The inspiring Mitchell, W.J., (1994) text has given me the idea to create a project that I suppose you could bluntly refer to as ‘spot the difference’, or in Mitchell’s words, “play a sophisticated game of “What’s wrong with this picture?” Up to 12 photographs would be taken of different settings and the duplicate of each photograph would be subtly manipulated, in order to deceive the person looking at them. They would, hopefully, be unable to distinguish between the original and the unoriginal. Mitchell, W.J., (1994) says,

“Photographic manipulators do not necessarily need to do a very good job in order to fool us, at least initially.”

So the edited photographs would only need to be manipulated slightly but intelligently enough to be able to deceive whoever views them. In relation to deceiving people by subtly changing elements of each image, I took these questions from Intention and Artifice into consideration:

“Do some objects seem surprisingly light or dark in relation to their surroundings?”

“Do unexpected discontinuities in the background suggest that objects must have been deleted from the foreground?”

“Do indicators of time, such as clocks and shadows, seem consistent with each other?”

These specific questions Mitchell asks in the text are one thing I would experiment with for and throughout the project, to successfully produce deceiving images that would disrupt the everyday.

Taking everyday scenarios and photographing them captures the reality but the manipulation of the images afterwards is what interuppts the everyday. I want to take away the ability some people have, which is the realisation that the regular photographs that would be used for the project, have been manipulated in more ways than one. I find that since we are sometimes hypnotised into thinking that these images are real, that discovering they are to some extent, ‘unreal’, would disrupt the everyday.

In terms of the display of the images on the website we will produce, I was thinking that every time the person viewing the website went to go back to the image, it would change very slightly, thus making the person confused and wonder what has changed about the photograph. I think this would make it more interesting, since it would interrupt the everyday by deceiving the person and making them contemplate whether the photograph has changed or not, which it would have.

The images that I would use for the project would be an example/representation of what Mitchell describes as “fabrications produced to deceive the gullible.”


Mitchell, W.J., (1994) Intention and Artifice. In: The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth In The Post-Photographic Era. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press, pp22-57


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s