MARCEL website and UB's involvement

So, after the MARCEL lecture, I went to the website to check it out. I really dislike the beginning. But anyways, I started to look at some of the projects, but I didn't see anything that spectacular. One thing that I do like about MARCEL though is how it is all over the world. I think it is very intriguing, to see projects from all over. And the website allows anyone to see them. I am actually quite surprised that UB is not involved with the MARCEL network considering Don Foresta graduated from UB. I am very interested in finding out why UB has not shown any interest in the MARCEL network. I'm not really that interested in it, but it seems like something UB would want to participate in.

MARCEL Lecture

I thought that a lot of the information that Foresta spoke to us about was quite confusing. He mentioned so many people and things that I had never heard of. I felt like a deer in headlights. I thought the video clip he showed was very interesting though. Especially for the time that is was taped. I can imagine though that it would get old pretty fast, I noticed he did mention that most everyone stayed for no longer than an hour before they just walked out. It was a good opportunity to hear what he had to say, but at the same time a lot that he spoke about, I didn't understand. One point that he brought up that I thought was interesting was how he got the name MARCEL. I thought it was a very crafty idea.

Appropriating Images

I was reading some blogs again, and came across Caitlin's about appropriating images. I couldn't agree more with her. I guess I never understood why people do appropriate images. If I were to do something like that, I think that I would feel like I was cheating. It just has never seemed right to me. I had never even thought to do anything of the sort, until I came to UB, where I feel like sometimes it is almost encouraged. I feel guilty if I piggy-back an idea off of another artist. Like Caitlin said though, where do you draw the line? I guess I have just never understood the logic behind it.

blogs

I have been reading through some blogs, and I came across Chris's. I thought the one blog he posted about photographers on the Internet was quite comical. I actually was recently doing a search on photographers, and came across the same link he posted. It is sad how nowadays everyone is a photographer. As much as I do love digital photography, sometimes I feel that it can ruin it for people that have studied or really taught themselves the ins and outs of photography. I feel that it takes away from people that are professionals. With Photoshop these days and newer versions coming out every year, you can pretty much build a photograph that was never taken. But I guess I just wanted to add a little to Chris's blog, because I thought it was funny.

Presentations

I thought it was quite interesting when we had the discussion about Timothy White. I found it rather humorous that nobody in the class really appreciated White's work. I found his work to be very aesthetically pleasing and I thought that the photographs were well done. I don't think that photographs should be discounted just because there is a celebrity in it. He is a good photographer technically and he is a good businessman in the sense that these famous people want him as their photographer. I guess this is my problem with UB. We are taught to criticize photographers that work in the commercial field of photography. I guess all I can say is, White is incredibly successful, and it sounds like he enjoys everything he does, so in my opinion, I think that he is a strong photographer and successful businessman.

Presentations

I thought that Amy's presentation brought up some very controversial issues. I thought that the discussion we had about the topic after was also very interesting. I think it is so sad to see how far women will go to make themselves "Beautiful" in their eyes. I think documenting what these women do, is a good way to try and document this problem with society. I was wondering during her presentation how these women that were being photographed reacted to the photographs being published in Vogue. Are they that brainwashed to not be moved by the images? Jennifer brought up a very strong argument when she said that people that look at magazines such as vogue, it is not that they cannot think for themselves, it is the interest. I completely agree with her when she said that we are all influenced by someone or something. That is what society pushes people to do, to follow a certain trend, or buy some cool new gadget. Another point I thought was so true that Bleu mentioned was that when people "read magazines" they are looking at the photographs and moving to the next page. At least I know I do that. I might read a few articles in a magazine, but for the most part I thumb through it. I guess that shows how important photographs truly are in magazines. They need to really catch the reader's attention for the person to consider reading the article.

Class Today

I thought that class today was quite interesting. The photographer the Joseph chose to talk about was very interesting, and at the same time very controversial. I think that the photographers work is one you would have to see in person, to get the real effect. It is blatant that he wanted to stay out of the comments which these children were saying, just by the way that he typed them out. I think that comment that Jeannine brought up was a very good point; just the fact that the photographer used correct punctuation, but used word for word what the boy was saying, including "um..." I understand that he is trying to get the point across about the environment these children are living in, but they don't know any better, and to put them down the way the photographer did was wrong. Just what the children are saying shows who they are and what environment they are living in. I don't think typing out every little mistake they made was truly the right choice. I personally think that just having an audio would get the point across. I understand that it is nice to have words to read along with sometimes, when it might be hard to understand someone, or they might be quiet, but typing out every little error is not needed in the least bit. But again, I don't think that looking at these photographs and listening or reading the comments online would compare to seeing it in an actual gallery. It would be interesting to find out what the photographer was saying to the children; to know exactly the whole conversation between the two.

