Search Results

Richmond Art Center’s 2026 Art of the African Diaspora exhibit. By definition, a diaspora involves movement across space and time. Also, by definition, an event about the art of a diaspora involves people bringing culture across space and time. And in the Richmond Arts Center’s annual event – titled Art of the African Diaspora  – the criteria for participating makes identity a prerequisite consideration of what will appear in the diasporic pathways. But none of the above predefines the actual artwork or confines it to only one prescribed socialization of culture. In the diaspora, time and place make definite impacts on what moves through them. Environments and conditions are inhibitors on impulses and intentions, just as much as they are inspirations. And to the extent that personality is cultivated in those influences, individuals will differ from each other because of where they are and have been. This generates a broad perspective on the collection of art works created within the diaspora. In the historical context of the diaspora, the Richmond Art Center’s event hosts a vitally important congregation. Fostered now for 40 years, it regularly uncovers the rising, resilient, ambitious community of artists in one of the most far-flung destinations of the African diaspora, the California Bay Area.** That group  of works – all sharing an ancestry –  can “evolve” over time, driven by the intent of each of the makers at their respective times. For any individual artist, is the intent of the work to celebrate, philosophize, or critique? Is it to preserve, adapt, or innovate? And what becomes the compelling attraction in the work for other people within the diaspora? What kind of embrace does the culture offer through the artist’s effort: is it tradition, or soul, or consciousness? Considering all the possible combinations of resources, motives, and attractions, the big message about the true nature of the diaspora is that it cultivates diversity  as the way culture stays relevant. That diversity is not just about the impressive range of mediums a visitor encounters when attending the Art of the African Diaspora exhibit. It's all visual art, but it broadly spans 2D and 3D works, well represented on the event’s online gallery of artists. Below is a look at how, within the Richmond on-land show, even just one medium and subject – painted faces , or identities – contains the breadth of variations that an artist can incorporate resulting in the “flavor” of the work: a wide variety of intents, motives, attractions, and more. Message: within commonality, differences refine meaning. For example, clockwise from the top left , these seven works* show a progression beginning in a more naturalistic representation but gradually increasing in abstraction on the way to the bottom left. Within that kind of difference, an artist’s piece has perhaps “captured” an identity, while another instead “constructed” one. And in doing that, the works use figures in various ways to indicate culture, sometimes simply depicting, and otherwise more symbolically. Meanwhile, the visually simpler images like the first two eliminate most of anything non-essential, leaving a face that is potentially more universally representative. In comparison, the more complex ones like the fifth and sixth suggest that the sense of “self” is always a work in progress, or even a performance. Along the way, we don’t know if any of these are specifically “portraits”; but we don’t need to know: despite their specific differences, the faces all have in common an iconic  presence. Within that commonality, we might take each particular picture’s apparent mood as a reflection of our inner selves  – a reflection as seen either by ourselves or by others. Or instead, the work might appear to be a snapshot of an outward personality , an example of how some people want to be seen. Further, in that duality of inner and outer selves, each face on display can be taken as either a celebration of who we already are, or an exploration of what we might like to be. In short, these variations of faces not only have differing meanings, they also end up emphasizing artists’ wide-ranging approaches to forming meanings. Recognizing the nature of creativity that way, it is easy to understand that there is plenty of room for tradition, adaptation and innovation in this exhibit of the community. Overall, we get to reflect on the famous phrase attributed to Henry Louis Gates: “ There never was one way to be Black. There are 42 million African Americans. There are 42 million ways to be Black .” - Malcolm Ryder   Notes: © 2026 Malcolm Ryder “Flava in Ya Eye” title  inspired by " Flava in Ya Ear ", a song by American rapper Craig Mack released on July 2, 1994 Map illustrations  newly generated by the author via AI from multiple knowledge bases. * Artist credits/copyrights  clockwise from the top left: Hellen; Desola; Zoe Boston; Karla Lawson; K. Dollar-Dickerson; Malik Seneforu; Shawn Sanders ** Scheduling and location details  of the Richmond Art of the African Diaspora events through April are found and updated at Aotad.org

With generative digital imaging, the panic is on about photography. That doesn't need to happen.

The point of creating forms is to make an idea communicable or to make that idea persistent enough to use, continuously or repeatedly, over time. The use of the form is what gives it meaning. "Usage" includes intentionally experiencing the form whenever that is relevant to a need or desire. Naturally, issues such as which form is "the right one" for the usage are basic here. But what makes a form "right", due to its availability and effectiveness, is the distinctive way that availability and effect are preferred in the specific occasion. While that is equally true for builders, designers, and composers, the following pertains to making text or images. See six varieties of preference here: Aside from pure accident or coincidence, the use of the chosen form exploits the form's exposed characteristics to generate an intended conceptual and emotional reaction to their presentation. That reaction may, at one extreme, be "first-and-only-time" (original and unique); at the other extreme it may be entirely "tried-and-true" (learned and conventional). Either way, it is the immediate exposure and experience of the form that originates "meaning" (the distinctive importance) compared to all other occasions of experience -- whether in comparison the meaning is different or similar. Typically, we then associate the meaning with the form. That association can happen at least because the experience has a pattern that matches a pattern of the form -- but entirely differently from that, it may happen simply because we decide to agree and rehearse making a certain association as a rule. Individuals can choose how it happens, but groups can also decide how it happens. This accounts for how a given form could have a uniquely private meaning decided by a person, or a largely public meaning decided socially or culturally. But underlying both is the same range of ways that meaning is recognized.

