From: AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2008/10/17 John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Smoking "makes a comeback" in quite a lot of recent Science Fiction; usually
> as a result of finding a cure for cancer. Theory seems to be that once the
> harm is removed, there's nothing wrong with it. Real world, I doubt that'll
> happen, since cancer is only one of the possible negative consequences.
Agreed.
> And I'm going to say again, I don't see any evidence that the "original"
> image was sanitized. It just doesn't look like she was holding a cigarette
> when the photo was taken.
Then I will have to say again; I backed down from my first reaction.
Please re-read the thread.
> Which makes objecting to the artist not depicting her holding one foolish.
> Who exactly ARE the revisionists in this case?
Thing is, this debate is going on at multiple levels at the same time,
and they keep getting mixed up. One level is whether the particular
photo was manipulated to remove a cigarette. That level seems settled;
that Ebert was mistaken, and his essay fooled both me and others.
Then there is the level of whether it would have been OK to remove a
cigarette like that. Your initial comment in this thread was:
"I'd much rather have the government not portray smoking as cool than
accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old photo."
Actually, that was someone else's initial comment.
My initial comment was "Tempest in a teapot"; and IIRC, something to the
effect "if you read the article, you'll see it's a painting, NOT A
PHOTOGRAPH".
Because it's a painting, the artist is free to paint the subject in
whatever manner he pleases; with or without a cigarette. And, while the
painting was inspired by a photograph, no instance of that photograph
has been produced that shows the actress holding a cigarette.
So what is the basis for claiming the government "sanitized" history?
And who is being revisionist?
I cannot escape the impression that you think it would have been OK,
and for moralistic reasons. I will repeat my opinion; that smoking
was so much an integral part of social life of the period that it
should not be written out of the images from the era. I don't think
any moralistic overlay can change that (I regard the detrimental
effects of tobacco is an axiom in this case, just for the record).
I'd be happy to hear your arguments against, if you have any.
My argument is that if you're going to rail against the "guberment
sanitizing history", you should save that argument for an instance where
the government actually HAS sanitized history.
Show me where the cigarette is actually removed from the image to
"sanitize history"; to hide the fact that people used to smoke.
I find the evidence underwhelmingly insufficient in the cases presented.
I don't even see it in the Robert Johnson stamp, where the painter chose
not to show the cigarette from the original photograph.
The painter had artistic license to include or not include the cigarette
in the same way he chose to move the guitar neck & hands or change the
background from a white sheet to plank siding.
The painting is based on the photograph. The painting is inspired by the
photograph. The painting interprets the photograph ...
BUT ... the painting IS NOT the photograph.
Then there is the level of whether old pictures of smoking movie stars
promotes smoking today. I think no more than the thin waists of 19th
century ladies with corselets inspires anorexia in girls today.
best,
Jostein
I don't know whether they do or not, but I see no evidence the
government is suppressing those old movies as part of an anti-smoking
campaign.
What I *DO* know, is no one has yet shown that indeed a "Govt Agency
doctors photograph to sanitize history".
--
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.