Edward Curtis

I have always appreciated Edward Curtis's photography. I think more so because of one of my favorite photographers, Adam Jahiel. Curtis was documenting people and a lifestyle that was dying off, and so does Jahiel. I don't think that the way Curtis photographed should be considered controversial, because although he set up each photograph, and brought certain items to wear, he is still documenting and showing something that was becoming a dying lifestyle. In class we discussed the authenticity of Curtis's photographs, because they were set up, but at the same time he was trying to convey and show items in the Native American lifestyle that had already started to dwindle away with time. And it is the same idea with Jahiel. I know during my presentation, it was brought up that some of Jahiel's photographs seemed staged, but he was trying to document a lifestyle that is no longer around. I guess how I look at photographers that are documenting history is, these are the tools which we use to learn from.

In regards to Mark's blog

I found it quite interesting that Mark felt that the photographs that Adam Jahiel took were "ideal." I think that he must have missed the whole point of his series, which I found to be quite obvious. Jahiel's series of "The Last Cowboy" is showing that being a cowboy is a dying job, with technology growing every day, there are newer and more efficient ways to gather cattle. So, his point which I mentioned in my presentation was to document history. He is documenting something that probably won't last too much longer. So, by saying that they are "ideal" (when comparing them to old photographs of cowboys) shows you are not comprehending his point. He isn't trying to show his photographs different from what is really going on, rather he is documenting the truth. I feel that his reasoning behind using black and white, is to give the idea of the "old times," because like I said this job was important back in the days, where now it is being replaced by technology. Just wanted to try and clarify the point of Jahiel's series.

"Re-Reading Edward Weston"

I don't really have too much to day about this article. But, one comment in it that kind of got me thinking was "Lucy Lippard has described the feminist contribution to modernism as precisely a lack of contribution." This is something that I disagree with. Personally, I think that women have made modernism in the sense that women never used to be in the art world. Now, women are just as common to art as males are. Sure, when photography first got its start, there were not many women involved, but that was not out of the ordinary for those days. Women were meant to stay home, that was society. But modern art/photography, women are very common. I personally think that there are still to many old time photographers that hate seeing women in the field of photography. When I photograph weddings, I have had first hand experience with older male photographers being short and talking down to me like I shouldn't be in the business. Society has changed so much with women in the workforce, and I feel that some people just want to live in the past.

"America, Seen Through Photographs Darkly"

One aspect of this article that was discussed was the beauty and ugliness in the subject matter of photographs. My thoughts on this topic is that there is beauty and ugliness in photographs. Obviously, you wouldn't look at a photograph such as "Napalm Girl" and see beauty in it. That is a photograph that is awful and terrible to look at. It is a photograph that is documenting something terrible that happened. But at the same time, Edward Weston can take a photograph of a pepper, and it is beautiful. Some people look at the subject, and the subject only. They don't look at the beauty in the form of it, or the way the light hits it. The article also brought up celebrities; "No moment is more important than any other moment; no person is more interesting than any other person." I believe that when photographing people, it is the inner beauty that radiates through the physical appearance. And in portraiture, I think that a successful portrait is one that shows something about the subject, one that can show "true beauty." "In photographing dwarfs, you don't get majesty and beauty. You get dwarfs." This statement I strongly disagree with. I feel that a successful photograph would bypass the physical attributes of the subject and focus more upon what is truly trying to be said about its subject.

I found this article to be very interesting. It really brought up some points that were important to photography. I don't think that you need a gorgeous model, or celebrity, or even a flower to see beauty. A photograph should be able to show more than just the obvious.

