Post-Gerçek Dönemde Dijital İmgeler: Güven veya Şüphe?

Dijital iletişim çağı sadece film ve televizyon profesyonellerine değil aynı zamanda amatörlere de yönelik olan teknolojideki sürekli ilerlemelerle nitelenmektedir. Günümüzde cep telefonları gerçek dünyanın imgelerini yüksek kalitede video ve fotoğraflar ile kaydetmek, işlemek ve paylaşmak için yeterlidir. Ancak dijital teknoloji, gerçek dünyayı anında kaydetmede etkili olmakla kalmayıp, aynı zamanda sınırsız bir şekilde imge manipülasyonu için imkanlar da sağlamaktadır. Dijital teknolojinin bu farklı kullanımlarından dolayı dijital imgenin gerçeklik iddiası çelişkili bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışma ilk olarak bahsi geçen çelişkinin yeni olmadığını göstermektedir. imgelerin kullanımına ilişkin her zaman iki farklı fakat iç içe geçen boyut olmuştur: bilim ve sihir. Bu boyutlar aynı zaman dijital çağdaki güven ve şüphe ikiliğine denk düşmektedir. Günümüzde imge manipülasyonu daha kolay ve dijital teknoloji ile yaratılan sihir çok daha inandırıcıdır. Ayrıca, sosyal medya gibi artan dağıtım imkanları dolayısıyla manipüle edilmiş ve bağlamından ayrılmış imgelerin yayılmasında zaman ve uzam bariyerleri ortadan kalkmıştır. Bu bağlamda, “Post-gerçek dönem” tartışmaları ve uydurma medya haberleri, dijital imgelerin gerçeklik iddiasına hala güvenilip güvenilmediğini sorgulatmaktadır. Özellikle siyasi haberler söz konusu olduğunda, insanlar hala dijital imgelerin otantikliŞine güvenmekte midir? Bu makale, dijital çağda, kayıt teknolojisindeki kolay erişim ve yaygınlaşmanın iki yönlü etkisi olduğunu iddia etmektedir. Günümüzde insanlar dijital imgelerin sadece tüketicisi deŞil aynı zamanda üreticileridir. Dijital imge manipülasyonunda hemen hemen hiç bir sınır olmadığının daha çok farkında olsalar da; insanların dijital imgelerin otantikliği konusundaki ilk tepkileri şüphe duymaktan çok güvenmek yönündedir.

Digital Images in Post-Truth Era: Trust or Doubt?

Digital communication era is characterized by continuous advances in technology that are not only for film and TV professionals but also for amateurs. Today, even mobile phones are sufficient to record, process and share the real-world images via high quality videos and photographs. However, digital technology is not only effective in recording the real world immediately, but also it offers endless image manipulation possibilities. Due to these different usages of digital technology, reality claim of digital image is regarded as contradictory. This work firstly demonstrates that this contradiction is not new. Concerning the usages of images, there have always been two intertwined aspects: science and magic that also correspond to the binary of trust and doubt in the digital era.Currently, manipulation of images is easier and the magic created by digital technology is much more believable. Additionally, spreading of manipulated and decontextualized images has no time and space barriers due to increased distribution possibilities such as social media. In this context, Post-truth era discussions together with fake media news, force us to question whether people still trust the reality claim of digital images or not. Do people still trust the authenticity of the digital images especially when it comes to political news? This article argues that widespread and accessible means in recording technology have a double-sided effect in digital era. Although people are much aware of the fact that there is almost no limit for image manipulation, the initial reaction of people about the authenticity of the digital image tends to be trust rather than suspicion.

