Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?

[Peter J. Alling]

It would be difficult to call Dali's work a lie since he was not trying 
to fool anyone into thinking it was reality.  I would consider something 
to be a lie if it were trying to make me truly believe it was the truth. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable. Would anyone say 
that Dali's work was not artful, although it mimiced reality while twisting it 
to suit the artist's intention?
Paul
 

Dag is a bit of a master at photographic trickery through the use of 
mirrors and the like.
His definition of the truth is, to me, rather suspect, since his lies 
happen in front of the lens, but he is able to call his pictures 
truthful since they are what the lens saw.

Obfuscating the truth is still a lie.
William Robb
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Heim"
Subject: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?

   

I can't agree with you.
I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even 
been
cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give 
as a
carte blanche to manipulate pictures without telling anybody about 
it?

I give you a practical example. A few years ago htere was a 
terroristic
incident in luxor, egypt, where many people died. There were a lot 
of
pictures. One of them showed the plaxe and a puddle of blood. So 
thought
we. In real, it was an ordinary puddle of water, but some guy made 
it
look a little more redish.
Some newspaper printed the picture. It was a big scandal.

I would say, in a journalistic environment, that wasn't OK. I think 
you
would agree. But were is the borderline?

I'm more tolerant, if a picture is declared as "art". If anybody 
can see
it was manipulated. But, if you shoot a picture for national 
geografic
magazine - you can't tinker around.

Michael
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 24. Januar 2005 12:11
An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Answers below:
     

fra: "Michael Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now that we are speaking about "looking away" and "do's & don'ts".
Lets get ethical: Should photographers make a declaration when 
having
manipulated (i mean: worked hard in photoshop) a picture?
       

No.  Any photograph is already manipulated, from the moment you 
choose
what to photograph and how.

     

Examples:
- adding grain digitally ;-)
- putting objects in or taking them out of a picture
- changing colours (with digital colour filters)
- cutting pimpels out of faces
       

These are things that were done in the darkroom a hundred years 
ago.
Photoshop makes no difference.

     

Does it make a difference if the photos are for
- newspapers
- magazines
- a photo exhibition?
       

Only if the tekst say something that isn't true.  If a journalist 
or
artist claims that an altered photograph shows something that is 
true,
he is telling a lie. The photograph just shows something, it is the
context that matters.

We should never believe photographs, because they are so easy to 
believe
in but lie so easily.

DagT

     

   


 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke