d e v o n
No title available
Keni
Kiana Khansmith
oozey mess
occasionally subtle
tannertan36
#extradirty
No title available
No title available
Xuebing Du
JBB: An Artblog!
titsay
Show & Tell
🪼
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Stranger Things
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
blake kathryn
Sade Olutola
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from Norway
seen from Algeria
seen from Australia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from South Korea
seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from France
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
@icarus-found-you
Whoa There Pardnerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Beirut, Lebanon
“Cellphone” from the “Pate” Series (2011) - Fatima Al Qadiri with Lauren Boyle
Pâté is an appraisal of Kuwaiti taste. Blurring the line between fashion and artbook, Pâté explores how affluence, the West, censorship, and religion have shaped a nation’s style. In concept, Pâté is an homage to The Better Class (by Alice Colombo), a satirical fashion and lifestyle publication created in 1974. Borrowing the structure of The Better Class, Fatima Al Qadiri and Lauren Boyle have assembled a pastiche, pairing the most unapologetic text from Western fashion writers with rare images from various fields of Kuwaiti taste such as architecture, interior design and radical makeup art. In this mash—this fashion “spread”—Pâté captures the aesthetic evolution of an Arabian Gulf state from the 1970’s to the present. - FQ
A Grandma’s Kitchen, Measured, by Lara Agosti, ca. 2012
"The mysteries of intelligence never fall under the senses, nor can the ineffable Essence be grasped by them. Indeed, the mind cannot even conceive their ideas through imagination unless reason and intellect rise to such a height of understanding that they attain the illumination of the divine. Therefore, reason must rise to divine speculation, lifting the intellect into the sphere of the mind, where, illuminated by divine light, it perceives celestial truth." — Robert Fludd Art: Der übernatürliche Philosoph, oder die Geheimnisse der Magie, nach allen ihren Arten deutlich erkläret by Bond, W., c. 1742 (Based on an image from Robert Fludd's book)
P.I. Telegram / P.I. Facebook
"You see that, putas? It's called science 🫦"
Size Crisis (Capcom - PS1 - 1999)
hustler january 1989
"i like kissing americans" - no one ever in three hundred thousand years of human civilization
It's funny because there was a historical period where photographic evidence was generally considered reliable and that period is over.
This picture from 1917 convinced Arthur Conan Doyle that fairies existed.
The problem isn't that we have to be skeptical of photography and video now.
The problem is that you always should have been.
Trick photography, darkroom editing, staged photos, mis-attribution of images outside their context, it's all been there from the start and it got easier every year thereafter.
The time in which any random person could easily alter photography beyond the ability of a normal person to tell was in the late 1990s at the very latest. By the late aughts, your phone had a thousand ways of doing it for you.
Just having the images/footage should never have been enough. That's why things like a chain-of-custody for evidence exist.
Those things required lots of advanced tech to pull off, often leaving multiple witnesses in the process. Somebody with no skills can just post "Make Wife falls on knife instead." in some genai app and be done with it.
With film it was always trickier, but with still images? I'm afraid you're proving my point.
I'm in my 40s, my experience with film is pre-digital, and the darkroom process for fakery is the exact same process for making a photographic print. It's trickier, it requires fast hands and patience, but it's entirely doable with a single hobbiest and some darkroom access. Faking negatives is harder, but not impossible.
And that, of course, is just if you're faking things after the fact. All the microscopes in the word won't tell you a negative has been tampered with if the UFO in question was a hubcap being thrown like a frizbee, or if the person in the photograph just happens to look like you at that distance in that lighting.
After 1995 or so, all it took was a desktop computer and a cracked copy of photoshop.
Everyone thinks they can spot photoshoppery and traditional fakery, but that's just confirmation bias because you don't know about the hundreds of altered images that flew past you every day, and because a lot of photomanips weren't done with trickery in mind. Yeah, most of the head swaps you found on the internet pre-faceswap apps are obvious, but most of them were made for jokes or for porn, and in neither case is believably a major priority. When someone wants it to look seamless and is willing to put in the time, it's not that hard.
The only unaltered photography most people have ever seen were polaroids or snapshots taken on film. Everything else has been adjusted and manipulated and cropped for purpose, even if just to make the contrast sharper and the colors more vivid. Before she was photoshopped, she was airbrushed. Even if she's not photoshopped, she's prepped and posed and pinched, with a team of people to make her look impossibly good in a way that seems perfectly natural.
Is it easier than ever before? Yes, but that's always been the trend.
And you've never had to be skilled to trick people, in fact, the best tricks are obvious ones that filter out the non-suckers.
The Cottington Fairies were, quite famously, faked by children with paper dolls.
The shittiest Weekly World News photobashes tricked tens of thousands.
Fake cryptid photos made with toy submarines and modelling putty or a shakey camera and an above-average gorilla suit are still fooling people today.
Photographs of dead celebrities that 'prove they faked their deaths' happen all the time, because there's only so many ways a human face tends to go together.
Just go looking at what the paranormal and UFO types show off as evidence.
What folks can do with blender and some filtering is mindblowing.
The similarity doesn't even have to be that close, look at Luigi V the Claims Adjuster, if the brows don't split, you must acquit.
If it takes AI to get people to start being skeptical of what they take in, that's a win for AI, because you should have always been that way. If you are worried now and weren't before, it's a difference of in awareness of the danger, rather than a difference in its presence.
I don't know where we went wrong on this. I was growing up in the 1980s and my elders hammered into me that "seeing is believing" was foolishness, and yet after the advent of modern special effects, easy digital photography, and hoax-after-hoax-after-hoax-after-god-fucking-damn-hoax, the idea that video and photography were believable on their own merits somehow wormed its way back in.
Evidence requires context to be evidence. You have to know where it came from, how it was acquired, who had access along the way, what other supporting or nonsupporting evidence there is, and you have to be able to know if a situation is plausible or implausible and err on the side of further research and consideration.
It takes work, but it is worth it.
me browsing Tumblr after trump cured autism
Why does he need a- … oh
