3 ms·
I dislike this style of journalism, they are creating a narrative that proposes a malicious intent to deceive by the photographer and artist, but provide zero e
by samwillis 4y ago
I dislike this style of journalism, they are creating a narrative that proposes a malicious intent to deceive by the photographer and artist, but provide zero evidence that that is the case. They bombard you with evidence of "something" and imply it means something else.
Here they are providing (compelling) evidence the photos are manipulated, but using that to imply that that manipulation was done to deceive. There is no evidence of that.
So she didn't explicitly say they were manipulated photos (initially), but she also didn't say they weren't.
The people at fault in this whole saga are the publications that published the photos without permission or checking their veracity and the author of this article who is suggesting malicious intent without evidence.
This article, while well researched and presented, just feels like gatekeeping by someone with a personal grudge.
As a society we really need to step back from the need to attack first.
- matkoniecz 4y agoOn https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series there is no mention whatsoever that images are fake collages. Images are highly misleading, no actual snow leopards are in places like this. Description heavily suggests that this are real photos. (at least right now, site is being edited, they just added disclaimer and made their FB page private) And this is case of being deliberately misleading. Note that they not claimed that it was malicious!
- xbar 4y agoThe artist does not produce photographs.
- matkoniecz 4y agoThat is exactly the problem discussed in this HN submission.
- stavros 4y agoAgreed, is this at a competition or something? The article makes it sound like the photographer won a prize with doctored photos, but if it's just someone posting a composite and everyone going crazy with "omg that's not a photo", that's very very different.
- headsoup 4y agoI think the main question is between the customers that bought her art and her: as long as they knew they were buying collages, all good, otherwise there's a problem.
- prox 4y agoSo if I sell you a car that looks a mirror image of a wanted Ferrari for say half a million, but then you come home and you find out it was built on a Fiat chassis and a bit of crafty bodywork, you would be fine with it? I mean I didn’t explicitly say it wasn’t a Ferrari, you inferred it was. Pretty sure that doesn’t fly under most laws. Publications are under extreme stress as is with few people to fact check, with only a few exceptions. So at the very least both parties in the wrong here, and some of it is systemic of the way we do things. I do agree we shouldn’t immediately “hate” or “attack” ofcourse.