tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post8530101316987843843..comments2024-03-20T10:14:19.071-04:00Comments on The Shipler Report: The Eye and the CameraDavehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00305265860388931637noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post-81084425669503864922018-07-03T13:07:15.919-04:002018-07-03T13:07:15.919-04:00In January 1939, TIME made Hitler its Man of the Y...In January 1939, TIME made Hitler its Man of the Year, not a popular choice, no doubt. And the cover art was even provocative: Hitler sitting playing an organ with bodies hanging from the pipes. Totally misleading: Hitler was not an organist, but a painter. By David's standards, they should have used a different image. <br /><br /><br />Barry Hillenrbandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post-50277614375007739362018-06-28T15:49:03.464-04:002018-06-28T15:49:03.464-04:00Since we are not dealing with fiction but with jou...Since we are not dealing with fiction but with journalism, accuracy is paramount, and the bottom line is what the viewer is led to believe. Here, the composite was acceptable because it was obvious to the viewer. The crying child was unacceptable because the viewer was left to believe that she was one of those separated. Complete honesty with your audience is the test, and if a photo editor wants to be a "photographic artist," to use your term, then the result had better be obvious art and not art masquerading as a depiction of reality, even partially so. By your standards, the "artist" could have used any crying kid; she needn't even have been on the border. The same is true of a non-fiction book. If the author wants or needs to change names or fuzz details to protect privacy, then he must--MUST--tell the reader exactly that in a preface or author's note. (I once refused to write a blurb for an otherwise good book because I discovered that place names had been fictionalized, and the author had not said so. And the editor, whom I contacted about it, didn't care!) If an author wants to create composite characters (which are semi-fictional, let's be clear), then she MUST tell that to readers. If Time wants to use a girl who is not illustrative of the problem, then it MUST inform its readers. My standard is to be completely faithful and transparent with my audience. Anything less is less than truthful.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305265860388931637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post-24929164707989789122018-06-28T14:58:13.127-04:002018-06-28T14:58:13.127-04:00The cover didn’t deflect the conversation, Republi...The cover didn’t deflect the conversation, Republicans and Trump supporters did (as usual). They raised a red herring – the fact that the girl wasn’t herself separated from her parents – to distract the public from the horrific truth represented in the powerful image.<br />But the point of the photo had nothing to do with that particular girl. Rather, she symbolized thousands of children who were separated from their parents. And everyone knew the photo was a composition. Nobody thought Time had snapped a photo of Trump towering over that particular girl. It was, as you say, like a political cartoon. Why should a photographic artist have lesser artistic license than a cartoonist?<br />To require that the objects in a photo meet factual predicates for inclusion would be to eviscerate the art. It’s tempting to make such a demand, especially in a time when Trump and Republicans take every opportunity to discredit the news media. But we had better have good reason to accept their premise that photographic art is of less value than documentary photos.<br />I’m reminded of attempts to censor works of literary fiction, often grounded in some readers’ determination that a work played fast and loose with the facts. Fiction may not be factually accurate, but it often reveals the most indiscernible truths.<br />Let’s allow photographic artists the same license. Sometimes, it is through the blurring of an image that reality is brought into clearest focus.<br />Lynn Dickinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05754503311164611733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post-61056235899535002502018-06-26T14:36:25.050-04:002018-06-26T14:36:25.050-04:00Your point about a cover's goal is well made, ...Your point about a cover's goal is well made, except that using a picture of a little girl who was NOT separated from her mother when the argument is about families that ARE being separated is somewhat deceptive--assuming, as I think likely, that most viewers would believe that the girl pictured was one of the victims. Furthermore, shading accuracy gives pro-Trumpists ammunition to discredit the media; responsible news organizations need to be as close to perfect as they can be, giving no openings to impugn their credibility. The Time cover did not start people talking about the issue; they were talking about family separations before. The cover deflected the conversation as people talked about the deception. If editors couldn't find a photo of an actual separated kid among the 2000-plus, they should have done an oil painting. Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305265860388931637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176006268302183776.post-55646994072516605342018-06-25T21:20:34.767-04:002018-06-25T21:20:34.767-04:00TIME magazine covers have long been designed to st...TIME magazine covers have long been designed to stir interest and controversy, which is one of their purposes. The other is to somehow encapsulate the story of the week, as TIME sees it. They have always been art. Indeed, for decades they were all original oils, drawings, sketches commissioned by the magazine and produced, often on very short deadlines, by a stable of famous artists. Photographs came later, but were used for artistic--not news--affect, like the 1973 cover of Marylyn Monroe, rampant, in full color, ruffling the hair of a much tinier Norman Mailer, in black and white. Anyone mistaking that for reality, needed serious counseling. Clearly the O.J. cover, no matter what the artistic rationale, was a mistake that many of us who worked for the magazine recognized at the time. The current Trump with weeping child is pure genius. What difference does it make that she is not a separated child? The cover does not claim that. She does represent the trauma of today's migrants, the sort of migrants we used to welcome in the U.S. and who are now rejected by the big man on the right. And the purpose of a TIME cover is well served: people are taking about the issue it raises. <br /><br />Barry Hillenbrand<br />Washington D.C. Barry Hillenbrandnoreply@blogger.com