REALITY VS. IMAGERY
Not unlike the debate between architectural renderings and the completed built work is the ability for photographic images to "lie". Obviously this is something we are all aware of, likely complicit of ourselves, and something I definitely expected to find occurring in photographs of Havana. Something I tried to touch on in my thesis is how an aesthetic can be applied or manipulated to force or "sell" an idea. In this case, filters, cropping, saturating all are applied to convince the viewer that a specific Malecón exists.
The photograph probably takes the largest portion of the blame for the discrepancy between an internal and external identity of the city. But the interesting thing is that none of the photographs below outright lie, they are all versions of the truth to the extent that there could or would ever be one true photograph of the Malecón. And I think that this is where things get interesting because there are so many uses of the image. Their purpose can be to inform, document, educate, sell commercially, sell ideology, speculate, and used for personal expression. Can one of these ever be an unbiased objective representation of the landscape / cityscape in front of the viewer? By framing a photograph or choosing a drawing's paper size something always gets left out or off.