With the uses of Photoshop and editing becoming more and more realistic, there is a moral dilemma concerning "what is too much editing?" Here are some examples of how editing has changed reality/history: 1) the Postal Service removed cigarettes from artist Jackson Pollock and Blues guitarist Robert Johnson portraits to align the stamps with the Federal Government's no-smoking policy, 2) airbrushing changes the figures of women in magazines (incresing bust size, decreasing waste line, altering shape etc.) and 3) changing the colors of galactic/stellar pictures to what "scientists believe are the correct colors."
What do you think? What are the ethical problems of editing photos? Is there a line we should not cross?
In regards to your three examples specifically -
ReplyDelete1.) I disagree with editing already existing art to suit the needs of another party. Since the portraits of Jackson Pollock and Robert Johnson already contained cigarettes - that's how the portraitist wanted them to look - editing the portraits to not contain cigarettes is infringing on the creative rights of the portraitist.
2.) In the case of women's bodies being edited, the photographer has a right to edit the picture to suit the needs of his/her magazine. This differs from the Pollock/Johnson portraits because someone else was editing the image, not the artist. In the case of a fashion photographer, he is usually directly or indirectly involved in the editing - he took the picture, thus, he reserves the right to make it look the way he wants to look.
3.) Generally, what scientists believe to be true, is true. They're pretty smart guys. We have no way of proving if they're right or wrong, so what harm does it do to edit pictures from space? It's OUTER SPACE. Who honestly cares that much?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that as long as the artist consents/is involved, any editing is acceptable editing. Additionally, editing is best when people are aware that the editing has taken place - not mistaking it for reality. Of course, this implies that the person viewing the picture has that kind of deductive reasoning, which may or may not be true. ;)
well i think there is a long range of things where editing is ethical, if the editing is used to fool people or lie editing is ovbiously unethical, if the editing is used to make a picture more artistic, to just mess with a photo or simply do something surreal or funny looking editing is probably ethical. i think the line where editing becomes unethical is when it is used to either convince people of something that isn't true or to get something from people by lying to them and making them think what they are seeing is true.
ReplyDeletethe models thing is unethical in my point of view because it makes girls think they have to look like these models... problem is that not even the models look like that meaning that a bunch of teenagers might starve themselves trying to look like that=unethical
i think that under certain circumstances, there are exceptions to editing photos a certain way to make them appear differently. when the postal service removed the ciggarettes from the artist's stamps, i think that was definitely ethically a bad decision. Changing an artist's work is something that should never be done. If they didnt like what his portraits had in them, they should have just not used them at all, rather than edit them out. They crossed the line there. Airbrushing women for magazine shoots is something that i think is acceptable. Sometimes one has to go to certain extremes to get the right photo, or the right effect they're trying to go for. Airbrushing models for magazine shoots is just a part of the modeling world, and should be almost second nature to any model that's going to be on the cover of a magazine. That's just the way it is; it's not unethical or morally wrong, just something that people have to do. The changing of the galactic/steller pictures can kind of go both ways. I can see why scientists would want to change the colors to what they think they might be, for their own scientific reasons. That might help them in their studies and whatnot. But i also think that if they dont actually know the colors of the stars 100%, then dont just try and guess what colors they are and hope you're right. That's kind of crossing the boarder line between scientific and just plane density. So if you ask me, i think it all depends on the origin of work that needs to be edited.
ReplyDelete-tyler
I believe that editing photos is completely alright. Some people will edit the hell out of photos, but there will always be people who enjoy non-edited photos. I think it's completely up to the artist or whoever the picture belongs to. There are ethical problems to editing photos, however. Some people will edit photos to make a girl look prettier, which makes real women's self-esteem plummet. The government can censor easier if they have an editor skilled with photoshop. Magazine editors might make a great cover out of a composite. I believe editing photos for artistic reasons is great and creative, but for any other reason, it toes the line of unethical.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is right that its not right that people change the look of someone in a picture whether it makes them skinner or just alters there body in general isn’t the best way to do thing just because Photoshop is realistic. I believe that photo shop can be used to a certain extent, because if your presenting someone as a whole, wanting them to look good then have someone fit that criteria or have them show the real them and not be embarrassed of who they really are. The only thing that should be alerted in photo shop is a picture that you have taken because its your own work, and it most likely not going to be a person and if it is your going to make the best choice of person when you want your work to look good overall. This is why is believe that people should not do this within magazines, and photo shop when presenting some kind of work to the public.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think any of these are really problems. I think people being made to look more attractive is one of the main things that Photoshop is made for. But as for taking cigarettes out of a piece of art work I think that is wrong. I don’t believe that just because we see something being done or hear about it that we start to do it. In some cases this could be true but usually it doesn’t happen. If scientists are changing the color of galactic photographs then maybe that’s because they were too ugly and need to be a little brighter or needed more color. What does anyone care what color a distant galaxy. I don’t think there is a line to cross when editing photos because it is always what the artist feels should be done to the picture and is therefore right. Power to the mongooses.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that changing women on magazines or removing cigarettes is unethical but when it comes to science you shouldn’t change the colors just because someone THINKS its wrong if you take a photo of space then the color shown is most likely the color of what it actually is we have astronauts you can just ask them. Another way editing would be unethical is if police used it in crime scene pictures to add in evidence or something like that its all a type of framing and I don’t like that I do however like how you can take a picture of a normal person and edit it to make them a ZOMBIE!!!!!! You can make attack of the zombies picture style. It also helps make great video game graphics. So yes editing pictures can be unethical it all really depends on who and how it’s not all bad some is good.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the editing of the stamps. An artist’s work is an artist work. If someone does not like what they see then they should look at it or in this case use it for a stamp. Taking the cigarettes out of the art work may as well be a form of vandalism. As for airbrushing women in magazines, I do not think this is crossing the line. We are all taught as young children that no one really looks like they appear in magazines. Sure a lot of young girls go to drastic measures to try to look like the women in magazines; there are many ways that this issue is being dealt with. There is more of an acceptance for bigger people in today’s society. We now have plus sized models and plus sized clothing stores. I do not think that the whole idea of editing how a person looks is right, but I do not think it is necessarily ‘crossing the line’. Finally, I’m not so sure about how I feel about the scientist changing the colors in certain pictures. If they are drastic changes then I would have to say I disagree, but I almost feel as if I do not know enough about this particular topic to form an opinion.
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides of this argument. It is an artist’s choice to edit a picture however they want to portray the image, even if that means manipulating female forms. But that’s just it; it is their decision, their artwork. Even though not everyone may agree with what the artist chose to do, once a piece is published it should not be touched. It is completely unethical, rude, and disrespectful for anyone to mess with someone else’s art work. So this is my opinion: I believe the “over editing” you describe does not truly exist in the art world. Wouldn’t it put limitations on artists’ imaginations if it did? It all comes down what the artist wants his or hers work to be. When it comes down to others changing finished art, I feel that it is absolutely wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is definately a line in which it crosses. The fact that they will change something to meet their standards- especially to fit the "law", is completely unethical. there are basic rules i'd say that are okay, because i myself love editing photos. but when you actually go to the extent of over editing photos that way its too much. there definately are problems such as editing the models to look different, or stuff such as that. it completely redistributes the way a girl may look at media, and thats a major cause to alot of things.
ReplyDelete