I disagree that the law would destroy photographic art because art has always been a changing entity and "art is in the eyes of the beholder". I believe that if society changed their views and standard of what beautiful is then the retouching is not necessary. Although in this argument their is seeded a much bigger problem and debate and that is government trying control business. Although i agree that these doctored photos set unreasonable expectations for young women, we can not be protected from everything. People have to be smart consumers and remember that these magazines and company's have their self-interest, and if they are going to sell more product with these retouched photos then they have a right to do so.
I believe in a perfect world that every one who alters or adds something to a piece of art deserves credit for their contribution. This is not a perfect world and when it comes down to it readers and viewers do not like to think of the photos that they view as retouched. I think that this is why usually only the photographer and the model get credit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/fashion/03Boyer.html?emc=eta1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting position, Austin.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "I believe that if society changed their views and standard of what beautiful is then the retouching is not necessary."
Do you think this is possible? If so, how could we effect such change?
I think that the change would have to be with the people, not the companies. If the consumer wants something different from what the companies are "selling" then they will be forced to change to comply.
ReplyDelete