I entered the classroom convinced this particular class would be one of the most boring that I had to take in my college career: History of Photography.
My professor quickly dismantled that concern and we dove into some really unexpected arguments about what photography is at its core—philosophically, even.
Photos are supposed to be truth-tellers. In many ways, they are, and in many ways they are not.
People are inclined to believe photos and videos, because they capture the world the same way we see it with our eyes. However, they are easily manipulated—and in the context of over 200 years of having the camera, I'm not just talking about images getting Photoshopped or AI-generated (though that'll be discussed later).
Truth and Story
[[Story]] is possibly the oldest human tool. It propels knowledge and wisdom down through generations. It transforms and influences behavior. It has more of an impact than we may ever know—the products we buy, the people with whom we associate, the decisions we make, all have to do with stories.
We can be told stories, but we also tell ourselves stories.
The camera accomplishes both. It is produced by someone who is trying to tell a story, and the product (the photo or video) encourages us as viewers to tell ourselves a story—an influenced story.
The paradox is uncovered: stories can be true, even if they are manipulated.
For example, Alexander Gardner photographed scenes from the aftermath of battles in the U.S. Civil War in the mid-19th century. Alexander posed the corpse in the photograph, "Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter, Gettysburg."
See the image here: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/86695#:~:text=Though%20this%20practice%20was%20not,the%20cause%20of%20his%20death.
Other photographers have done similar things: manipulating the scene to, technically, better capture the story.
Just because a photograph or the setting itself has been manipulated, doesn't mean it's deliberately false. It might even tell more of the truth.
You, as the viewer, can't really know what's outside of the frame—and that's so important to understand.
Truth and AI
It's been said that as of 2023, validation via content is no longer possible. Things like video, voice, publicly-known details about your life are now replicable or accessible by AI.
What is truth if we can no longer trust anything?
I console myself by thinking, "we can focus on our skills at detecting suspicious activity," though I know this is ultimately insufficient. AI pits all of humanity's skills against a single person's skills, and therefore, we will lose every time.
Regulation and restraint will become exceedingly important ingredients for systemic safety.
That does not absolve ourselves from the need to develop those skills. Here are some of the skills we'll need to build up and encourage—especially in younger generations:
- Temperance. Knowing that headlines and short quips perform best when they incite fear or anger, we need to be wary of those tactics. When you see yourself responding to something emotionally, take a step back and give yourself space to process and think through what is really happening. Am I being manipulated? Is this biased? Can I disprove this logically?
- Cross-reference. Always question the validity first before we believe the headline. How many times have you actually read the article and checked the sources for some news or opinion or assertion? This was vital before AI was injected into our systems and content. It is inexcusable to not do now.
- Try to have conversations with real people. If you are seeing something that truly has rattled you, it's time to go offline. Talk to people in your community, your network in real life. Talking with real people makes you accountable for what you say and helps you process more effectively. What are the implications of what you've seen? How does it impact people who aren't in your same situation? How can we find a better way forward? Is there really any truth to this? It's important to have these conversations, but I'd encourage you to try and talk with people who don't see everything the same way as you do, so we don't re-create the echo chamber that we were trying to avoid by going offline.
I do believe that humans are capable of solving complex problems. Some of these problems have been with us from the beginning: What is truth? Who do we trust?
Truth and Art
Technology has increased the scale of some of our worst behaviors: bullying, disinformation (meaning, intentional deception), rage, discrimination. We are able to hide behind anonymity and screens. We continuously feed machines with our attention and the machines learn what best keeps that attention and encourages engagement.
None of that is truth. I don't believe that humanity is inherently inclined to behave this way to each other—but the depersonalization of screens and text and the added pull of algorithms has elicited this.
What about art is different? Art—real art—is transformative; sometimes uncomfortable; sometimes inspiring.
Art is an attempt to reach through barriers and expose more truth—maybe even truth we couldn't see before. Art is opinionated and intentionally created.
It stands as a contrast to the digital worlds we're enveloped in. It is human. It is powerful. It tries to shine light where technology would have us hide.
It may not always be truth in the sense of perfectly captured reality—but that's never been possible anyway.
I think art is a way to connect with people you wouldn't have otherwise, because it digs deep into the human experience. I think art is our closest tool for communicated truth.
Again, that does not absolve us from thinking critically and using the exact same skills we need to use on news outlets and social media, on the art that we view, read, hear, or experience. I simply believe that art is our last untouched venue for attempting to play the truth-telling game.
(I'm quite aware that AI can create imagery. I made this video to explore what I think is actually happening.)