The cover immediately sets Ways of Seeing apart from its contemporaries, the book itself begins on the cover. Rather than creating a conventionally appealing cover, Hollis chose to bypass this tradition entirely, instead placing the text and an image from the start of the first chapter straight onto the front, just beneath the title and authors name. This directness has a link with the television series, mimicking how the first episode began with no preamble or title sequence, Berger got started immediately, drawing the audience in with his message rather than any distractions.

Another link to Berger’s presenting style is Hollis’ choice of typeface, bold Univers 65 is used for the body copy throughout, in an attempt to achieve something of the captivating quality of Berger’s voice.

The layout also employs large indents rather than paragraph breaks, something of a Hollis trademark. But this mirrors how Berger had presented on television, there was little time wasted with atmospheric filler shots or long gaps in speech, the message was key and continuous.

The key reason that Ways of Seeing has become iconic as a piece of book design is how it dealt with text and image: the two are integrated, where an image is mentioned in the text it also appears there. Captions are avoided where possible. When unavoidable they are in a lighter weight of type and run horizontally, so as not to disrupt the text. Images are often set at the same width as the lines of text, or indented by the same amount, this democratises the text and image relationship. Occasionally works of art are cropped to show only the pertinent details. All of these features are a big departure from the art books of the time which usually featured glorified full page colour images, often in a glossy ‘colour plate’ section in the middle, completely distanced from where the text refers to them.

Design is not used for prettifying, or to create appeal, rather it is used for elucidating, to spread his message or get his point across as clearly as possible. Be it a point about art and politics, art and gender, the ethics of advertising, the human experiences of a rural GP, or economic migrants in Germany — the design is always appropriate to what Berger wants to say, but does so economically without redundancy.

Even in Portraits: John Berger on Artists published by Verso in 2015, Berger insisted on black and white reproductions, arguing that: “glossy colour reproductions in the consumerist world of today tend to reduce what they show to items in a luxury brochure for millionaires. Whereas black-and-white reproductions are simple memoranda.”

the images in the book “illustrate the essentially dialectical relationship between text and image in Berger’s work: the pattern in which an image shapes a text, which then goes on to shape how we understand that image.”

Some images look like they were made under a robotic sugar high. Lots of warm colors, but they make everything look like candy… they’re so overly sweet that they give you visual diabetes..

Average AI images drag down everything around them. An AI hero image is a comedian opening the show with a knock-knock joke. Good images enrich your article, bad images steal its soul.

The phrase a picture is worth a thousand words has two popular origin stories. One version credits advertising executive Frederick R. Barnard, who attributed the phrase to an ancient Chinese proverb. The closest Chinese equivalent translates to “Hearing something a hundred times isn’t better than seeing it once.” In other words, the Chinese Origin was made up: “…the Chinese derivation was pure invention. Many things had been thought to be ‘worth ten thousand words’ well before pictures got in on the act;”

the true origin of the proverb is not Chinese but adspeak.3 It shows how the phrase has morphed into a commercial, facile cliche.

Letting images and pictures compete for supremacy reduces the complex relationship between images and words into a direct, quantifiable comparison. Words and images function differently

A few carefully chosen words can say what 1,000 stock images cannot. The right image can counter cynicism, closed-mindedness, or an automatic dismissal of a convincing argument.

Tell your audience how you interpret the image. What the image means.

Use images to complement, not repeat or overshadow, the text. Get rid of images that are just there to add color.

Stock images are clichés. Clichés can be easily turned on their head because of their simplistic topic. You want to communicate that you’re diverse and you end up telling people that you’re a company run by a minority. Or you want to communicate success, but the focus on two middle-aged white people ends up communicating their privilege.

Whether you like it or not, people will read into this picture as well and they won’t find a lot of valuable or advantageous information in it. It again mostly says: “This boring website thinks that I don’t see that this is a meaningless stock image.”

Pictures have an impact when they tell a story that only a picture can tell.

Instead of turning light into pictures, it turns ideas into pictures.

This new kind of camera replicates what your imagination does. It receives words and then synthesizes a picture from its experience seeing millions of other pictures. The output doesn’t have a name yet, but I’ll call it a synthograph (meaning synthetic drawing).

Photography can capture moments that happened, but synthography is not bound by the limitations of reality. Synthography can capture moments that did not happen and moments that could never happen.

Taking a great syntho is about stimulating the imagination of the camera. Synthography doesn’t require you to be anywhere or anywhen in particular.

Photography is an important medium of expression because it is so accessible and instantaneous. Synthography will even further reduce barriers to entry, and give everyone the power to convert ideas into pictures.

The criticisms I have been seeing about the features of the Pixel 8, however, feel like we are only repeating the kinds of fears of nearly two hundred years. We have not been able to wholly trust photographs pretty much since they were invented. The only things which have changed in that time are the ease with which the manipulations can happen, and their availability.

We all live with a growing sense that everything around us is fraudulent. It is striking to me how these tools have been introduced as confidence in institutions has declined. It feels like a death spiral of trust — not only are we expected to separate facts from their potentially misleading context, we increasingly feel doubtful that any experts are able to help us, yet we keep inventing new ways to distort reality.

The questions that are being asked of the Pixel 8’s image manipulation capabilities are good and necessary because there are real ethical implications. But I think they need to be more fully contextualized. There is a long trail of exactly the same concerns and, to avoid repeating ourselves yet again, we should be asking these questions with that history in mind. This era feels different. I think we should be asking more precisely why that is.

The questions we ask about generative technologies should acknowledge that we already have plenty of ways to lie, and that lots of the information we see is suspect. That does not mean we should not believe anything, but it does mean we ought to be asking questions about what is changed when tools like these become more widespread and easier to use.

How much of that is the actual photo and how much you might consider to be synthesized is a line I think each person draws for themselves. I think it depends on the context; Moon photography makes for a neat demo but it is rarely relevant. A better question is whether these kinds of software enhancements hallucinate errors along the same lines of what happened in Xerox copiers for years.