A Critique of the Art of Identity Today, 2026 in California, African American visual artists are no longer strangers to galleries or large audiences. But this is true partly because it is 2026, and we have the internet and smartphones as distribution channels for self-publishing. It means that images can "premiere" everywhere all at once without gatekeepers. So as part of normal visual culture, the level of familiarity with whatever styles from whatever sources is exponentially higher than when getting exposure meant earning real estate -- whether literally or virtually -- belonging to editors and curators. In this environment of visual proliferation, another important effect is the fast, widespread discovery of like-minded and like-sighted people. With that facility, it is never surprising when one kind of "identity" emerges as being very common, but no more than do very unexpected exceptional identities surface in plain view too without warning. Art exhibits that intentionally survey works done by any subset of the BIPOC/LGBTQ+/GENDER orientations are also now commonplace, and have powerfully confronted the historical habits of othering or marginalizing that still had strength in many of the conventional channels of production or presentation in art. But we can't ignore that audiences earlier latched on to entertainment and marketing as a huge source of exposure to artistic creativity, independent of institutions like magazines, galleries, or museums. Meanwhile commerce tirelessly uses consumer profiling to scientifically optimize "identity" as "personalization" -- the lead attractor to real life experiences. Those various influences are both pervasive and concurrent, which makes the pursuit and promotion of identity in art as well a no-brainer expectation. But then, as identity generally becomes more and more commonplace as a subject, making that subject special requires an additional effort that in some way is exceptional . One line of thought is that "fine" art is the exceptional way. Invented in the 1700's, the idea of fine art primarily intended to elevate attention to the creative labor beyond the goal of manufacturing or utility, and to the level of aesthetic contemplation on par with that held for Nature. With that, refinement in effort aimed for the aesthetics. (Borrowing ideas from philosopher Charles Batteux.) A different line of thought is about the idea of Identity being the subject of contemplation, beyond just of recognition. This makes for the occasion of making art being itself a way of doing that contemplating. Expression as thinking. Identity, but identity as Self. And finally, the physical venue of art presentation, like any theater or church, intentionally promotes a set of conventions that shapes the audience's appreciation as a kind of positive cognitive bias. BY THE PEOPLE, OF THE PEOPLE From there, what is most notable is why this subject might predominate in the efforts of a group or medium or time period. A cult of personality. What do "I", the product of some nurture, manifest of my culture, the people side of nature? Does my culture legitimize who I am? While identity has emerged as a dominant subject in social, political, and artistic discourse certainly in the most recent 25 years, the "identifying as" phenomenon does not and cannot impose a "standard" for any given group beyond stereotyping. Art audiences are no more immune to cultural politics than they are to love stories or rock&roll rhythms. These things are virtual gateways into the fuller experience of the art work that comes with them. We reach back to obvious periods such as the 1960s "counterculture", the 1970s Black is Beautiful movement, the first three waves of feminism, and the Gay Pride movement - each yielding archetypes meant to be enlightening, models meant to be aspirational. But those examples are also overtly oppositional to caricatures and biases that came before them. They emerged in environments that fueled specific experiences and ideas relevant to identity being a handicap or an attraction, a risk or a benefit. It is the diversity of those experiences that also accounts for what is now idiomatically called "a thousand ways to be Black" (attributed to Henry Louis Gates). Summarizing the roots of that diversity, we have unique life experiences, perspectives, and backgrounds, shaped by generational history, personal circumstances, and cultural expression . They form individual stories involving economic status, location, family dynamics, and personal triumphs and challenges. Then those are each displayed by diverse forms of art, music, literature, and community practices across various regions. But it is just as important to not reduce all expression to the type "story". This is because aesthetic reiteration and knowledge through art refers to conditions not just to narratives - to interpretation not just to progression. To image, not just to course. And because there is no experience without an environment of conditions, the representation of environments is no less profound than the surveying of identity. That is how a show by a self-selecting group fuses the unifying distinction of the group's difference with the diversity of its presence. And by doing so in physical locations, convening the participants amplifies that the group, in all of its heterogeneity, is a community. ART IN MOTION Annually, in the East Bay region of California opposite San Francisco, an area-wide set of curated exhibitions takes place as The Art of the African Diaspora. Works are accepted from artists in the East Bay whose family tree branches within the African community's migration across the US continent, such as in the paths here: [Gemini Pro rendering based on the title of the illustration] or here: Source: https://lawrencemigration.phillipscollection.org/culture/migration-map based on: William H. Frey, Brookings Institution, analysis of US Census Bureau’s Decennial Censuses, 1920-2000, and 2008-2012 American Community Survey, drawn from IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota,  www.ipums.org  and American Community Survey Public Use Microfiles. My perspective on the overall exhibit encompasses the movement of culture from the Past to the Future. It relies on seeing the features and impacts of displayed works as the effects of environment and purposeful expression shaping each other. It is an analysis of the simple and universal artist's question, "why am I going to express something, and how am I going to express it?" (c) Malcolm Ryder / Artdotdot In examining the works in The Art of the African Diaspora , I use what I propose are the three most characteristic representations of diasporic "culture" -- tradition, soul, and consciousness. As shown here, this is a reflection of the overarching theme of Belonging -- with special attention to how it is cultivated, transmitted, and preserved. (c) Malcolm Ryder / Artdotdot With those ways of accounting for the description of any work in the exhibit, we can grasp the relations of the artist's choices in what to make, why, and how. (c) Malcolm Ryder / Artdotdot ART EN SITU Organized by and at the Richmond Art Center, the 2026 edition of Art of the African Diaspora takes place in dozens of art venues across the East Bay region from January through May.

