Interesting to see your arguments, John. Some comments are interspersed below:
2008/10/13 John Celio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So you *want* government-sanctioned art portraying smoking as cool? Golly > gee, that's a fabulous idea. What's next, Scottish stamps of Ewan McGregor > shooting up heroin? Jamaican stamps of Bob Marley smoking pot? Great, send > them to the presses! Maybe we could make them old-fashioned lick-em stamps > and put some LSD in the paper. How's that for stretching an argument? None of those drugs were ever socially accepted and you know that. Why on earth do you want those pics on stamps in the first place? But okay, if that's what you want on your correspondance, I still think that portraits should go undoctored. Can't say that I remember any famous photogs of the situations you describe, btw. > It's a painting of a photo of a dead celebrity. I'd barely count that as > history. I can see being mad about a stamp portraying important historical > figures like Douglas MacArthur without his pipe or George W. Bush with a > brain, but an actress (who made no significant contributions to human > history besides looking pretty and becoming the subject of a Rod Stewart > song) without a cigarrette? Come on. I'm coming on. :-) There are countless photos of Dubya out there trying to portray him more favourably than (in my opinion) his foreign policies should give him credit for, but I'm sure they'll pick one of those when it comes to honor him with a stamp of his own. But it'd be wrong to tamper with it nonetheless, wouldn't it? I don't know who Douglas MacArthur is. As for the actress in question, she smoked. So what? If it's so damned important to decorate letters with her portrait, then choose either (1) to use a portrait that shows her for what she was in a time when smoking was socially acceptable, or (2) go find a portrait where she's without the cigarette in the first place. As it stands now, it really is just another case for the photoshopdisasters blog. On a tangential note, I would like to ask you about another famous historical photograph, where Nikita Khrushchev was banging his shoe on the table in the UN assembly: http://www.kp.ru/upimg/logo/18951.jpg The event is documented in many places, but the photo is a hoax. A rather bad one too, as you can see even on the small web-image that the shoe is pasted in. Would you consider this manipulation to be acceptable too, since the event took place without being photographed? sincerely, Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
