[qnpnp]

She's anything but upfront.

Until the disclaimer was added there was no way to tell these photos were fake. On the contrary, there was a whole story-telling about how she made this difficult trip and suddenly saw what she was looking for in a magical moment, which supports the idea that this was genuine animal photography.

It is therefore no surprise that people assumed these photos were real and now feel deceived.

Even now that she added this disclaimer, she is antyhing but clear as to what is actually real or not. Are we speaking of editing and composite as in "I took a great photo and just added a few rocks here and removed a cloud there to make it cooler" or in "I built this whole landscape and then added a snow leopard on top of it"?

She claims she genuinely photographied the snow leopard, but this is very unlikely and the deception already identified makes it difficult to believe her.

Edit: reading more carefully she claims she saw "what she was looking for" which you would obviously interpret as a snow leopard, but is vague enough to offer her yet again another opportunity to say she "never said that".

[valeness]

This is called Art... Have you never seen an ARG (Augmented Reality Game) website where they tell entire fictional stories as if they are real?

You can suspend your disbelief in the most inane shit for a movie, but this form of art you just can't do it?

[qnpnp]

You're missing the point. Nobody here is criticizing the art itself; it looks great.

The whole point is deceiving people into believing those are real pictures when they are not. She received huge exposure in major newspapers, specialist magazines, social media, even the American embassy because of this (and sold many prints). She enjoyed that attention, even reblogged the article from the Times of London, without ever correcting anybody about the actual nature of her work.

Had she been forthright about the fact that the pictures were fake, she never would have received such attention. The picture still look cool in their own right, but we would be far from the incredible achievement that such picture would represent if they were real.

As Munier said: "I’ve got nothing against this type of creation, but it has to be presented as such".

[valeness]

I don't think it's her job to tell people that. This is her own little slice of the internet and she's allowed to do what she wants. She's not really hurting anyone, she's raising money for charity, the pictures are phenomenal.

People need to relax. She's 24 and getting death threats over what?

I mean worst case is she lied about photoshopping a picture? Yeah, so did Victoria Secret and EVERY SINGLE OTHER MEDIA PUBLICATION IN THE WORLD.

National Geographic did it for christ's sake...

Everyone here jumping down her fucking throat, out for blood. "Actually you lied, myehhh, this is bad and you're a bad person"

Like fuck off, I think she's well within her right to represent her art this way. Just because other publications continue to rip off artists for easy content and do very little research on their own doesn't mean she's doing anything wrong.

I think a disclaimer would remove a lot from the art. ARG's don't provide disclaimers, it adds to it. Especially in the early days of the internet "Is it, or is it not?" Is a fun game to play.

Also, nobody was hurt. This isn't disinformation in the sense you're telling people that jews run the world or that vaccines cause autism. Nobody is getting hurt. They're fun pictures. She told a cute ambiguous story. She has like 1000 followers. Everyone can just relax already.