How a commercial release of a documentary about a historical investigation ruptured the photojournalism community. https://malcolm-ryder.medium.com/shoot-the-messenger-475f18818cee Given the unholy combination of Social Media and AI as top corrosives of truth, it's important to remember that people are more of a threat than either of those. My analysis of the controversy over the documentary The Stringer is a long-form piece in my growing collection of articles about visual culture on the Medium.com publishing site.

Pre-Screening Photography There are many ways in which history and philosophy mythologize each other. But one overt pattern is that a philosophy acts as a filter of historical pursuit, while history makes arguments about what value a given philosophy has. In art this dynamic most often appears as a pairing of an artist’s motivation to change how to work, with a subsequent discovery of how a change influences what we recognize as being art. Artists are credited with innovation, but the value of the innovation may not be attributed until long after the work has been completed or even stopped. Visiting a show of authentic Rauschenbergs comes with the ambition to have his ultimate innovation feel like it bursts into your consciousness the way it is said it burst onto the art scene. But in this case what is on display is more about watching the work gradually emerge from humble beginnings, while the artist simply progressed in a way that didn't show any dependency on anyone else. We're already used to the innovation. For artists viewing the show, the value is in its demonstration of being tenaciously original. From the outside, Rauschenberg’s very long career can be seen as a continuous exploration of what qualifies as art. But that then features several different phases distinguished by working methods. Rauschenberg did not begin his art career as a photographer. But the current show, Robert Rauschenberg's New York: Pictures From The Real World , at the Museum of the City of New York, appropriately begins by featuring his attention to what makes New York typically recognizable -- showing that recognition primarily through his camerawork, then ending with examples of silkscreened photocollages. The exhibit first highlights, more than anything else, his creation of photographs that collect urban iconology by framing and reframing the items figuratively rendered. The items in the earlier pictures usually appear to have been selected because of the “meanings” that they already had. But overall, the exhibited pictures show him as an observer with a pronounced sensitivity to the found, arbitrary or indifferent coincidences of them – coincidences that occurred at any given location as a matter of the densely diverse active interests there. Accentuating his characterization of “city-ness”, Rauschenberg frames both found and organized items with the same apparent interest that he possibly had with staging in the theater , one of his very strongly preferred experiences and working environments. It is not hard to indulge the practical connection between intentional theatrical staging and the arbitrary nature of creating a scene from found objects. In both cases the goal is to discover how their arrangement generates a meaning. Copyright Robert Rauschenberg: from Museum of the City of New York shop https://shop.mcny.org/collections/home-and-office But Rauschenberg also appears to have an early preoccupation with removing the ordinary context from visible items, enough to re-contextualize them himself for a variety of reasons including irony, humor, subversion, surrealism, poetics... or other alternatives to the reasons people perceive images the way they typically do. Copyright Robert Rauschenberg: from Museum of the City of New York shop https://shop.mcny.org/collections/home-and-office As seen in the show, Rauschenberg utilizes three different approaches to the items he displays in his views, with the effect of making them visual material for his idiosyncratic arrangements, in particular, appropriation. The most interesting challenge of appropriating found images is the effort to neutralize how they are recognized in their conventional contexts, which pushes them to a less specific and more abstract  state leaning towards formalism. Copyright Robert Rauschenberg: from Museum of the City of New York shop https://shop.mcny.org/collections/home-and-office But when treating visual items as if they were arbitrary , they could also get used precisely because their existing typical meanings collide, or converse, or together catalyze new ideas not already held in the respective separate items. The photographs don't predict what Rauschenberg would do in collage, but much of the collage work winds up reiterating his way of treating form within the boundaries of the photograph's framing. Artwork (c) Robert Rauschenberg. Photograph (c) Malcolm Ryder Finally, his compositions can operate as catalogs (evidence), as scrapbooks (memory), or as expressionism (metaphor). The consequences are what he is pursuing, whether by improvising or by planning, Over the timespan of the show, Rauschenberg’s photographs explore the conversion of Figures into Icons into Motifs. And with regard to the title of the show,   this is arguably a transformation of what was a notion of real being “objective” discovery into real being “idiosyncratic” truth. Generally, now, we watch him experimenting with his own personal language.

