I've been thinking about the ethics of photography manipulation a lot lately (I recently did a research report on it, and I'm in the process of writing an essay on it as well.) This thought just ran though my brain:
A fiction novel can reflect aspects of truth of human life. Just because the events in the book never happened doesn't mean the messages that book carries aren't valid. The point of a fiction novel is that the story could happen, that those messages within the book are real and the book is merely a manifestation of those messages.
However, it would be morally corrupt to write a fiction novel and sell it as an biography. That would make it a lie.
So, as I ponder my stance on photo manipulation in the media and such, I find myself at the conclusion that manipulating a photograph can be okay. Just because the photo is no longer a realistic representation of a brief moment in time that did exist, does not make it non-credible. The manipulated scene is now a fictitious scene, but it can still speak wonders of the truth and complexities of human life, because the scene depicted could have happened.
However, it would be morally corrupt to manipulate a photo and to pass it as non-edited. That would make it a lie.
Just as a book can be read as fiction, a photo can be read as an artistic rendering. It is when we pass fables as facts that we have a skewed vision of reality.
If a photo is manipulated to further an argument, (which can be very effective,) a clause should be posted warning the viewer that the photo should not be interpreted literally.
Everything has its place in the world, and fiction and fact should never be confused.
No comments:
Post a Comment