Fred Ritchin
[Critic and writer, b. 1952, Washington, D.C., lives in New York.]

 We are all photographers suddenly, or surrounded by them. 
 And the wars? Can our photographs do anything at all? (Or do we turn it all into image so that it will bother us less?) 
 The photograph that discovers and uncovers the world is harder to simulate than an image that simply illustrates one’s ideas about it. 
 In fact, the new malleability of the image may eventually lead to a profound undermining of photography’s status as an inherently truthful pictorial form... If even a minimal confidence in photography does not survive, it is questionable whether many pictures will have meaning anymore, not only as symbols but as evidence. 
 We have to tell people how images are made. And, the first step is to abandon the idea we’re looking at photographs. We’re looking at entry points to information and to the world in which the image was made. 
 ...digital photography is so instantaneous, abundant and virtual that it seems to reside outside of the passing of time.... The problem is not only one of image manipulation software, but of the empty shells that these images inhabit—decontextualized, without agency, ephemeral. These digital images are viewed as chimera, deracinated and oblivious to the historical. 
 We have faith in the photograph not only because it works on a physically descriptive level, but in a broader sense because it confirms our sense of omnipresence as well as the validity of the material world. 
 I always believed that photography was subjective, interpretive and certainly did not represent the “truth,” but I did think that its status as a societal and historical referent needed to be both safeguarded and illuminated....now photojournalism is devolving into yet another medium perceived as intending to shock, titillate, sell, distort. 
quotes 1-8 of 10
page 1 of 2 next page last page
display quotes