An interesting article on how computer graphics were used to simulate the fireworks for broadcast.
It brings to mind all sorts of ethical issues. While the technical advantages are one thing, this sort of practise brings to mind that the integrity of any image will be questioned.
About ten years ago Scientific American ran an article on how photographic evidence could no longer be considered photographic evidence due to image manipulation. A number of people here have reported how people viewing shows have asked them if the images were 'real'.
Where software has offered photographers tools that were once prohibitively expensive, striping, colour separation, etc., the veracity of images are now much open to question with digital manipulation.
An acquaintance here is experimenting with blue screen software. One thought is to place people in backgrounds of the North that time, cost or distance may not allow. Unethical or simply good business practise?
Any art form reflects the technology of the day. And while digital imaging has its unique qualities which are quite legitimate, based on photography's history of being a medium of record, at what point is it art or deception?
"We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth, at least the truth that is given to us to understand. " --Pablo Picasso
Yes, and Pablo Picasso was never called an *******!
-Jonathan Richman, The Modern Lovers
Posted by Larry Fischer on August 21, 2008 at 5:47 PM
David, I've not read the article yet but I will. Thanks for the "heads up". You raise excellent points. My only input is that at some juncture in many areas of life, people in power and not in power are going to have to start making good moral choices. Too often the concept of "absolute" is snickered at and we have fewer icons to compare the gradient between right and wrong / good and bad. Religion used to be that arena but many find that boring. I do not.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."--George Orwell
Posted by Carl Donohue on August 22, 2008 at 4:09 AM
Guy Tal posted:
""We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth, at least the truth that is given to us to understand. " --Pablo Picasso"
Hey Guy
'Art is a lie .... "??? Really? Ever listen to recordings of early spirituals? Ever listen to Robert Johnson sing 'Hellhounds on my Trail? Or Marley sing "Is This Love"? Or Bach's Piano Sonata No 11 in A Major? Or Aretha sing "Amazing Grace"? Ever hear Stevie Wonder sing Marley's "Redemption Song"? Great Art is no more a lie than Great Passion is a lie. Anyone who'd claim that art is a lie doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'lie', or 'art'. :)
Nobody said a lie is a bad thing. If you believe Descartes, anything perceived through the senses is potentially a lie and can't be relied upon.
Not to speak for Picasso, but I think the intent was that art is meant to represent and interpret (someone's) reality. If art is an exact copy of reality, why would we need art or artists to begin with? Great music doesn't tell you the truth, it gives you hope about what the truth can be. It motivates you to change your reality.
Listen carefully to what art can do:
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Is precise documentation of events, with no freedom to introduce creative thinking or personal interpretation not the very definition of "mental slavery"?
Guy
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on August 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM
My problem with this is that I don't think of network coverage of the Olympics as art, nor do I see it as a time or place to be taking artistic license. The ceremonies themselves were artistic, but yes, I would prefer precise documentation of news event so that I could come up with my own personal interpretation, and not NBC's.
Posted by Carl Donohue on August 22, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Hey Guy,
A 'lie' isn't about what is perceived through the senses, it's about what one expresses. Expression is a function of the artist, perception the audience - what makes great art great is the honesty within it.
I think the opposite of a 'lie' is honesty - 'truth' is another deal or together.
An honest expression of events is a very different to mental slavery. "Freeing our minds" has nothing to do with lying.
Like Ron said, the medium or forum is critical in such cases. Here's an article about this issue:
According to Nietzsche, it's convictions that are greater enemies of truth than lies. But never mind...
Well, we're way off in the weeds now
Carl, I see your point. "Lie" implies some sort of nefarious intent (see, I used "nefarious" again). Still, if we agree that honesty is the yardstick, we're right back into subjective judgment where anything and any method is valid as long as the artist honestly believes that it is.
I agree with both of you that photojournalism should abide by different rules than art. The original question did specifically ask about art though, despite the PJ example.
Guy
Posted by Carl Donohue on August 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Hey Guy,
Beautiful use of the word 'nefarious'. :)
I'd liken the example of the fireworks to lip-synching - something that happens almost anytime one watches 'live' performances on TV - I don't see it as artful at all.
I think within the world of 'art', there exist different rules though - I'd suggest it's fair to say that, for example, though comedians might have one set of 'rules', opera singers or sculptors might have another - as painters might have different 'rules' than photographers.
Discussion
9 repliesAn interesting article on how computer graphics were used to simulate the fireworks for broadcast.
It brings to mind all sorts of ethical issues. While the technical advantages are one thing, this sort of practise brings to mind that the integrity of any image will be questioned.
About ten years ago Scientific American ran an article on how photographic evidence could no longer be considered photographic evidence due to image manipulation. A number of people here have reported how people viewing shows have asked them if the images were 'real'.
Where software has offered photographers tools that were once prohibitively expensive, striping, colour separation, etc., the veracity of images are now much open to question with digital manipulation.
An acquaintance here is experimenting with blue screen software. One thought is to place people in backgrounds of the North that time, cost or distance may not allow. Unethical or simply good business practise?
Any art form reflects the technology of the day. And while digital imaging has its unique qualities which are quite legitimate, based on photography's history of being a medium of record, at what point is it art or deception?
-Jonathan Richman, The Modern Lovers
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."--George Orwell
Hey Guy
'Art is a lie .... "??? Really? Ever listen to recordings of early spirituals? Ever listen to Robert Johnson sing 'Hellhounds on my Trail? Or Marley sing "Is This Love"? Or Bach's Piano Sonata No 11 in A Major? Or Aretha sing "Amazing Grace"? Ever hear Stevie Wonder sing Marley's "Redemption Song"? Great Art is no more a lie than Great Passion is a lie. Anyone who'd claim that art is a lie doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'lie', or 'art'. :)
Cheers
Carl
Not to speak for Picasso, but I think the intent was that art is meant to represent and interpret (someone's) reality. If art is an exact copy of reality, why would we need art or artists to begin with? Great music doesn't tell you the truth, it gives you hope about what the truth can be. It motivates you to change your reality.
Listen carefully to what art can do:
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Is precise documentation of events, with no freedom to introduce creative thinking or personal interpretation not the very definition of "mental slavery"?
Guy
A 'lie' isn't about what is perceived through the senses, it's about what one expresses. Expression is a function of the artist, perception the audience - what makes great art great is the honesty within it.
I think the opposite of a 'lie' is honesty - 'truth' is another deal or together.
An honest expression of events is a very different to mental slavery. "Freeing our minds" has nothing to do with lying.
Like Ron said, the medium or forum is critical in such cases. Here's an article about this issue:
Cheers
Carl
Well, we're way off in the weeds now
Carl, I see your point. "Lie" implies some sort of nefarious intent (see, I used "nefarious" again). Still, if we agree that honesty is the yardstick, we're right back into subjective judgment where anything and any method is valid as long as the artist honestly believes that it is.
I agree with both of you that photojournalism should abide by different rules than art. The original question did specifically ask about art though, despite the PJ example.
Guy
Beautiful use of the word 'nefarious'. :)
I'd liken the example of the fireworks to lip-synching - something that happens almost anytime one watches 'live' performances on TV - I don't see it as artful at all.
I think within the world of 'art', there exist different rules though - I'd suggest it's fair to say that, for example, though comedians might have one set of 'rules', opera singers or sculptors might have another - as painters might have different 'rules' than photographers.
Cheers
Carl