Propaganda

After reading the article, "What is propaganda and how does it differ from persuasion" and also the lecture in class today, I kind of have a different outlook on the topic. I never really thought too much about propaganda, and it is something we encounter very often, it is just that I don't really think when I am looking at a photograph or painting (or whatever form it might be in) that the message I am getting from it is propaganda. It is in the back of my head, but I never really think twice about it. I know that it is propaganda, but I don't consider that when I am looking at it. In class, we had a discussion about advertising vs. propaganda. And my thoughts on everything was that they both have a very similar agenda; and that is to portray a message to the viewer. But the big difference between advertising and propaganda in my opinion is that propaganda deals with more serious subjects, opinionated, and important subjects; where as advertising is more of a materialistic subject. Propaganda deals with war, economy, politics, etc. Advertising deals with fashion, electronics, or in general material goods. To me, it is plain and simple that advertising is pushing a product, where as propaganda is pushing an opinion.

Aesthetic?

This article really brought up some strong points about photojournalist photographer that have crossed my mind before, but I never truly thought in depth about it. "Consumer-society photographers approach but do not enter. In hurried visits to scenes of despair or violence, they climb out of the plane or helicopter, press the shutter release, explode the flash: they shoot and run. They have looked without seeing and their images say nothing." I agree with this comment, but at the same time disagree. To someone that does not know how to read a photograph, they see those photographs that these photo journalistic photographers are taking, and it gets the point across to them. But for someone with knowledge in photography, might see it completely different; even as an empty photograph. I always wondered how a photojournalist can take photographs at awful things, leave the scene as soon as you get your photograph, and then get paid for it. Some people see it as their job, but I see it as something that is not completely right. Which is probably why photojournalism never interested me. I really see where Galeano is getting when he said that. And then there is the controversy of whether or not you can consider these photographs to be aesthetic.

After reading this I thought back to the class where we spoke about some controversial photographs, and I wondered how these photographers felt okay making money off of such awful subject matters. And then there are some photographers that it hits them, and they don't want to make money off of them, but they feel like the photograph should be seen, to document history and to let the rest of the world know what is going on. I guess there is much to debate about whether photo journalistic photographers.

"Evidence, Truth, and Order"

I found this article to be rather confusing, but what I did understand I found interesting. The last sentence of the article says, ""Photographs are never 'evidence' of history; they are themselves the historical." I found this quote to be quite interesting. And it got me thinking that I have never thought about photographs in that sense. But, it is so true. Photographs are artifacts and they document something that make history, just by the presence of them. Photographs are not just something that documents and proves history, rather, they are in fact something that makes history. Without photographs we wouldn't know as much as we do about the past, and also they then give us artifacts from that time.

As much as I found this article relatively confusing, at the same time, even from just several points that John Tagg brings up, I was able to get the general idea's he was trying to convey. And I really thought that they were interesting, and they really got me thinking.

"Charles S. Peirce's Theory of Signs"

I thought that this article was very descriptive and very in depth. I don't truly believe that all of this analyzing is completely necessary, but I can see some of his points.

"Peirce argues that every thought is a sign, and that every act of reasoning consists of the interpretation of signs. Signs function as mediators between the external world of objects and the internal world of ideas. Signs may be mental representations of objects, and objects may be known by means of perception of their signs. Peirce thus defines 'semiosis' as the process by which representations of objects function as signs..."

So, when I think of a photograph, we all know that there are signs. Signs can be read in many different ways, and it deals with your perception of the photograph or the "object." And I guess this is true about everything. I think that Peirce tends to over-analyze quit a bit. I also feel that he is using these large words to sound extra scholarly. I guess I sometimes don't understand that something so obvious (signs are everywhere) has to be so in depth and completely picked apart. I think since I had a harder time reading this article, I became frustrated with what Peirce was saying, or what I understood it as. Yes, signs are everywhere, and in photography they are very important, and they could be interpreted in many different ways, that is obvious. It is a simple idea and should not need to be broken down into 50 different terms and sciences, etc.

"Looking at Photographs" and Class discussion

This article talks about the semiology of photographs. It also brought up the point that photographs are pretty much thrown at people, and they are not seen by deliberate choice. I never really thought about that, but it is so true. Because when it comes to film, or paintings we usually will pay to see them, where as photographs are everywhere. They are inevitable. If you watch the news, if you read a newspaper, if you look through a magazine, they are everywhere. But after today's discussion in class, it really made me think about semiotics, and how to read a photograph. I think that the exercise that we did in class, with choosing photographs and looking and analyzing their signs was a good exercise, but at the same time it made me think about the average person. I know that I tend to read into photographs because of my interest in photography, but I really don't believe that the average person, is going to read that far into a photograph. Even in advertisements; For example, in class we chose two photographs, I wouldn't say that I would have read into those photographs the way we did if I was just looking through a magazine. I think that a photograph really has to catch the average person's (someone that doesn't have an interest in photography) attention to be effective in its signs. And I think the signs need to be blatantly obvious to the viewer. Even the photographs that we looked at in class, are images we see in the newspaper and on the news. But I think that more people would look at the photograph and then read the article with it, than look at the photograph and truly study it, which is what we did. I think that is something that as photography students or people with an interest in photography are trained to do. We are completely interested in reading a photograph and not the article. At least that is what I do.