Six separate takes on a controversial new film — not from a film critic but from a photographer who considers various aspects of how we view pictures and the medium. The new documentary The Stringer, released Nov. 28 on Netflix, refutes more than 50 years of celebrating Nick Út’s authorship of the iconic “ Napalm Girl ”  photograph from the coverage of the Vietnam War. Since the film saw its first public showing at Sundance, passions pro and con have been running very high about its central accusation that the prize-winning photo was credited to the wrong photographer. But most of the controversy is fueled not by the facts the film presents. Rather, it is fueled by the reality that one side wants to believe the accusation is true, and the other wants to believe it is not true. In a time when viral disinformation is a norm, the film as a documentary faces a big challenge: does its “evidence” at best merely prove what we want to believe, or does it instead just prove that we can’t know? NOTE 1. What price, Glory? Real athletes work hard, doggedly, to get to a point where they can do something special. But for most athletes, that special moment surfaces rarely, and by surprise, leaping out of an ongoing stream of committed but “just the usual” effort. The athlete arrives in “the zone” - everything is clicking, the hard is easy, and the success comes, but not accountable to anything done differently. For most athletes, finding themselves in the zone just once, ever, is enough to justify all that came before it. It’s a moment of self-actualization that transcends all other judgments and all lesser tries afterwards, too. It’s the achievement of a lifetime. It happened and can’t be taken away. And with luck, there were witnesses. For some, however, craft, instinct, and opportunity seem to converge fairly frequently. The line is blurred between whether the athlete creates these special moments or is just great at hunting them down. Like athletes, we photographers shoot endlessly and hard, and can happen upon moments. The great part for us is that a “personal best” picture can hang around long after its initial moment, so the number of witnesses to it can just keep climbing. And the more witnesses there are, the better that “best” becomes, all to our credit. Vietnamese photographer Nick Út, credited for the amazing image popularly known as “Napalm Girl”, had such a moment in 1972, and that moment became permanently glorious. Út was declared the 1973 Pulitzer Prize winner for photojournalism, and the winner of the World Press Photo’s 1973 Photo of the Year. Whether more as a creator or a hunter, he is still feted for it decades later, on the record and in live appearances. Copyright: the Associated Press But what if he was neither? If we believe the claim made in the documentary film “The Stringer” , Nick’s real achievement may turn out to be that he won a lifetime of rewards for one score that wasn't his. Casting doubt on whether Út actually took the shot, the film could stop the ongoing celebration that he has enjoyed, and his glory could be taken away.   Game Changers The provenance of “Napalm Girl” has not been questioned by anyone influential for decades. Legendary Horst Faas, the Associated Press (AP) chief of photo operations in Saigon who published the picture in 1972, is thought of as the AP’s journalistic and business hero of the time, racking up numerous industry awards for the news wire service and setting quality standards for peers. The whole point of a “wire service” agency such as AP is to tell truths as news , so logically there is a continual and confident invitation to all comers to validate its sources. Faas set the publication credit for the photo to Nick Út, along with the formal title of the image, “The Terror of War”. Upon its release by the AP, the image revised the course of history. A gruesome, unforgettable scene of unjust and unnecessary human suffering, it crystallized the horror that motivated the US anti-war movement and tipped public tolerance, leading towards finally ending US involvement in Vietnam. What the public has taken for granted, then and now, is that an attribution by the Associated Press is beyond reproach.   But in the documentary “The Stringer” , a deep investigation triggered by a 2022 tip from a witness in 1972 argues that this decisive, career-defining moment for the photographer Út wasn’t properly his moment at all. It has embroiled him in a controversy that could revise his personal history as dramatically as the image revised the course of the war.   Business as Usual In the news business, reporting something isn’t "news" if it isn’t saying what you haven’t already heard. But mistakes are not hard to come by. In the rush to get the word out, journalists can stumble: what seems at first to be right can get undone by a closer and longer look. Retractions, on the other hand, can be pretty hard to come by. If breaking news seems to have its footing in a gray area, the public is still the beneficiary of being alerted that something warrants inspection, which creates some leeway if not approval.   A news agency  such as the AP is unlikely to apologize for trying, above all, to get a profoundly shocking news image such as “Napalm Girl” distributed asap. and on its own, the image has never been suspected of being anything other than truthful. That end rationalized whatever the means were. In contrast, although “The Stringer” showed explicit diligence in the film makers' pursuit of evidence, it is treated by many among its audience as an ambiguous film about an ambiguous event. This could surely be a sign of the times. Our contemporary culture complicates the controversy over the film's central accusation. We are saturated with fabricated  imagery, beginning with programmed television, and then (in order of increasing artifice) commercial film, social media, special effects and digital editing tools, and generative “deep faking” A.I. We  are used to fully embracing that artifice even as we, ironically, hold a heightened skepticism of it. It's today's convenient practice of a "suspension of disbelief". This makes it easy to ask why the film's concern about authorship is even important. After all, given how important the image was, who other than photographers ultimately cares about which photographer took it? Perhaps Út, an AP employee, did not make that picture: but so what? And what if the AP chief editor Faas intentionally credited the picture to an AP employee, namely Út, rather than allowing a non-AP freelancer (aka “stringer”) to be recognized as the originator of the picture? After all, if Faas did that, well, it was both possible and tolerated. Against that,  photography's original core value proposition is being factual. It is a claim made more credible through scrutinizing a photo's sourcing of the information it presents. In the case of crediting "Napalm Girl", the film questions that credibility, looking into the matter as being a breach of ethics by both the photographer Út and the AP. This is where the elaborate mechanisms of public demand -- including recognition, awards, and rewards -- surface as central to both the notion of wrongdoing in the film and the excited controversy over the film. If Út is stripped of the credit that drove his ongoing celebrity, the implication immediately arises that he conspired to perpetuate a self-serving fiction at someone else’s expense. Yet half of the film audience is willing to discount the evidence. Among Út's supporters, he is not found innocent, but he's not found guilty. NOTE 2. The Evident versus the Apparent The problem with ethics  is that usually they are circumscribed by context. In 1972, AP’s standard procedure for crediting and releasing information may not ever have exceeded what was at the time acceptable in public and business as practice. Said differently, no one at the time may have considered AP’s decisions and actions to have been irresponsible . On the other hand, if either or both Út and Faas knew that falsely crediting the picture to Út would deny the true