actually consists off. To think
those issues through is already part of the answer.
In the end what is everyone so scared of? is it about issues of
image credibility? and if so, isn't it about time that we come
to terms with the fact that photographs have never been THE truth
about anything.
Photographs, as I see it are open-ended in their interpretation,
and that I believe is their beauty and mystery. How can one explain
that a picture can have it's meaning completely altered just by
a caption. So if photographs can't define themselves on their
own, but are dependent upon external factors, shouldn't we start
to worry more about those external factors than we have allowed
that to happen up to now.
As photographers we all know endless stories of our images being
cropped, presented in lay outs to make an editorial point not
in the images themselves, or have had our work edited out of context.
What sort of symbol should those images carry?
I find the idea of placing a symbol next to a picture to address
the issues of manipulation, to be a simplistic solution to a very
complex issue, namely that of who has manipulated what and when.
I suggest on the other hand that the more people are aware that
there are all these manipulations (and that is what is happening)
, and that they even exist, be they digital or not, the better
we are off. Therefore we should have open discussions about such
issues. All those schools that visit us, here at ZoneZero, should
place particular attention to these issues.
Pedro Meyer's photographs are found in the collections of more than 40 major museums throughout the world. He's also authored several books, including Los Cohetes Duraron Todo el Dia; Tempii di America; and Espejo de Espinas. His column appears each month in Camera Works.