How much a photo can be altered aesthetically and still be within the bounds of reasonable ethical standards?
IF the intention of the person in the image is distorted, I feel that it would be unethical. Even if the artist was making an aesthetic adjustment, I think it is unreasonable to alter the perception of said person in the image. For example, if there was an image of a female that was taken at an unflattering angle, the artist may distort her figure to look thinner. This does not seem unethical in certain contexts. However, if the image was suppose to be used as a real life example of a woman's figure for a poster titled "body awareness", then the adjustment alters the intent of the person being photographed, which in my opinion is unethical.
Without editing, photos can still be taken in a certain context with an artistic perspective or an aesthetically pleasing view. There are examples when this can be unethical as well. For instance, if the photographer is capturing images of a forest that has an abundance of waste and habitat degradation but decided to only capture areas in which these non-aesthetic aspects are removed, then the image is misleading. This does not necessarily mean the image is unethical depending on what context it is used in. If this image was used in a scientific paper representing a forest that is unharmed by waste and deforestation, then I would consider it unethical.
Ethics are a set of rules that we invent that define what we think is good and bad. The dictionary says ethics are "a set of moral principles or values" and that ethical means "conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct".
Ethics and Art have a complex relationship. Whether or not an artistic piece is unethical or not is dependent on the intent of the artist as well as the context in which the photo is used.
No comments:
Post a Comment