image-maker of significant earned benefits, then the false crediting was immoral, regardless of any other circumstances. Based on what "The Stringer" offers, how would we know which is the case? Well, in fact, both things can be true, and arguably that is the version of things that finds the most support from the limited evidence generated so far, whether by the accusers or the accused. The storyline: first, multiple photographers were on the scene when the village of Trảng Bàng was bombed with napalm, but only one of them is the true source of that “decisive moment” picture, "The Terror of War". Then there is ambiguity in the chain-of-evidence drama of how the negative was delivered from the photographer in the field to, eventually, AP's Saigon bureau chief Faas. And finally, there is the intentional distribution of the image which required Faas to break a standing AP censorship policy, but as a result pumping the AP and Út up to the pinnacle of its business and society's rewards. Paralleling that plot of three decisive points is a three-part formula for justifying the usual story of what is believed to have happened. There is first the reputation of the photographer’s known talent; second, the motivations of the editor; and third, the public’s desire to be informed. All three of those influences -- talent, motivation, and desire -- are presumed to be positive and benevolent , unless proved otherwise. Of those three matters, the most important one today is the third one, the audience's influence on information. Increasingly, today, the audience prefers what it wants to believe  over what it needs to know, the recipe for myth-making and propaganda. That makes the controversial reception of the documentary even more ironic: the subject photo of the film was important precisely because it pierced the propaganda that supported conducting the war fifty to sixty years ago. Meanwhile, the filmmakers believe this documentary pierces the propaganda of Nick Út's celebrity. We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us It seems almost quaint to spend so much time on one bit of possible misinfor mation. But today , we are fully submerged in an Era of Disinformation -- the intentional use of information to fabricate an unproven illusion of reality. Beyond mistakes or imagination, fabrications posing as truth can go further, exceeding any individual's personal tolerance or recreation, such as with propaganda. The danger : the excess risks becoming socially disruptive. As the Washington Post would put it: "Democracy Dies i n Darkness. " In poly-cultural populations like ours, bias, discrimination, manipulation, and repression are collectively a destructive toxin. Yet we accept more and more fabricated information anyway. That acceptance also fosters a demand for it, one that overlooks the risks. As an audience, do we take responsibility for our own demand? In that perspective, what “The Stringer” ultimately accomplishes is to tweak the public about its own complicity in the controversy over whether the right person got the credit for the photo. NOTE 3. Public Opinion on Trial "The Stringer" prosecutes. But the AP and its anointed photographer defend. Let’s review the case. First, the Photographer: if Út didn’t make the photo, it is possible that he knew he didn’t and refused to say so for fifty years. Yet there is some possibility that he honestly believed he did make the picture.  Proving one or the other of those things now is a newsy drama that can overshadow the other issues (below) at hand, but either way it doesn’t weaken the historical importance and acceptance of the image in the public eye. Second, the Agency: it has resisted, but not stonewalled, the pressure for transparency about its role and processes. The question is, if the AP in 1972 did not know who took the picture, would that have prevented it from being released asap as news? If the answer is yes, then a best-guess attribution, a plausible one, can be argued for its merit in supporting the public interest with the release. But there’s no reason for AP today to say that someone other than Út (in this case, freelance photographer Nguyen Thanh Nghe) made the photo if they don’t believe someone else did. The only evidence that matters is evidence available about conditions in 1972.   But in this court case, there is a third party, the Audience. This film's current controversy concerning honesty about authorship exists in a current climate of fabricated information being normalized, and wherein belief is preferred over facts. As a society we are increasingly guilty of attributing value to information only when "proof" supports our preference -- the basic formula for myth-making. In our culture, marketers and politicians know that all too well, and literally spend billions of dollars a year to keep us predisposed that way. Against that condition, journalism’s challenge is to somehow still work as intended, presenting factual truth. Bu t in a culture where perspective is driven by marketing and ideology, can truth avoid being subordinated? NOTE 4.   Conclusively Inconclusive A big revision of history is a news event. Often, the newsworthiness of the revision is that it exposes what was thought to be truth as not being the truth. With "The Stringer" we confront what we thought about photography, about news itself, and finally about ourselves. The basic role of photography is usually presumed to be recording discovered facts, bearing witness. When what it conveys is intended to be news, its credibility is in the confidence that it is re-producing facts. In evaluating the reliability of news, the key has always been to "consider the source" -- we want to know how the facts were obtained. With news we factor in both the investigative method and the investigator of its facts. But also, the more impact the news has, the more we tend to credit the source as being special. In this dynamic, it is easy to assume that only special people are capable of breaking special news, as if the news would otherwise not come to light. With "The Stringer", the special protagonists are the "Napalm Girl" photographer (in this case, whether Nick Út freelance photographer Nguyen Thanh Nghe) , the photo editor Carl Robinson, and the photo publisher Horst Faas. In the story within the film, each of them is called into question. We first deal with that as a need for more facts. But whereas news uncovers facts, documentary creates narratives. The power of facts is not just in being verified but in what they affect . In contrast, the power of narratives is in how they convince . As documentary, photography goes beyond the basics. It is expected to find a story in the facts, or even to make one. And we expect the story to be convincing. However, a major problem today, and going forward, is that we cannot presume that information in a photographic image is factual, and it gets increasingly difficult to verify. Stories can be even more suspect. “The Stringer” arrives at a time when both journalism at large and documentary photography in particular, face unprecedented challenges from information technologies, ones that present reality as synthetic, as an end product more than as a beginning condition of truth. Less a certainty, more a story. More an effect of of mediation than of medium . But even without that problem, “The Stringer” is challenged to argue facts in a most believable way. It toils in the problem of truth, but it depends on the nature of proof. It's a film that wants to revise history. But the film wants its facts to sell the story, while we in the audience want its story to sell its facts. This burden falls on the film's investigator (and originator) photographer Gary Knight. On the surface, "The Stringer" appears to be an exposé -- Gary Knight's story of how one person stole from another and was celebrated for doing it. The allegation and its possible veracity is dramatic news. But beneath that surface, the drama in the history is not about the photograph or the photographer. I t is about the way they both were used. The