When un-retouched Steven Klein photos of Madonna surfaced earlier this year, the blog-o-sphere exploded with criticism of the singer-dancer-adopter-of-African-babies' aging face as well as shout-outs to her well-maintained 50-year old face and form. Regardless of how you think she looked, it should really be shocking that "un-retouched photos" caused such a stir. Aren't photos supposed to be un-retouched? Wasn't photography invented as a way to preserve images of the world around us as it actually existed? Argue as much as you like about how photography even in it's purest form will always distort reality (and I'd tend to agree with you), we've entered an age where photography doesn't even resemble reality.
I'm not trying to tell anyone that re-touching that evil or otherwise. I'm just saying that its interesting to think that photography, once thought to be the culmination of man's efforts in painting, is moving closer and closer back towards traditional painting every day.
This New York Times Op-Ed piece thinks we should legislate retouching, as is being considered by the French: http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/03/09/opinion/1194838469575/sex-lies-and-photoshop.html
Was Abe Lincoln re-touched? See a History of Photographic Tamering: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/
So you wanna see Madonna un-retouched? We won't tell: http://theblemish.com/2009/01/calling-all-photoshop-experts-madonna-needs-your-help/
No comments:
Post a Comment