Susan_Sontag

Susan Sontag claims that “A photograph passes for incontrovertible proof that a given thing happened” (467). Sontag is trying to state that no matter what happens or what someone says as long as there is a photograph, that is proof that the event occurred and that it is indisputable. Sontag’s claim is false, but in order for her claim to be true, the photograph would have had to be taken while the event is taking place. There are many photographs in the world that have been altered somehow whether edited to some extent or even created. Just because there is a visual depiction one cannot jump to conclusions and automatically label it being true. There are many holes in the false claim that a photograph is incontrovertible proof that an event occurred. Sontag’s claim is true under certain circumstances. The fact that cameras were invented to capture the moment supports that fact. Photographs can be true to some extent but it also depends on how one interprets it. If a movie was being made with a scene of a bank robbery and someone walking by took pictures and showed them to others, it is completely up to the people viewing the photographs to interpret it in a way they want to. Some might think that a robbery was actually taking place while others may assume it was a scene from a movie. Yes it is true that whether the robbery was real or fake the event did take place, but pictures can be misleading and the viewer’s interpretations are just as important as the photographs themselves. There are flaws to Sontag’s belief; she states that a photograph is real and the event taking place within the photograph is also real thus it cannot be disputed. She fails to see that there are many photographs in the world that have been created. There are programs nowadays that help with this; a program named Photoshop is one of several. Photoshop is a program that can allow the user to edit any digitized photo. The users are able to create things and input them onto the picture with ease as well as many other things such as, taking things from the picture out. Once the users have finished editing the pictures they can save it. There were several cases where photojournalists have been fired due to tampering with their pictures. They not only got fired but also black-listed, making it hard for them to get a job. Brian Walski is an ideal example of this type of crime. The Los Angeles Times fired Brian Walski after the staff photographer admitted to digitally combining elements taken from two different exposures. Walski admitted to what he did and took full responsibility. He later spoke with reporters and explained to them how he has ruined his career through this one event furthermore that he has sullied the integrity and hurt the reputation of the company as well as his co-workers. He tells the press that he fully regrets his actions and is ashamed. After admitting to his unethical actions he called in to resign but instead he was denied that right and fired. Tampering with photographs is very real and very possible. Among the more controversial topics that would go against Sontag’s opinions is spirit photography. Spirit photography is a type of photography whose primary attempt is to capture images of ghosts and other spiritual entities. Although whether Sontag is a believer of spirits or not is unknown, the topic of spirits existing is indeed one that is controversial. If Sontag does not believe in the supernatural, her claim would even more controversial than it already is. If that was the case than her claim would go down the toilet. This matter poses a great problem to what Sontag believes, one way or another she is cornered. If she does not believe in spirits she would be likely to say that the photographs that contain pictures of spirits are false. Meaning she is going against her very own claim of “A photograph passes for incontrovertible proof that a given thing happened”. If she says that the picture is fake and edited than that proves that all photographs do not pass for incontrovertible proof that a given thing has happened. On the other hand if Sontag is a true believer of the supernatural that would justify her claim as to everything taken in a photograph is true, although it would be biased and not professional of her due to the topic of sprits and the supernatural being so controversial. Besides Photoshop and spirit photography, there is yet another flaw to Sontag’s claim. Photos are not always edited after it is taken. It is indeed possible to edit photos before it is even taken. How can this be possible' This can be achieved through “staged photography”. Staged photography is when you set up an event or a scene in advance and then proceed to taking the photo. This gives off the image that the event has really occurred but in reality the event has never taken place in a natural and legitimate manner. Many believe it to be just as unethical as using a program to edit a photograph. Staged photography can impose many problems as well. Just as the previous example of Brian Walski getting fired after altering the images, the same can be said with staged photography. Many would argue that staged photography is acceptable because it is more “natural” than Photoshop or any other programs used to create/edit photos. But the main problem is not “naturalness” of the work of art but rather the legitimacy and the ethics of it. Of course anyone would say it is alright as long as the picture looks good, but professionals would beg to differ. There was a case similar to that of Brian Walski, the only difference is that this case involved staged photography instead of Photoshop. A wildlife photographer by the name of José Luis Rodriguez entered a competition for wildlife photography and had won. But later was stripped of his prize award and the title of photographer of the year due to violation of the regulations of the competition. Upon closer inspection the judges realized that the photographer hired a trained and tamed wolf for the photograph. The competition rules prohibit the use of animal models. José Luis Rodriguez was banned from the competition and made so that he cannot participate in the future. As one can see, the ethics and legitimacy is very important to professionals and without having those two qualities a photograph would be a disgrace to other photographers. The fact that photographs can be altered in this type of way proves that Sontag’s claim is false. Judging by Sontag’s tone and choice of words, it is safe to say that she is confident and truly believes that a photograph passes for irrefutable proof. Some would agree with Sontag and argue that these disagreements are unreasonable. People might argue that the viewer’s interpretations toward a photograph do not matter since it is the photographer’s view that is important. This is somewhat true since photography is a form of art and the person who creates it should be the one with the message, but is it not an artist’s job to portray their feelings and message through their work' If the artist’s message does not reach the viewers, there would be no point in the creation of the work itself. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and stripping them of that would be an act of injustice. Others might argue the programs used to create and/or edit photos would not pose a threat. The fact is, it is a form of art in its own and it is a picture, but one must understand that it is tainted. It is not innocent nor of the purest quality. Sontag was trying to explain that all photographs are real and the event took place and thinking otherwise is ludicrous. If the picture was created, can one still pronounce it to be a true event that has occurred' Art is art and the truth is the truth. An event that has actually occurred and an event that has been created are two similar yet entirely different things. All in all Sontag’s opinions on photographs are hers and hers alone. There are no rights and wrongs and justifications are not necessary when it comes to ones opinions. Although this may be the case, it is clear to see that her claim is rather misguided. Sontag would have made an excellent statement if only she had thought it through more and considered the possibilities of alterations. Without thinking of the counter arguments and stating that photographs are the absolute proof that an event has occurred and that it is foolish to think otherwise is naïve. Sontag’s statement was based purely on her opinion on what the integrity of a photograph should be and nothing more.