way they were used broadens the message of the film: it is about photography as a medium and about making news, in both cases about the nature of "truth". NOTE 5. The reality of appearance We expect journalism (at least through research) to get the facts that become the material of a documentary's narrative. Photo-documentation -- a practice of capturing facts -- has been a fundamental support for documentary narrative that positions journalism's stories as reusable fact. It is the two-way interaction between fact-finding and storytelling that explains how photography is a medium . But, as procedures, documentation and narrative are now each called into question by the film. That is despite the film's detractors accusing it of being the very example of what it aims to attack: a fabrication driven by suspicious motives. The film's presentation of facts clearly raises questions about whether, and how, we can trust the news. Its facts argue that in 1972 potential breaches of ethical news practice may have happened– due to competition, racism, politics, money, or power. (Check all that apply.) The story in “The Stringer”, whether its specific accusation is true or not,   portrays our vulnerability to such influence. Its relevance today is that those conditions are persistent, and so is our vulnerability. Left unchecked, they transcend any one case or event, and run deeper than any particular communication channel. In the film we are shown the resulting harm caused. We see the loss of opportunity, the denial of rightful recognition, and a resignation to a meager and obscure life -- that befell the photographer who possibly was denied due credit. And we don't need to amplify the facts much to suspect underlying bias, discrimination, and manipulation. Now, in reactions to the film, the backlash to the very idea of such exploitation damages others in the story as well, with longstanding friendships and reputations at the top of the at-risk list. NOTE 6. Authorship, Authority, and Authenticity It is important to hold on to the value of "Napalm Girl" as truth-telling, even if the editorial process that authorized its release was flawed, and even if the person claiming credit doesn't offer convincing evidence of being the true author. We don't know what would have happened if a different photographer, and/or a different publisher, had come out with this picture. But the documentary's call to action is not to convict Nick Út nor the AP for their past. Rather, the AP's final pronouncement on the film's accusation is that they can't prove it is false but they also can't prove that it's true. This conclusion is unacceptable as a status of any future journalistic work released by AP as news. The overall importance of the film is mainly cautionary: that accepting such failures of ethics and practice actively undermines the journalist's mission, and when that happens, there will be significant negative consequences. Even more essential, as "The Stringer" Executive Producer Gary Knight commented in a recent live interview, journalists are neither elected nor appointed by the public -- and yet journalists are expected to hold everyone accountable. That can't work if journalists don't show that they hold themselves to the highest standard of accountability. This makes determination of authorship required in principle; it is about the practices, not about the image. But what we most need to embrace about the film is that its focus on authenticity in truth is a two-way street; both the journalist and the audience are responsible. Who are the mediators of truth going forward? Together we need to demand authenticity in both sides of the matter and determine how we can embed it into the rapidly evolving future. So far, today' conditions, including culture and technologies, are even more likely to make news work unreliable or to cause damage. How are we to take responsibility for preventing that? -- MR Postscript #1 Quoting a line used in a 1944 column by George Orwell, “history is written by the winners.” Postscript #2 Many people point out how the two photographers have vastly different bodies of work standing behind the credibility of their claim to be the “Napalm Girl” photographer. However, the fact is, Nghe was at the scene on purpose, with a camera on purpose, which he knew how to “operate”. And if he was just simply lucky enough to be in the right spot at the right time, he EASILY could have taken the shot. It does not make sense at all to assume that as a human witness to what was happening, Nghe would have not instantly recognized the importance of what he was seeing, and that alone would be enough 99% of the time to make a photographer frame up and press the button . He wasn’t writing a script, casting, directing, or controlling the visibility. He didn’t need any other qualifications at all — no artistry, no other works, nothing. Postscript #3 The most significant reaction so far to the findings in the film is the perfect clarity of the World Press Photo Foundation. It declared the photographer of the picture to be anonymous; but the award it gave is about the photo, not about the photographer, and is unchanged. Postscript #4 The documentary photography of the American Civil War is most famously credited to Matthew Brady. Yet we know, over 160 years later, that 15 or more different photographers had their work credited to Brady, including two very famous ones, Alexander Gardner and Timothy O'Sullivan. We also know today that a photograph so influential that it was banned in China -- the so called "Tank Man" picture -- was thought to be pro-Chinese propaganda by its initial authorized Chinese distributor, but taken as anti-Chinese propaganda by its non-Chinese audiences worldwide, causing the Chinese government to attempt to eradicate the image post-publishing. Title inspired by the album "Blues and the Abstract Truth" by saxophonist Oliver Nelson, recorded in February 1961 for the Impulse! label.

Thinkers about photography sometimes work on the problem of whether a photograph is experienced in the way it was intended by the image maker. In some contexts, a mismatch is deemed a failure, but in others it is simply another dimension of experience in communications. The image may have what we often call "its own life" independently of the imagist, with no presumed value judgement of being good or bad. But implicit in viewing is that there will be a reaction to what is seen, and that raises the question of whether the imagist also intended a certain reaction or instead was not concerned about that. This aspect of the matter quickly dives into ethics and into whether the image has one kind of value or another when viewed. The matter of intention can also be complicated if there is no distinction known between the imagist knowing what it is and the viewer knowing what it is. Necessarily, viewers get the final word, because an unseen image is useless until it is seen. This asks whether the "responsibility" for what the reaction includes is mostly or even all on the viewer. In those ways, we realize that "responsibility" is a wholly different discussion from determining what kind of image is at hand. Here, the idea of mode is most useful because it concerns how the image was produced, and it supports an exploration and discussion about how one mode or another can be knowingly instrumental as expressive options for the image-maker. In this matter, "truth" is not an important topic; instead, how visual facts are "created" as material and then treated as image elements is the distinguishing concept. We might even press the issue a bit more rigorously by saying "visual artifacts" instead of visual facts. A visual artifact can mean (signify) different things to different people; yet there is also some degree of commonality established when a community agrees on a conventional meaning for a certain artifact and, further, desires the convention to be the default offer by the image-maker. The maker, particularly an experimental or innovative one, may or may not attempt to satisfy that convention.

