A Correlation too good not to post

As anyone looking at the photos of my book piles will attest, I generally have a bit much on the to read list.  Anyway, after I finished Smith's poetry earlier this evening, I picked up "Art in America," which is a series of essays, and which I started a few weeks back, reading something now and again as the mood struck.  Tonight, I was reading James Agee's "Introduction to Helen Levitt's A Way of Seeing,"  and what struck me most is that in much of Agee's description of photography, you could substitute internet and still be accurate.  All the hubbub over "Fake" news is what makes this section seem particularly important.

"It is probably well on the conservative side to estimate that during the past ten to fifteen years the camera has destroyed a thousand pairs of eyes, corrupted ten thousand, and seriously deceived a hundred thousand, for every one pair that it has opened, and taught."

That is the first bit that caught my attention.  Substitute internet for camera and the figures still likely match up.  The internet makes it incredibly easy to find something you can "believe," whether it is factual or not seems irrelevant, since, as the phrase goes, "it is on the internet."

"It is in fact hard to get the camera to tell the truth; yet it can be made to, in many ways and on many levels.  Some of the best photographs we are ever likely to see are innocent domestic snapshots, city postcards, and news and scientific photographs.  If we know how, moreover, we can enjoy and learn a great deal from essentially untrue photographs, such as studio portraits, movie romances, or the national and class types apotheosized in ads for insurance or feminine hygiene."

Again, replace camera with internet and this time replace photographs with websites.  Eventually you begin to see the picture that is being painted.  By website, I am referring to something lost in the ether, when the internet was newish and folks actually posted things on "their" website, rather than using Facebook or Google+.  Both of those allow some of that when you look at photos and ignore a newsfeed populated by friends rather than what the individual posted.  Facebook though, and I am guessing Google does it too, is automated enough that its hand in what can be posted can seem heavy, just recall the fracas over the Vietnamese girl Agent Orange picture when it surfaced in FB.  World famous photograph showing the horrors of war, but (until it reversed itself) FB thought it was pornography, because the girl was naked, and naked people are just not allowed.  In the age before that, if someone had complained, a computer would not have automatically censored the photo, which is why I mentioned the earlier age, before the hosting of "personal" websites actually became an act of giving all sorts of personal information to a corporate keeper.  (I am on both Google+ and Facebook, and realized Blogger is owned by Google, so I am not pretending anything or advising anyone to disconnect.)

Back to James Agee and what he said about photography.  I think the internet, for the casual peruser, can provide as much misinformation as a poorly cropped photo, where there are so many questions, it doesn't take much of a suggestion to answer them with nefarious suggestions.  Our last election cycle proved the truth of this.