On "Mirrors, Windows, and Mosaics"

Fred Ritchin begins his discussion of a new and collaborative way to interact with the photographic images by making the distinction between two ways of approaching the photographic image: the "mirror" and the "window." In the "mirror" we approach the photograph as a way of seeing how the photographer is reflecting themselves in the photograph; the "window" is the photographer's attempt to explore the world outside of themselves. Ritchin's example of Walker Evan's photographs of Depression Era United States suggests that these two ways of seeing are not mutually excessive and that the photograph can be an exploration of the world while also revealing the photographer's personal bias and imagination, his so called "self-expression." I agree with Ritchin's thesis that photographs can reveal both window and mirror. On a surface level, my desire to explore the world around me, this little locale called Eugene, is a window endeavor. At the same time I feel my choice of subject, my own inner biases, my technical knowledge, all result in images that are a reflection of my self: I do see them as artifacts of "self-expression" beyond the represented exploration of the world.
Ritchin then offers an alternative to the notion of mirror/window in regard to digital imagery, namely "mosaic." He argues that the photograph, the digital image, should not be a static entity because its claims to truth are obsolete. If claims to truth cannot be attained in the digital image, why not add contextual information (through "hyper-texts") that would allow a "multiplicity of voices" to engage in the dialogue of the digital image? The meaning of the image, already elusive, would be given greater contextual weight through the contributions of many. Although I find this idea of an evolving image to be appealing, I am also horrified at the possibility of manipulation of my image to be taken far out of the context that I would wish it to maintain (Ritchin also mentions this danger). Considering, the innumerable videos on Youtube, and the innumerable commentary that accompanies those images, sometimes vapid and sometimes malicious, I would never submit my images to such scrutiny and manipulation. Ritchin's example of the family photograph with grandma holding a bible would be the extent to what I would speculatively allow my photographs to be manipulated. Perhaps, the community of commentators would be only family members and close family friends. The community in this new age of the mosaic photograph, I feel, should be a limited one.