Imagination is an operational mental ability. We know that mental functions rely on other deeper factors, mainly an intact biological organization. But imagination isn’t like hunger; it is like breathing. In practice, the ability to imagine has no essential requirement other than to pretend -- to pretend that something IS, CAN BE, DOES or CAN DO.  It carries no requirement for proving feasibility or plausibility. And outside of some need to influence a relationship between separate people, there is no required credibility that needs to be communicated. What this boils down to is that, beyond biology, it is very difficult to identify what could prevent imagination other than ignorance or a complete lack of motivation. Conversely, it makes sense that in a given context, knowledge and incentive  would be preconditioning success factors for imagining – particularly significant in imagining for desirably influential purposes.,   We attribute value to imagination when it creates an awareness of a possibility, condition, or presence that isn’t currently or expected to be “actual”. But that means the essential usefulness of the term “imagination” is due to it referring to something that is recognized. Recognition is part of deciding what to include in the exercise of pretending, and also part of deciding what to accept among any effects of pretending. Having said “actual”, it’s worth also checking off “virtual” in the discussion. Going to its Greek roots, virtual refers to characteristics (virtues) that “enable [something]  to perform excellently its proper function.” This relates to  the idea of “essentials” – the defining characteristics of any type  of something to identify something meaningfully in type, we need to know certain things about it but not necessarily everything.   As a matter of perception, we pick up on enough evidence of characteristics to conclude that we know what it is we are perceiving ,and furthermore whether it is present in a physical, not just mental, way. But in its mental presence, a form of a recognized thing is a concept, and a concept can be more than enough to cause us to take action. Equally important is that a concept does not need to be typed. It only needs to be remembered, such that it can be reusable in future pretense. Imagination is conceptual experimentation. The knowledge aspect is important in two ways. One, the most interesting thing about imagination aside from its entertainment value to the imaginer, is that it can originate and present ideas that may have relevance to other people because of what is already real to them . And two, there is relevance to other things, derived from what is already learned. Different kinds of knowledge bring different ideas for consideration in relation to what is already deemed  interesting to dwell on.   But the real distinction of its value starts with the fact that the thing recognized is not “actually” present. It is imaginary. For example, a spill on a floor can be perceived as a spill with no concern for what it might suggest otherwise. Under examination, however, its initial presence may begin to be cognitively reconsidered  – familiarities, contradictions, or other comparisons suggested by things already known or present. Recall, associations, and juxtapositions are extremely common elements of actively imagining. Here are two imaginary constructs that we can call “bikers”. The stain is compared to a memory of something known, and key characteristics are portably applied to something else to create a new instance of recognition. The fish on a bicycle is irrational as an actual probability but conceptually we know that a bike must be externally powered and that living things supply power, so the association is meaningful “logically” even though not “rationally”.       In another example, each of these two things shown below can be either a “chair” or a “table”. With each of them, the identification in “recognition” is driven by the conditions of the circumstance in which the item is considered. Imagination connects perceived characteristics of what is present with characteristics of something else known that may not even be actually there. In other words, there is a co-incidence – a concurrent incident of more than one thing.    Such a coincidence can be a precondition of imagining, but it may also be an effect of imagining. Preconditions are not causes; and effects are not necessarily intentional. Emergence is a useful way to refer to one way that imagination can be catalyzed, but it is not the only way. Composition is a powerful and intentional demonstration of imagination. The idea that imagination is inherently emergent is not always a true case. It is not the general case. It is a special case. In practice, imagination must not be quarantined by a hyperbole of a particular kind being taken as the only kind. In the same way, productive environmental coincidences must not be taken as a definition of “imagination”.  As an idea, imagination refers to something mental, and claiming that anything other than a living being has a mentality is simply taking some dynamics of the non-living physical world as a metaphor.

Six Takeaways from a Sextet Gray Loft Gallery  stands out usually due to the artistry of its top-tier show layouts One navigates a Gray Loft show multiple times because of the many conversations owner Jan Watten creates among the works on display. But for those who move quickly this week (Saturday 11/8 ) , the gallery features an important departure: a show both chosen and hung by the six participating artists themselves. This is a group of women who have been working together for quite some time, bringing the full meaning of “studio” to their practice and ambiance. We see, in their current show “Aligned” , that Gray Loft’s offer to us presents both the authority of the women as a group and the openness of the show’s highly varied ways of being appealing. My takeaway, which settled in on my third viewing, risks being more of a proposal than a finding. The dynamic of group interaction among artists is something already studied deeply enough as to leave little room for new insight. But what I wanted to dwell on is what, within the diverse works, indicated something unifying that evolved from the togetherness of the women Here I’m fast-forwarding to what I decided to keep looking for. My best phrasing of it, but perhaps still in testing, is ”iconic feeling”. In the show we find six different strategies for having an image take us to something visceral, recurring, and definite that we don’t even need to label. We just see it and recognize it, not mostly as language, not mostly as emotion, but in some third way holding meaning. That said, we’re here to talk, so… here we go. There is no linear gradation in the collected works from one strategy to the next. We have the gestural energy in Kim Cardoso’s deceptively calm pieces; an aching profundity of Dobee Snowber’s emblematic (perhaps existential) crafted snapshots of Womanhood and Home; and Lisa Levine’s comic affection for free-forms and traditional motifs using each other. And there is Anne Rabe’s meditative hunt for simplicity in nature’s creation of complexity; Dee Tivenan’s abstraction of pattern from space; and Valerie Corvin’s invention of space from primitive, abstract signs. At the show, there is no reason for someone else to confine themselves to those points of view. But in seeing features like that myself, I find it easy to imagine these artists all recognizing some balancing act in each other’s works --  and appreciating the nuance of their respective personal awarenesses -- beyond the kinds of attraction that they can whip up as the skin of their images.   Gallery Hours: Saturdays 1:00 - 5:00 pm and by appointment 2889 Ford Street #32, third floor, Oakland CA 94601 Third Floor - not wheelchair accessible.

