Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The reality argument may work if we think of the image as an object that exists. The image had a prior existence before being altered. I could for example take a print, cut it up into pieces and tape it back together haphazardly then submit it for publication. The stealth quality of electronic alteration isn't fundamentally different only easier to conceal or cause confusion. One can not call the former and latter object the same object. The first object conveyed the golfer with his caddy in the background obviously sharing the moment of victory. The golfer and his caddy work together and are a team. There is emotional involvement, their worlds are intimately intertwined, etc. The second object removes the caddy's involvement denying his role as an integral part of the victory, undermining the relationship between a golfer and caddy, re scripting the victory as an individual one rather then a team effort. In a word altering what is commonly considered the normal relationship between a caddy and a golfer. Of course this is only relevant if such a relationship existed. At 12:12 PM 7/20/2010, you wrote: >I would re frame the argument as one of justice for the individuals >denial of existence in that moment of time rather then an alteration >of reality. I think we all agree that reality doesn't have a fixed >existence but people do. One can't have a phoney concept of reality >unless reality can be shown to be a predicate function. In the film >Platoon when the bad guy said, "I am reality", we can't take him to >be anything but a psychopath. So, using an argument about reality >isn't appropriate, rather there is a fundamental injustice be >committed to those eliminated from the moment, an existential homocide. > > >At 11:19 AM 7/20/2010, you wrote: >>"In adherence with our zero tolerance policy on photo manipulation" >> >>It's living in a fool's paradise or lying to the clientele or >>having NO concept of what photos are >> >>But, we've had this discussion many times without conclusion -- mot >>recently with an identical problem--someone removed from the picture >> >>It's all about some phoney concept of reality that does not in reality >>exist >> >>they're pictures, not reality, but impressions of it rendered by >>people with opinions >> >>The only way to avoid that is to place the viewer at the point of >>action, in which case you don't need the photographer >> >>ric >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Jul 20, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Tina Manley wrote: >> >> > >> > So where do you draw the line? >> > >> > >> http://pdnedu.blogs.com/pdn_pulse/2010/07/getty-photographer-fired-over-altered-golf-photo.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Leica Users Group. >>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information