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?) 
 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. 
 The photograph that discovers and uncovers the world is harder to simulate than an image that simply illustrates one’s ideas about it. 
 Neither a person nor a photograph should be taken at face value; it is more complicated than that. 
 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. 
 The “decisive moment,” the popular Henri Cartier-Bresson approach to photography in which a scene is stopped and depicted at a certain point of high visual drama, is now possible to achieve at any time. One’s photographs, years later, may be retroactively “rephotographed” by repositioning the photographer or the subject of the photograph, or by adding elements that were never there before but now are made to exist concurrently in a newly elastic sense of space and time. 
 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. 
quotes 1-8 of 10
page 1 of 2 next page last page
display quotes