"Photograph Objects Histories"

"Image content is our familiar way of thinking about photographs at the simplest level. Image content is usually why photographs were purchased, collected, exchanged or given as gifts in the first place, for the indexical appeal (that breif moment of exposure of the real world in front of the camera) is one of the photograph's defining qualities." To me I see some truth in this statement. I think photographs are collected and given as gifts when the subjects are relevant to a certain person. I wouldn't necessarily say that I would care about a photograph that had people I didn't know as the subject, unless it was an antique photograph, or had some special quilty to it. I would say that the "brief moment of exposure of the real world in front of the camera" is one of photography's defining qualities. It is such a unique idea, that is intruiging to many. Photographs are so important to people because it is the only way to document an event. I feel that once you experience something, after that all you have is the memory which becomes vague, but then also the photograph, which will live on, and remind a person of that time.

"...the experience of looking at a historical image on a computer screen is profoundly different in the understandings it might generate from experience of, say, looking at the same image as an albumen print pasted in an album or a modern copy print in an archive file, for the 'grammar' of both images and things is complex and shifting"
I think this is one statement that is often debated that I really feel strongly about. I feel that so many people complain about how the internet ruins out ideas about historical photographs. i can understand and agree with the idea that you might read a photograph in a whole different way, just by the way it is presented, but at the same time I completely appreciate the internet in the sense that, whose to say I would have ever had the chance to see a particular photograph had it not been for the internet. Sure, it isn't the same as being right in front of an original, but at the same time, there aren't always many chances to be able to see an original, or modern copy for that matter. All I have been able to see most of the time is a reproduction of a reproduction, etc. in a textbook or on the internet. But I'll take what I can get.

Class Today

I thought that class today was very interesting. I would have never known that all of that was in the library, had it not been for this class. I thought it was very interesting and very intruiging to see actual originals. Today, the discussion about how the internet takes away from places like this, or libraries. Which, I can agree with to an extent. I see the internet as a very good source, if being used correctly. I think that you learn a lot more when somebody say's, "hey, have you ever see the photograph by so-and-so" and all you have to do is get onto the internet. I think if something is important enough to someone, then they might go as far as going and looking at an original. I completely appreciate being able to look at an original, since all we every see are reproductions, but the internet can be such a source of knowledge, which I appreciate just as much. Plus, if you use the internet to see something, it could save you a pretty long travel experience.

Class was a very good learning experience for me, and I think it is something that I would actually go back to. I also thought it was very entertaining to hear how much one original photograph could cost. To me, some of them sound outrageous. But, other than that, I found this meeting to be quite satisfying.

"The Incubator"

I thought that this was a harder article to read, but it definitely got me thinking about photography and how far it has come from the first image by Niepce. I don't know if I completely agree with some of the points in the artice. I think that the writer often discredits "View from the window at Gras." I guess how I see it is that photography had to start somewhere, and even though the heliograph is barely visible, it was still the start of photography. And if anything I think that this display that is discussed sounds like a very intuiging set up. As for the reproductions, I actually find it to be quite amazing when comparing the original to the reproductions. And, at the same time, I do kind of find it sad that we really only see this image in reproductions. I think that seeing the original makes me feel so appreciative towards what photography has become, and I think that it teaches us a lot about how difficult it was to take a photograph, having an exposure of hours. To think that today, you hear the shutter and look at a screen and see your image within a second.

Although, I was confused at times during this article, I still found it to be very interesting. Like I said, I feel that Niepse is often discredeted for his work and the start of photography by some historians and theorists, but I felt this article really puts things into perspective for me.

"Man with a Movie Camera"

At first I was quite confused after watching "Man with a Movie Camera," But after thinking about it and now after reading this article, I found it to be quite interesting. I love the idea of how ther camera man is going everywhere, and for the most part it is at a very fast pace. I love how he is not letting anything stop him, not even a dangerous place, that could easily kill him or hurt him, and ruin his camera. The camera was so new at the time of this film, I'm surprised to see him put it in harm's way. But, at the same time, he will do anything for his footage. Often how I am when I am out taking photographs. If it is a perfect opportunity, and I want that photograph that bad, I sometimes don't think, and risk it.

