I'm no purist about pop culture, but I know so many "memories" I have exist only because of their reinforcement with photos - the way kids "remember" events from when they were young 'cause they heard a story that went along with a picture, and their memory is of that, not the actual event.
So, when photos represent a reality that never existed, it's a bit like creating history and memories that exist, in fact, only in the present. As a strictly artistic expression, I'm fine with it. But these photos aren't being offered as art, so it seems odd otherwise.
It's the pictorial equivalent of fiction, right? But when you write fiction, there's no assumption of correlation with fact or reality. With a photographic image, it implies some sort of equivalence between what is seen and what actually exists/existed.
Maybe that's just such a 10-years ago way of looking at photos? I think the photo is compelling, but still creepy to me.
