Ocular proof

In Othello, its title character says he needs "ocular proof" to be convinced of his wife's unfaithfulness. The "seeing is believing" attitude is a dangerous one and brings up issues my photography class has discussed. One photographer, Annette Kuhn, writes that photographs can be reduced to a compilation of light and dark patches when inspected closely, thus offering no true proof of anything. The value of a photograph is what it represents, but in this age of PhotoShop, what images can be trusted?


The problem with other "ocular proof" like seeing Desdemona and Cassio speaking together or Cassio with the handkerchief is that Othello saw what Iago wanted him to see. Being a trusting individual, without Iago's prompting, Othello might have seen Desdemona's kindness in consoling Cassio. And the handkerchief was also due to Iago's plotting. Looking at things through a particular lens, such as through Iago's twisted perspective or as an audience member, one sees different things as "truth." The audience has the advantage of seeing everything while poor Othello is led by Iago to his ultimate demise by relying on his slant of the events. Ocular proof can't stand by itself- it is often unreliable and misleading which causes people to jump to conclusions, especially when outside influences are present.