In my opinion such a law would reveal the fakery involved in most advertising images to the public, therefore destroying not all photographic art but photographs of most models used in magazines. Most of these photographs are created or taken to make the viewer want to be like or have the same things as the subject. If there was a label on every retouched photo the public would be aware that the person in the photo was digitally altered. On the other hand many photographs are harmlessly retouched, just for emotional effect. I think what would make this law even better would be to state that you must label when you retouch a humans body, not the background or any surrounding objects.
I think that the retoucher, photographer,and the magazine editor are all the author of the photo. . The model is just a character in the picture. They both should be given credit for the art they created.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"I think what would make this law even better would be to state that you must label when you retouch a humans body, not the background or any surrounding objects."
ReplyDeleteWow, I like this point, Katie. In a way you are saying that the product itself needs to be identified as retouched or not. This is a really interesting point, and I wonder how it would hold up when you confuse the product a little, as many advertising firms do.
What if the product (the thing the firm is selling) is happiness - - if you buy this sweater, you will be happy, or confidence - - if you wear these shoes, you will be confident. In this case, should changes to lighting or background be noted?
I don't know the answer to this question; it's just something to think about :)
When you have a chance, please link to the article in this post. Here is the URL:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/fashion/03Boyer.html?ref=style