I'd be bored too if I knew everything.

You're asking me "which is it," but I'm telling you it's a false choice. I'm not saying that taking into account the way a work was made is immaterial ... often knowledge of the process contribute a great deal to what we get out of an image. But there are ways of looking at how an image was made that investigate it's meaning and it's power, and there are ways of looking at it that investigate its maker's ethics. They are different ways of looking, with different goals.

When I spoke of authenticity, I used the term "sense of authenticity." As we all know intellectually, there's no such thing as simple authenticity in any photographs, journalism or otherwise. but the SENSE of authenticity we get, from both the image and what we're told about it, has an effect on us. What is unique to photography, even staged photography, is its ability to conjure a sense of concrete reality. And again, I don't know how different the impact of W's work would be if he used fake parts. I do know there's a chance it would influene him as he's working with them, but that's not a question I can answer.

Jorge, if I'm the horse you're trying to make drink, then please do. I'm thirsty. You said I misunderstood your points, so explain what I got wrong. All these angry sounding attacks do not contribute to any kind of clarity.