PDF

___

Arnheim, Rudolf. (1974). “On the Nature of Photography.” Critical Enquiry 1(1): 149-161.
Bardis, Antonia (2004). “Digital Photography and the Question of Realism.” Journal of Visual Art Practice 3(3): 209-218.
Bazin, André (1960). “The Ontology of the Photographic Image.” Film Quarterly 13(4): 4-9.
Bear, Jordan (2010). “Dangerous Combinations: Photography, Illusion, and the Conspiracy of Labor in the 1850s.” Nineteenth-Century Contexts 32(2): 139-152.
Charles, Craig (2015). “November 2015 Paris Attack, Hoaxes and Rumors.” http://www.thatsnonsense.com/november-2015-paris-attack-hoaxes-and-rumours/ (Retrieved: 13.06.2018).
Citron, Danielle K. (2014). Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Harvard University.
Freeland, Cynthia (2008). “Photographs and Icons.” Photography and Philosophy. Scott Walden (edt.) Oxford: Blackwell. 50-69.
Hariman, Robert and John L. Lucaites (2016). The Public Image: Photography and Civic Spectatorship. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago.
Keane, John (2018). “Post-Truth Politics and Why the Antidote Isn’t Simply ‘Fact-Checking’ and Truth.” https://theconversation.com/post-truth-politics-and-why-the-antidote-isnt-simply-fact-checking-and-truth-87364 (Retrieved: 13.06.2018).
Kember, Sarah (2003). “The Shadow of the Object, Photography and Realism.” The Photography Reader. Liz Wells (edt.) New York: Routledge. 202-217.
Keyes, Ralph (2004). “The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life.” https://ralphkeyes.com/book/the-post-truth-era/ (Retrieved: 13.06.2018).
Kracauer, Siegfried (1965). Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. New York: Oxford University.
Lister, Martin (1995). “Introductory Essay.” The Photographic Image in Digital Culture. Martin Lister (edt.). London & New York: Routledge. 1-26.
Lister, Martin (2009). “Photography in the Age of Electronic Imaging.” Photography A Critical Introduction. Liz Welles (edt.). London & New York: Routledge. 311-344.
Manovich, Lev (2000). “From DV Realism to a Universal Recording Machine.” http://www.manovich.net. (Retrieved: 05.04.2011).
Manovich, Lev (2003). “The Paradoxes of Digital Photography” The Photography Reader. Liz Wells (edt.). New York: Routledge. 240-249.
Mitchell, William J. (1992). The Reconfigured Eye. Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era. Massachusetts: MIT.
Price, Derrick and Liz Wells (2009). “Thinking About Photography: Debates, Historically and Now.” Photography A Critical Introduction. Liz Welles (edt.). London & New York: Routledge. 11-63.
Prince, Derrick (2009). “Surveyors and Surveyed, Photography Out and About.” Photography A Critical Introduction. Liz Welles (edt.). London & New York: Routledge. 65-115.
Punt, Michael (1995). “The Elephant, the Spaceship and the White Cockatoo: An Archaeology of Digital Photography.” The Photographic Image in Digital Culture. Martin Lister (edt.). London & New York: Routledge. 51-74.
Ritchin, Fred (1990). In Our Own Image: The Coming Revolution in Photography. New York: Aperture.
Ritchin, Fred (2009). After Photography. New York: North & Company. Robins, Kevin (1995). “Will Image Move Us Still?” The Photographic Image in Digital Culture. Martin Lister (edt.). London & New York: Routledge. 29-50.
Rosler, Martha (1991). “Image Simulations, Computer Manipulations, Some Considerations.” Digital Dialogues: Photography in the Age of Cyberspace. Derek Bishton, Andrew Cameron and Timothy Druckrey (Eds.). Birmingham: Ten. 8 Limited. 52-63.
Silverman, Craig (2014). “New Service Will Rate the Authenticity of Digital Images.” https://www.poynter.org/news/new-service-will-rate-authenticity-digital-images (Retrieved: 20.03.2018).
Sontag, Suzan (2010). Fotoẞraf Üzerine. Çev., Osman Akınhay. ẟstanbul: Agora. Thompson, Jerry L. (2003). Truth and Photography, Notes on Looking and Photographing. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
Viner, Katharine (2016). “How Technology Disrupted the Truth.” https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth (Retrieved: 13.06.2018)
Wells, Liz (2003). “Introduction.” The Photography Reader. Liz Wells (edt.). New York: Routledge. 198-201.
Wilder, Kelley. E. (2009). “Photography and the Art of Science.” Visual Studies 24(2): 163-168.
Williams, Linda (1993). “Mirrors without Memories: Truth, History, and the New Documentary.” Film Quarterly 46(3): 9-21.
Winston, Brian (1993). “The Documentary Film as Scientific Inscription.” Theorizing Documentary. Michael Renov (edt.). London: University of California. 37-57.
Wright, Terence (2004). The Photography Handbook, (2nd edition). London & New York: Routledge.