On the surface, Malcolm Gladwell’s article The Picture Problem appeared to describe
and compare the inefficiencies of breast cancer screening imagery and problems
with real time video monitors in fighter jets. While this is essentially true
on a superficial level, the real problem he describes is one that is inherent
to photograph, the idea that a photo is fact. While it is undeniable that
photographs are documentation of a specific place, scenario and moment in time,
they are not always so cut and dry. According to the article, this is largely because
although the photograph never visually changes at a physical level, the
interpretation of that photograph often alters from person to person.
Ambiguities in each photo call for debate about what is actually being seen. Gladwell uses the example of a particularly complex mammogram to illustrate this. Ten doctors were asked what they saw in the mammogram and four different conclusions were determined from it.
Similarly, Gladwell talked about the interpretation of
satellite surveillance photos that were taken above Iraq just before the war in
Iraq had begun. The United States’ Secretary of State declared to the United
Nations that the photos were hard proof that Iraq was creating and holding
biological weapons. Pictured, he claimed, was a chemical bunker and outside was
a decontamination truck in case something were to go wrong in the bunker. Later
a different analyst with no political agenda nor stake in the photo in any way
said that based on the size and shape of the vehicle there was no way it could
be a decontamination vehicle. Instead, it was most likely a simple fire truck.
The whole argument reminds me of the photograph of the loch
ness monster. Some see it as the long neck and back of the creature emerging
out of the water. Others see an oddly shaped log. However, will we every really
know the answer?
There is never certainty in a photograph even though
everyone wants to believe that there is. As stated in the article, we trust
photographs more than our own eyes. However, the inherent ambiguities that
arise in almost every photo leaves wiggle room for interpretation, so at the
end of the day can we ever rely on photographs to be hard evidence? I do not
think so. As Gladwell writes, “the picture promises certainty, and it cannot
deliver on that promise.”
2 comments:
Will, I think you brought up the key issue that Gladwell is trying to make us see, that interpretations vary between each person. You successfully supported this point with Gladwell's factual evidence of the vague nature of the interpretation of photographs and mammograms. You brought up the photograph of the loch ness monster, which is a very interesting and relatable image analogous to these real life example that Gladwell provided for us. Ultimately I am in full agreement with you, I don't think photographs can be considered hard evidence, regardless how expensive the equipment you use may be, a photo's interpretation is not fixed.
You did an awesome job at bringing up key points that Gladwell raises. Bringing up the loch ness monster is an awesome comparison because on one hand it is a very interesting point and at the same time it does a very good job at getting your point across. I agree with your point that the equipment even if its the best quality cant make it count as hard evidence.
Post a Comment