As Liz Wells (2009) notes in her brief discussion of the real and the digital, “the manipulation of images is nothing new and […] photographs have been changed, touched-up or distorted since the earliest days.” This is correct. What has changed with the overwhelming prevalence and easy access of digital technologies is that it is no longer possible to accept that photographic images (still or video) are direct representations of reality. In other words, we cannot simply assume that a photograph bears an indexical relationship—”a physical or causal relationship between the signifier (i.e., the photograph) and the signified (i.e., what the photograph depicts)”—to its content (Hall, 2007, 16).

In the past, photographs generally had their start with an image of an object that existed, while realistic images now can be partially or entirely fabricated without the need of any photographic input.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to advance this thought as far as Jean Baudrillard has, to the point of asserting that everything is constructed. It will be difficult for us as a species to completely abandon confidence in our perception of the world around us, particularly when that perception plays such an important role in keeping us safe and generally serves us well.

I think we are more likely to continue on the path where we find ourselves now: we will accept as fact those things that confirm our existing biases and label anything dissonant as ‘fake news.’ My concern is that we will be both radically skeptical and naively vulnerable at the same time, making us easy prey for large-scale manipulation.

Reference

Hall, S. (2007) This means this, this means that: a user’s guide to semiotics. Laurence King Pub.

Wells, L. (2009) Photography A Critical Introduction. Taylor & Francis.