The Tel Aviv Museum of “Art” had an interesting exhibit in 2017 called “Fake?” It’s an exploration of various forms of fakery in art, from some of the most notorious Vermeer forgeries by Han van Meegeren to phony archaeological artifacts. I recently went to see the exhibit and it was a surprisingly interesting and thought-provoking meditation on the question and definition of fakery in art, though of course it was also an exquisite exercise in misdirection.
One of the things that caught my eye was a deconstruction of a famous photograph of Theodor Herzl meeting Kaiser Willheim II on October 28, 1898 outside an agricultural school in Mikveh Israel in what was then Palestine. (Herzl, you’ll remember, is regarded as the father of the modern Zionist movement and makes an appearnce, along with some fishy photos and other red flags, in my paper pulling back the curtain on the Dreyfus Affair hoax.)
The exhibit showed that this famous picture was actually a fake, created by splicing and dicing two different pictures. Here is the famous one:
But it’s a paste-up. At this site, we get a cover story for why they faked the photo: “The original photograph of Herzl and the Kaiser was not acceptable as only Herzl’s left foot could be seen in the photo. Herzl, aware of the importance of the photo, ordered its reconstruction. A photo of Herzl was taken on the roof of the school and superimposed onto the photo after seating Kaiser Wilhelm II on the dark horse (instead of the original white stallion).”
That site shares the original photos:
Ha! You’ve got to laugh. The object labeled as Herzl’s left “foot” is clearly not a human foot or leg. It is either that of a horse or, it looks to me, like something coming off the stirrup. And even if it was his left foot, where is his right foot? Was he hopping on one leg when he met the Kaiser? How come that wasn’t part of the “reconstruction?” (Upon further inspection, there appears to be a figure cut off on the far right side of the frame, possibly holding a white hat as in the doctored picture. Is that what they are pointing to and describe as his left foot? If so, we have no indication that this figure is Herzl, or that it is not simply another photomontage itself.)
The photomontage was created by taking the Kaiser, who is sitting atop the white horse in the picture on the left, cutting him out and putting him on the brown horse. Then they pasted Herzl in from the other picture and drew in a line around the brim of his hat. Et voilà, you’ve got yourself a fauxtograph. There were also many other changes made to the foreground, background and the horse.
Here we find another cover story to explain this fauxtograph: “The gate of the Mikve Israel school stood at the end of a long row of palm trees, typical of the place’s beauty. When the German leader arrived, his photographer was so impressed by the greenery that Herzl was left out of the picture taken of the historic occasion.” Look at the original picture. Does it look like the photographer was focused on the greenery? Nope. The story does not check out.
The exhibit at the museum also had this to say: “Many people mistakenly think that since the invention of the graphic software, Photoshop, no visual image can be believed. Yet in reality no image can be believed since 1829, the year photography was discovered, since photographers immediately began manipulating their photos: photomontage, various types of improvements, coloring black and white images, and so on. But are we not all living in a world of virtual reality, based on well-known documentary photographs? Did the American astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin really reach the moon in 1969 and were they photographed there? As is commonly known, the filmed footage shows an American flag blowing in the background, whereas experts say that wind cannot possibly blow on the moon, leaving this oddity to feed numerous conspiracy theories. Did Dr. Theodor Herzl and the German Kaiser Willhelm II really meet at Mikveh Israel in 1898? (They did, but the famous David Wolffsohn photograph documenting the meeting is a photomontage).”
Wait a second! If the photo is fake, then how do we know they actually met? Because Herzl said so? And if they really did meet, why would they need to fake a photo of the event? As we’ve seen the cover stories are ridiculous. Any honest person would have to conclude that the meeting between Herzl and the Kaiser never happened.
As a parting bonus, we get this link to a Time Magazine slideshow on “Top 10 Doctored Photos.” I don’t want to paste all the photos here, but they include some big names: Civil War Generals, Lenin, Hitler, and even Oprah. But what you’ll notice from these examples, I hope, is that Time Magazine–just like the museum exhibit–is dangling the truth tantalizingly close but then pulling it away.
They’re admitting that pictures are doctored or faked, but then they’re telling you it’s no big deal. The examples they give do not appear to be all that serious, nor are they used to significantly distort historical events or even conjure them out of whole cloth. The message is clear: “Yes, we fake photos, but it’s not really a big deal. When the bad guys do it, it’s for petty propaganda. When we do it, it’s just to make fat women look better or to make sure nobody feels left out. In any case, no harm done!”
In a plaque in the section on fake photographs, the exhibit came even closer to telling the truth before pulling back: “Are we not all living in a world of virtual reality, based on well-known documentary photographs?”
I find these fakes easier and easier to spot, both due to Miles’ lessons on the topic and my own professional expertise in Photoshop, which I can say without ego is obscene in scope. And as you and others have pointed out time and time again, almost all the old history photography is fake, or at least doctored. We can spot so many things an amateur would have missed in the doctoring, or someone lacking modern tech (they will say). They will try to “paint the topic” as identical to enhancing Playboy images or magazine shots of products, but it’s not the same.
