Take a photo of it, otherwise it didn’t happen. in which the act of making something visible is seen as proof, and in which pictures can be made everywhere, every time, by anyone who owns technology that has camera option. Not being able to take a picture is no longer an excuse to not “document” something. Hito Steyerl’s work How Not To Be Seen: A Fucking Didactic Educational mov.File (2013) discusses these concepts of visibility and invisibility in a world filled with billions of pictures. In How Not To Be Seen: A Fucking Didactic Educational mov.File (2013), Steyerl discusses a relation between resolution as form of visibility and valuing as point-of-view. The power of capturing is superior in the notion of images and is an extremely meaningful presence in contemporary society. We use images to refer things that not ready and also treated as documentation of events from the past. And at the same time, we human beings read into these events and the images, use them as materialized proof of the “reality”. In the video, Steyerl indicates that judgement of conventional images is primarily based on sharpness and resolution. As we all know, 4k, 8k, ultra high-def for cameras, screens is crucial in the commercial advertising world. More money a company has, more likely they will have a higher definition promo. and we generally consider it tells more “truth”. Her discussion of resolution as value enriches our understanding of the power of the image. Images are valued in how many pixels they have. The higher resolution of the image the higher is the place in the capitalism society of truth. The more power a person has, the more resolution can be seen by them. Resolution is hierarchy. At time, while watching Goodbye Uncanny Valley, I found it’s interesting that in 2019, after seeing so many computer rendered films and images, I often find myself differential computer rendered hyper realistic images and photographs by how sharp and clear they are: if an image is too clear and perfectly sharp, I’m more likely to believe that is not a “real” photograph, it’s a computer rendered image instead. Does a photograph or a video clip says the truth, or can it lie? Even in the early days of photography, way before photo editing software being invented, we had Bayard’s Self Portrait as a Drowned Man to sociologist and photojournalist Lewis Hine famous quote “while photographs may not lie, liars may photograph”, this led us to the discussion of how our trust in pictures was never determined. All this time we can only see what the creator wants us to see. I have been wondering if analog photography equaled to a well-trained painter, a pixel moving software equaled to old-fashioned darkroom modifications and hyper-realistic CGI is the same as the next level of Photoshop… I was never able to understand hyper-realistic paintings or CGIs or anything uses “look alike or “can’t even tell it’s not real” as an strong point to argue that’s better art. I do not think that an CGI rendered realistic and moody looking cityscape is any superior than a photograph of a similar scene. Since if we say we cannot trust pictures, because from the machine to the creator of them both lie, we cannot trust our eyes either, because, first of all, even we ignore the delicacy unknow world of how human’ body and mind connects, and our eyes are obliviously not calibrated, I’ve been wonder if everything we conceive right now is just a massive phantasmagoria show- Fantastic, bizarre and delusional. Sometimes we believe it is what we see and that’s only because information asymmetry, just like Etienne-Gaspard Robertson had a glance of modern physics, him and his crew knew the phantoms were not there but the audience had no clue.