Most of the time, there is a practical reason why cameras would be preferrable to a pencil or a computer: creating a visual record. Records exceed the notion of "documents" in that a record is always attached to a concern about something specific, not just a view of it. And it is that concern that feels disrespected by the notion that a visualization of some event or condition thought to be relevant might not be reliable as a source of their real-world facts. We go through this any time there is a measurable distance between the existence of what we're concerned about and our direct witness of the concerning thing. And early heavy anxiety over the trustworthiness of an image is 90% based in achievable optical resolution, and only 10% in why it was made. Ever since the screen was invented, and at least since the paintings of Seurat (pointillism) and Lichtenstein (Ben-Day Dots), we have been able to generate images that resolve to whatever they showed because we had control over where any dot went - comparable in labor basically to weaving. And having enough automation to make dot rendering nearly effortless hasn't changed much of anything. It's just that the dots are now nearly microscopic and extremely easy to individually reposition any number of times by using instructions that run on computers like calculations. So in effect, with our new instruments for generating an image, more emphasis is placed on us who play them to be able to prove that we are the decision makers, the instructors that programmed and approved the display. The credibility of the imagemaker, per the maker's expressed intent, is what is at stake. A.I. generation itself is completely indifferent to anything other than its instructions. The more we are willing to accept the maker's explanation of why they made the image the way it looks, the less it matters to us that the maker has fabricated the image without recording being a part of the process. In light of all that, the future value of photographic recording will be significantly altered in situations where recording's proxy for direct witnessing is not necessary -- not required to establish sufficient acceptance of something's appearance as a support for our concern. We can also get a strong fix on when the requirement is not negotiable. The proxy requirement is high any time our concern is expressed by saying "IF X, THEN...". In that formula, with which we build our idea, a visualization of X is subject to having its fidelity to something actual being verified. But if viewers don’t have a particular concern, then the value of the image is left to however much the viewer is interested in whatever way it provokes them. But if viewers don’t have a particular concern, then the value of the image is left to however much the viewer is interested in whatever way it provokes them. The usual way to anticipate that is in terms of where the viewer chooses to go look, and why. For example: In this picture, incentives, expectations, and inhibitors are seen related to each other. But their overlaps also suggest that what crops up in one area can mistakenly be evaluated in terms of another area. As a simple example, treating hearsay as if it is the result of research is easy to do if we are not openly cautioned against doing that.

Artificial Intelligence works on some things that are so fundamental to creating information artifacts that in some ways it represents the only thing other than the internet that matured the true importance of digital computing. Anything that an electron can provoke can be presented through the brute effectiveness of an on/off switch, and computers can manage that at microscopic levels at the speed of light. Visualization, then, is simply a matter of how hard the computer can work. No matter what data it confronts, computation experiences nothing like complexity; it experiences only endurance. But what it tries to do is always a reaction to instruction, and instruction comes from people. The most important thing to understand about an instruction is that it is about a way to do something , not a description of a result. As a formula, an instruction to compute the value of "pi" -- divide the circumference of a circle by the diameter of the circle -- is breathtakingly simple but the result is staggeringly complex. This suggests why a computer, which can handle instructions that are thousands of steps long, can generate information of virtually immeasurable complexity. In our natural experience of data that we sense, our minds are comparable in capability to the supercomputers of AI when it comes to generating rich outputs. In effect, the mental output is "ideas". Then, in order to transmit ideas from one mind to another, we communicate. The communications are called "expressions" because their transmission means they are pushed out of the mind. Any instance of expression is called a "statement". Seeing is that we call our ability to comprehend what we sense from looking. When we look at information, we interpret how its appearance tells us what the mind behind the statement intended to express. Below, the graphic is a way to describe how any visual statement might relate to an experience that has generated a mental awareness of something. It proposes that there are four fundamental types of expressions: the idea (the mental formulation of something drawn from sensed data), a version of it, an instance of it, and a condition of it. This description also asserts that multiple types of expressions may combine as contributors to a given type of statement, For example, an indicative statement includes both an idea of something and a version of it. Also, a symbolic statement contains both an idea of something and a condition of something. Within such overlapping, there is also the dynamic of one thing provoking the next -- a symbolic statement may be a case where the condition of something spawned an idea of something else. As people who visualize things, we can always consider beforehand what our intent and opportunity is to shape and communicate information in communication. We can proactively consider what we want to emphasize, and why. And with this same perspective on identifying imagery, we can interpret existing visualizations analytically, taking stock of what kind of influences it seems to want its statements to exert. Said differently, the visualization contains within it the cues about what it wants us to pay attention to more or less.