Yes, both scenarios present lies as truth. But one scenario sells products, the other one sells death, Statism, and false history. One is capitalistic, the other is extremely religious. I find little wrong with “touching up” photos. But faking elaborate scenarios to promote fear, political agendas, and the dismemberment of real history is abhorrent to say the least.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well said, Jared.
LikeLike
And here are 12 examples of historic photo-doctoring, often for no apparent reason but sometimes due to the person being “out of favor” with someone (such as Stalin). When so many photos are faked, it’s difficult to ascertain what’s real and what actually happened “back then”.
http://twistedsifter.com/2012/02/famously-doctored-photographs/
LikeLike
Been on the Cibola trail for quite some time. Don’t have time now, but rest assured the whole official story is fake.. Or at least, the part about Coronado not finding it. BTW Melichor’s grave was found in the 1930’s. It is on the western slope of the mountains in northern Baja. Will post more in due time. There is a lot more to this than you can imagine. Keep up the good work.
LikeLike
Pingback: Re-pub – iuwrr
Pingback: Tinfoiltopia Conspiracy Theories - Fauxtography Inside the Matrix
Pingback: About predictive programming | Vexman's Thoughts
I was re-reading the comments here and wanted to talk about “the matrix” from a different angle. Yes Miles has opened my eyes to fauxtography but more importantly his work has shown me part of a veil of lies that obscures my vision thoughts and conceptions! My entire philosohy and world view ended up needing an update! How can I allow myself to be decieved by cheesy hoaxes, embarrassing!
So the angle is fauxto staging. Just about anyone reading this has staged a photo! The selfie is a modern example. The photo was “set up” to have my face, and some other stuff which I include by how I direct the camera. But thats not like a paste up, a photoshop job, and nobody painted in whole sections. Its merely what the camera saw and recorded, but it is staged I think. An extreme example is when somebody claims to be photographed while asleep, but the mirror in their room shows its them taking a selfie.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=selfie+of+sleeping+person&t=hd&va=o&ia=web
the “photo” is assumed to be raw straight and no funny business, and in a way it is a faithful representation of what the camera phone saw [actually how could I know THAT?? fauxtoMatrix is tricky!!]. But past the lens in the area that fits in the frame is a deceptive play of photons its photography that aims to decieve. It uses a selfie technique to pretend “not a selfie” is taking place and documents it with “evidence”.
But who cares? Nobody probably, but notice nobody wants to say taking a selfie of yourself pretending to sleep is inherently deceptive, its art! Its my camera, I wanted to so no harm in that right?
Where did the deception go? Gone, until I present the Selfie as notSelfie and it becomes clear the deception lives OUTSIDE the photo in a way. I can find someone elses fakeSelfie, and present it as fakeSelfie, or as selfie, and it becomes me that foists the lie, not the photographer.
Although I don’t agree that all the world is a stage, it does seem hard sometimes to find an exit, much less see the edge where the stage ends and “something else” begins!
LikeLike
So in http://mileswmathis.com/sangreal.pdf writes MM-
“You made yourself,not the media or holograms from Saturn. If you have let yourself be led, then you have LET yourself be led. You let it happen. Which means you can stop letting it happen. It remains your mind and your spirit, and you are fully capable of resisting corrupted information, no matter where it is coming from. Or at least I am.”
So it seems that a key to the matrix is that we accept it as real when we should say “I prefer not to”. So this tells me that if no claim is made that a fauxto is a photo, we are to blame if we mistake a fauxto as anything but a fauxto. Every photo requires proof it is a photo or I’m still brainwashing myself.
To clarify, I can obtain a real raw unaltered photo, turn it into a fauxto with photoshop, and release it without any description at all. In this case I would not claim its a photo, and thus have foisted no deception. I can’t be blamed if someone mistakes my fauxto for a photo.
Also, mistaking my photo for a fauxto cannot be blamed on me who released the photo without making a specific claim.
So can I blame people who present photos that are obviously fake if they make no specific claim it is real or fake? Once again the deception seems to take place outside the photo, which is curious.
To wrap up, Perhaps, perhaps I say, its not the fauxto of Herzl we should question, it is exactly who and what claim is made ABOUT the fauxto we should question. Josh provides some about his fauxto, but do we always get that info?
LikeLike
There’s a really weird picture in the Daily Express today of a one legged Meghan in a clinch with Harry.
I’ve photographed it on my iPhone and uploaded it to my computer . Normally I would just copy and paste but this picture just will not past. It’s worth a peak so any ideas for this non teccy?
LikeLike
@sav, create an imgur.com account (easy), upload it to your account and then paste the URL into a comment here. Make sure the URL ends with .jpg. Sometimes you have to click on the picture on imgur in order to see the .jpg URL address at the top of your browser.
LikeLike