Click HERE for the original article
I believe that whether or not these seemingly impossible advertisements are marked as "retouched," there will still be issues that arise from them. It's not just advertisements that make youth feel insecure, it's much larger than that, our society is predicated on the belief that its thin or nothing. Fashion is all about stepping out of every day norm and into the limelight. Every one wants to feel fashionable but to be fashionable, you have to out-look, out-dress, and out-class those around you. Insecurity will still occur, even if you know a picture is fake, it will still affect you; and for some if not many, that affect will continue to have negative connotations. I have no issue with photos being marked as retouched, but i seriously doubt the effectiveness of such a law.
A photographer creates the original photo, but a retoucher, like an editor, puts "the final touches" before it is posted in a magazine. I believe that because of this, the photographer is the artist of a photo, and that a retoucher is an editor, not an author.
"I have no issue with photos being marked as retouched, but i seriously doubt the effectiveness of such a law."
ReplyDeleteGreat point, Zach. This section is nicely argued.
"I believe that because of this, the photographer is the artist of a photo, and that a retoucher is an editor, not an author."
Another good point, Zach, but I wonder if amount of retouching starts to play a role in this definition. For example, the article describes one photograph that portrays a model's torso attached to a dog's hindquarters. Would you say this amount of editing is significant enough to give the retoucher some right to authorship?