Across the line
I read a thread here recently that asked how far is too far? Of course, they were speaking artistically and I had imagined it was an ethical question.
I beleive that this crosses the line where alterations of photographs become unethical. Not way across, just across. This is a political statement that is using the image of a very real historical figure. Don't buy it? How far is it from say giving FDR a big black eye and putting it in the context of the WWII. Someone somewhere will beleive that FDR actually got in a fight.
Maybe this artist did maintain some standard. I thought the tear was obviously altered from a distance. Maybe that makes it ok?
I read a thread here recently that asked how far is too far? Of course, they were speaking artistically and I had imagined it was an ethical question.
I beleive that this crosses the line where alterations of photographs become unethical. Not way across, just across. This is a political statement that is using the image of a very real historical figure. Don't buy it? How far is it from say giving FDR a big black eye and putting it in the context of the WWII. Someone somewhere will beleive that FDR actually got in a fight.
Maybe this artist did maintain some standard. I thought the tear was obviously altered from a distance. Maybe that makes it ok?
Interesting. I view it more like a political cartoon. The distinction being, however, that a cartoon you can tell is a cartoon. Even an illustration will tip your hand that it's an artist's interpretation. We all know that photography is an artist's interpretation, too, but the general public think of photographs as being unbiased, factual representations of reality, so they expect it to be the "truth". Truth is, photos are always showing us but one part of reality, of the truth, and it's filtered by the photographer taking it, processing it, and printing it.
Comments
I read a thread here recently that asked how far is too far? Of course, they were speaking artistically and I had imagined it was an ethical question.
I beleive that this crosses the line where alterations of photographs become unethical. Not way across, just across. This is a political statement that is using the image of a very real historical figure. Don't buy it? How far is it from say giving FDR a big black eye and putting it in the context of the WWII. Someone somewhere will beleive that FDR actually got in a fight.
Maybe this artist did maintain some standard. I thought the tear was obviously altered from a distance. Maybe that makes it ok?
http://blue-dog.smugmug.com
http://smile-123.smugmug.com
http://vintage-photos.blogspot.com/
Canon 7D, 100-400L, Mongoose 3.5, hoping for a 500L real soon.
Interesting. I view it more like a political cartoon. The distinction being, however, that a cartoon you can tell is a cartoon. Even an illustration will tip your hand that it's an artist's interpretation. We all know that photography is an artist's interpretation, too, but the general public think of photographs as being unbiased, factual representations of reality, so they expect it to be the "truth". Truth is, photos are always showing us but one part of reality, of the truth, and it's filtered by the photographer taking it, processing it, and printing it.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops