Last Post Ever!

In Ectoplasm, Geoffrey Bathen says, “Photography is faced with two apparent crises, one technological (the introduction of computerized images) and one epistemological (having to do with broader changes in ethics, knowledge, and culture)” (351). He is referring to the advent of digital technologies and its subsequent influence on the photographic medium. The technological crises is rather straightforward—people began to question whether an image produced or manipulated on a computer can be considered photographic—so I am choosing to focus my discussion on the epistemological crises brought about by advancements in digital medias. Bathen makes the argument that although all forms of photography involve intervention from the artist and some manipulation, “…digitization abandons even the rhetoric of truth that has been such an important part of photography’s cultural success” (353). Digital images are received with intense skepticism. There is no doubt that the newness of the art form contributes to this skepticism. However, Bathen also makes the argument that digitization loses credibility because it strips an image of its indexicality. There can be no guarantee that the digital image existed in a real time and space. Photography has had huge success in claiming objectivity because it is an index. No matter how much manipulation went into the taking or development of the picture, the viewer feels assured that the photograph documents a truth. In How To Do Things with Pictures, William Mitchell says that “the fact that what is represented on paper undeniably existed, if only for a moment, is the ultimate source of the medium’s extraordinary powers of persuasion” (320). Bathen theorizes that the perceived manipulability of digital photography will upset photography’s association with objectivity. For the first time, the issue of a “fake,” a non-authentic, photograph is discussed. Bathen describes the following epistemological challenge: “The prospect is that, unable to spot the ‘fake’ from the ‘real,’ viewers will increasingly discard their faith in the photograph’s ability to deliver objective truth” (351). I was caught off guard by this part of the essay. What exactly is the real photograph? And what separates the real from the fake? We came to the conclusion after reading Benjamin’s article that if all photographs are copies of a negative, than the reproduced photo is no less real than the original copy (yes, this is an oxymoron)? In this sense, there is no fake photograph. Bathen’s proposes that digital technologies pose the threat of fake photographs, ones in which the original idea of a photo is manipulated. The digital image is having to fight to be seen as real and authentic. Like other artists that we have read before, Bathen argues that photography-as-we-know-it is inevitably going to change as a result of digitalization. He even goes so far as to say that old style photography will die. But he is not sad or pessimistic. Instead, he says “Photography’s passing must necessarily entail the inscription of another way of seeing—and of being” (357). I appreciate Bathen’s careful attention to avoid technological determinism. He calls digital media the “manifestations of our culture’s latest worldview.” Digitization is the result of an increasing acceptance of a cyborg, part nature part machine, way of life. The author makes the brilliant point that “digitization, cosmetic surgery, cloning, genetic engineering…” share a common trend. All are revealing our “desire to attempt immorality” (355) by accepting the alteration, manipulation, and enhancement of nature by technology.