I thought that the film was very well done, especially for the time. I love how everything plays together and it all is shown in rhythm. I think that the movie is very monotonous, but at the same time, it is hard to stop watching it. The score is so well written to fit the busy life of the city. It becomes dramatic when the cameraman is filming something dangerous, it gets gentle, when the images are slow. Overall, I really did enjoy this movie, because I love how the cameraman is going everywhere, showing a busy and growing economy. I love the idea that he is being filmed, while he is filming. I think something that would be very interesting to watch, would be the cameraman's video that he filmed during the movie, since we are watching the video that was used to film the cameraman filming.

"The Subject of Visual Culture" - Nicholas Mirzoeff

This article was interesting and it brought up some good points. It relates a lot to what we have discussed in class about how we compare so much of what happens in the world to a particular movie. Today's society is a visual culture, there is no question about that. I don't think that I would go as far as to say that it's a good thing though. He mentions in the article that we are caught on camera, and that we move from one camera to another, without even knowing it. This to me is scary when I think about it. I don't like the idea of people knowing where you are at all times. To me I feel like I have been violated or that "Big Brother" is watching at all times. But I guess that's what we get when we live in such a visual and technological culture.

"That is to say, following Donna Haraway's famous assertion that we are all now cyborgs, we need to know how the computer sees, to learn how to recognize its gaze and then to imitate it." I had actually never heard this comment, but I can completely understand it. This society has come down to nothing but technology, and in a way it is sad, because it is being forced on people like our parents, that have never experienced it. So, now you have the children teaching the parents. He states that a younger generation takes the "digital gaze" for granted. But you can't blame the younger generation, because it is all they know. They are completely naive to a world which lacks technology and visuals.

"Photography Within The Humanities" - Susan Sontag

I am actually quite surrprised after reading this article. Several years ago, I remember reading one of Sontag's essays and being incredibily disappointed and very upset, from her views in photography; but after reading this, I found that she actually has a good outlook on topics in photography. Sometimes, I still pass judgement on her in the sense that she openely admits to not owning a camera, and never photographing anything, but still being so judgmental on photography, but after reading this, I really feel that she has a good grasp on the topic.

Sontag talks about how there is such thing as "photographic seeing." And it isn't something that every person has. She mentions that some people are able to see by means of the camera, and that people change their way of seeing "in the process of becoming habitual camera users." "The wolrd becomes a series of events that you transform into pictures, and those events have reality, so far as you have the pictures of them." With this theory of her's I could not agree more. I think a lot of people pass judgment when you say that you are in the photography field. They tend to think that it is something anyone can do. So, I was very impressed that Sontag was so knowledgeable about something that she has personally never done.

When I was reading her story about Richard Avedon, I was very surprised by his dilema. There have been so many times when I look at disturbing photographs, that I think to myself, does this photographer have a heart. But after hearing the Richard Avedon himself, had a hard time deciding, and that he didn't go to photograph those pictures to make money; rather he did it for himself, really kind of gave me a new perspective for some of these photographers. We talked in class about how theses photographers could take such disturbing photographs, and not have the heart to help, or whether in their situations they could do anything about it. This story kind of related to this discussion for me.

One other idea that I appreciated by Sontag was her comparisons between film and photographs. I agree with her when she stated that with film, the idea is in context, but a photograph is vulnerable. But, a photograph is and always will be more memorable that 2-3 minutes of film (or a whole film for that matter).

"Benjamin and the Political Economy of the Photograph"

"And yet it is precisely these traditional notions of aesthetics, with all their attendant claims about craftsmanship, formal subtlety, and semantic complexity, that have sustained the case for the artistic status of photography."

This quote to me sums up this huge debate over photography being an art, or not being an art. In taking a photograph, there still has to be the aesthetic notion, which only someone with a photographic eye, or artistic view can see, when taking the photograph. Craftsmanship is something which all artists understand, whether in painting, sculpture, drawing, or even photography. I feel that when I look at a photograph taken by someone that knows little to nothing about photography, or has no artistic background, their photograph is not aesthetically pleasing, and might be missing the meaning that was actually at the scene; where as someone that understands photography knows what to capture or how to capture something in a photograph. Just the same as, not every person can pick up a paintbrush and paint a masterpiece.

"Benjamin's, we might say has the force of desire: he wants photography to transform the arts into a revolutionary force; he wants the question of photography as a fine art (or perhaps as just another technique of picture-making) to be bypassed by history."

I think this is a very strong quote from the passage. Benjamin wants nothing more than to see photography be accepted for what it is, even to go as far to say it is innovative. He wants to see this whole pointless debate of photography as a fine art be completely skipped over by history. I couldn't agree anymore with this quote. Photography is a revolutionary force, it always was and always will be. What would history be, if a camera, or photography was never invented? Photography could never be in the same realm as "picture-making." Photographs are the closest to the truth in my opinion. I sure don't want to base history on a painting, drawing, or tall tales passed down generation to generation.

"Extracts from Camera Lucida"

One comment that Barthes made, in the article that really got me thinking was that, "Now, once I feel myself observed by the lens, everything changes: I constitute myself in the process of 'posing,' I instantaneously make another body for myslef, I transform myself in advance into an image." The author dwells on this comment throughout the passage. After reading this quote, I thought back to our discussion in class about some famous photographs that everyone has seen; and where the photographer is in this scene. After Barthes argument about posing, I think of famous photographs, where the photographer had to have been in plain sight to the subjects. The photograph of the Vietnamese police chief holding a gun to another man's head, really makes me think whether or not the chief was 'posing' for the photographer. I would not go as far to say that the man that has the gun pointed to his head is 'posing,' because he shows a true sign of terror in his expression. I really do believe that the photographer was right there in front of these men, especially when you see the other two images that were taken before this image. Also, there is the other Vietnam photograph of the young naked girl running from the napalm attack. In this photograph the little girl had to have been running right towards the photographer. Obviously, these children running in pure terror, are not 'posing,' but what about the soldiers; or the one lighting a cigarette?

I am not at all saying that I always agree with Barthes comment. But it definitely got me thinking. And I know from experience, that when I see a lens pointing at me I 'Pose,' as would most people. As a photographer, this makes it incredibly dificult to capture a true photograph of a person.

"The Painter of Modern Life"

I really don't know what to think about this article. I think that this would have been an easier read, had there been some background information on this passage. But, I will say that the writer's usage of strong analogies help paint the perfect picture of this man, who rejects being referred to as an artist. It is rare to find an artist whom is so modest about their work. The fact that this man doesn't want anyone to know anything about him, shows that he truly appreciates art itself, and most of all everything around him. M.G. find beauty within everyone and everything around him. He does not just sit outside, watching his subjects, while he draws them. Rather, he absorbs everything and everyone around him and feels what is going on. And not till the streets are empty and there is nothing left to watch, does he go and record everything he has seen for the day. This character truly has a passion for what he is doing. He dedicates his life to his artwork.
The author gives this man the name "Man of the World" because he wants to remain anonymous and he does not want to be referred to as an artist, for an artist "moves little, or even not at all, in intellectual and political circles." "Man of the World" is a man who understands the world and its reasons behind customs. I really enjoyed the comparisons between the idea of this genius painter or "Man of the World," and this creative writer, whom paints the perfect picture of this character.

Photography as an art

I guess after reading the controversy over whether or not photography should be considered an art or not, I have come to the conclusion that photography is what it is. Maybe it should just be considered its own art. I don't really understand why it has to be debated over and over, and compared to the realm of painting and drawing. I agree with Lady Elizabeth Eastlake when she stated that "Photography was not an art but emphasized this as its strength." I guess this is often how I view photography. I do think that it is an art, but it is so different from painting and drawing that, I often consider it its own kind of art.
I understand that back when photography first came about there was a lot of debating between whether or not it should be considered an art, and whether or not we could find truth in a photograph. But, I think this should be the controversy now, not in the 1800's and 1900's. Of course manipulation of an image was very possible back then, it was much more complicated and difficult. With today's technology, this is where I can see the questioning of whether or not a photograph is truthful. So many people have digital camera's and so many know how to use Photoshop, this to me takes away from Photographer's, who understand and appreciate the "Art of Photography." I think that critics that argue about the truthfulness of photographs should consider that photography is one of the main aspects of history. Without photographs we would have to rely artifacts and ansestors passing down stories of history. In my opinion, I'll take my chances trusting a photograph versus hundreds of old, stretched, and embellished stories.