Then and Now: Baron II

Over time the legitimacy of information in its various forms has changed. Merely verbally saying you would do something used to imply that what you said would actually come to pass. A handshake was once generally good enough to seal a deal and establish at least some level of trust. And what is it now? Have we moved into a time where a signature is required to prove everything? Or is even this becoming outdated?

As Baron states, "Seeing for ourselves is often a way to determine trustworthiness, whether of a memo or a person. Seeing, after all, is believing. Or is it?" (pg. 117)

By the nature of our culture, we have tended to believe that if something is visually displayed, then it must be true. Whether that be a photograph or handwriting-- it must be true. Consider a signature, for example. "Since Hancock's time we have come to invest a lot of meaning in a signature--it carries the identity and the individuality of the author". (pg. 125) However, even in my office we have "e-signatures" on file (scanned images of signatures) in the event we need to "sign" something for someone who is not present (with their permission, of course). The signature is now visually displayed, and may even appear hand-written; but it is, in fact, merely a copy of something that was once hand-written years prior.

We see this same issue happen on a daily basis with programs like Photoshop. Now many photos are referred to as "images" rather than photographs due to their heavily edited and altered nature. So what does this all come down to?

In the past, we could see images, signatures, etc and believe what we saw with a great degree of success. Now, there is much more wisdom in researching what you see in hopes to discover the validity.