Chapter 1 & 2

The Myth of Photographic Truth
People often say that “to see is to believe” and use photos as visual evidence. But in this chapter, we can see that photos do not necessarily tell the “Truth.” First, photos do not show the objective Truth; rather, they show a subjective version of the multiple truths out there. The framing, angle, and composition of a photo reflect the subjectivity of the photographer. Second, photos can only show one side of the reality. Oftentimes, when tourists take pictures, they try to capture the iconic landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty. But as their attention is directed to the stereotypical views in the front, they may fail to notice the interesting scenery behind them. Third, photos can be taken out of context. If we take pictures of someone while s/he is running or jumping, the expression usually looks ugly or weird. We cannot say that a photo of a person yawning is what that person usually looks like. Photos can even be used to cover up the truth. For example, an estranged family may need to get together to take a loving family portrait for holiday postcards.

Moreover, the popularity of digital cameras also makes it easy for photos to lie. Digital photos are easy to alter and manipulate. The advancement of computer technology makes it easier to photoshop and create fake images. In addition, when people use traditional cameras, they are selective and only take photos of the important and memorable moments in life. But with digital cameras, people photograph everything. From the tourism perspective, photos are an essential part of the tourist experience. Photos serve as a tool to record the journey and stimulate memory. But the problem is, when tourists are obsessively taking photos of everything, they are not really enjoying the experience. Also, when tourists use photos to remember their trip, they may forget everything else that wasn’t photographed, such as the fresh smell in the air, the delicious taste of food, and the delightful conversations they had with the local people. They forget about other senses and focus on looking.

Anyways, photos are not the scientific Truth. They are representations with multiple meanings. What we see in an image reflects the dominant ideology in our culture. Once we realize that photos are actually myth which “allows the connotative meaning of a particular thing or image to appear to be denotative, literal, or natural” (p. 20), what can we do about it? Knowing how photos are regarded as visual evidence, can we then create “fake” visual evidence? From the tourism marketing perspective, people may try to create a myth in order to promote the destination. On the other hand, as researchers or intellectuals, is it our responsibility to undermine the myth from a critical perspective? But as we attempt to undermine the myth, how is that different from creating another myth?

Viewers Make Meaning
Knowing that images are representations, how can we make sense of the meanings they signify? We can analyze images and understand their “shared” meanings in a given society or culture. The meaning of images reflects the historical, social, cultural, and political background of the producer and the viewer. As we look at a photo, what does it tell us about the broader context? Can we see its universal meaning, its social and historic context, and the dominant ideology behind its construction? In addition to shared social meanings, images can also reveal something about the individual viewers. Knowing how the viewer feels about a certain painting, we may be able to interpret the viewer’s background and characteristics, and also his or her feelings at the moment of viewing. What can images tell us about the individual viewer?

The following images are from a personality test on Facebook. The application asks people to choose among 12 photos the one that can best represent “love,” “freedom,” “success,” and so on. There are a total of 12 questions (12 images per question), and in the end they tell you your temperament, interests, amusement, and passion.

Take the “I find most beautiful...” one for example, I can see how every single photo may represent the shared meaning of “beauty.” But the photo selected by each individual reflects his or her preference, experience, and individuality. I’m not sure if this is what the authors mean in the notion of “viewer interpellation by an image.” But I can see how the meaning of images includes both shared social meanings and individual meanings and values. The interesting thing is to see how the viewer negotiate these meanings.