This quote, like prompt #6, sort of suggests an ethical question. Is honesty always the best policy when you're trying to capture somebody in the photograph. I'd argue that's probably best after a shoot, but I'd consider it okay to shoot without necessarily being upfront with your purpose or concept. This way you might get them to act more naturally, more open, and less conforming to whatever your idea is. If that's what a photographer is going for, that's certainly an option. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer about keeping your model in the know, but I don't feel as if it's a mandatory obligation to inform them of everything to do with the project. Ethics is also not always my strong subject, so maybe I need to look further into the matter. The soul idea interested me, as I have heard that Native Americans used to fear photography for that very fact (sorry if that's a gross generalization, or even untrue, it's just something told to me during some middle school history class). I wouldn't agree that a photograph is taking away a soul, it's simply directing others to it, a simply recording. Maybe I am being too harsh about the quote, it has good intentions, and it's rather important to respect your models.
As far as the ethics behind digitally editing photographs really, really depend on the situation. When it comes to fine art, I am all in for digital manipulations. I see it as one more tool to drive art. Digital manipulating is a medium itself, and must be learned just as one would learn to move a paintbrush or sculpt a small animal or anything else. To deprive the world of any art medium suggests a fear of growth or exploration. That being said, I do think it's wrong to trick people with edited photographs in the mass media. Just like a video edited at the exact right point, a fake photograph can ruin reputations and shift political and social ideologies. Sometimes it can be fun, like when the world got to laugh it's ass off at photos of Iran's nuclear program, discovered to be photoshopped almost immediately. I'm a little on the fence about editing fashion photography to the point of unrealistic extremes. Evidence shows this makes a negative impact on the way females view themselves in society, told well by this Dove Commercial. Ugh, that neck part always freaks me out. I'm always alright with healing a couple of zits out, but being a male that's rather indifferent about everything, I'm not sure where to draw the line.
I find that as so many images get put on Facebook a day (why do browsers still recognize Facebook as a typo?), that the photos stop being a slice of life and start just becoming life. Sorry if that sounds lofty, but I don't mean it in a positive way. When I can find photos of myself on that site from giving a speech to exiting the bathroom, they kind of stop being special. I don't want to make a generalization of all of them, as there are always a few gems. I like the portraits in advertising and the news, however, because everything seems so thought out. That may not be true, but at least there's more of a system than random cell phone pics and that last Friday night you don't want to remember. Fine art is even more different. Everyone has such different content and statements, it's hard to even compare it to the prompt.
No comments:
Post a Comment