Quote Originally Posted by frotog View Post
"But why does it matter? He didnít move elements around in the photo, nor burn elements out of existence.

It matters because we are essentially saying as a society that reality isnít real enough to garner our attention. That the photo wasnít intended as a factual statement."

The quote above shows that the author's argument is skewed from the start. He's happy to confuse the verisimilitude of the photograph with the actuality of the event, a move which leads us quickly to a dead end. Since when is adjusting a curve or applying a mask tantamount to destroying the factual basis of a photograph? What about the inherent shortcomings of the specific camera to adequately represent "reality"? Should we not create custom profiles to get a more accurate and pleasing color rendition to our photographs lest we are criticized for being less real? Stupid article.
I agree with his argument but like you I find his example a bit "subtle".

But his point I guess is that it looks so perfect and unreal for it to be perceived as a real tragedy. In fact more like a movie poster which transports us to unreality which numbs us to the emotion of the event.

It's sort of like, most people can tell real violence from Hollywood violence. And as soon as it looks "Hollywood" it loses it's "edge".

But again, I agree his example is pretty subtle.