Yes, this was a good use of time.
There comes a point in the life of my hair when I must start styling it based on what it will look like the next day. Thoughts that regularly come to mind: “I have hope for this,” or, more specifically: “surely after sleeping on this a few times it will look much, much better. Until then…”
My hair is naturally curly and pretty awfully thick, and at the point it grows out a bit [it currently lays at four inches] the brown mass emerging from my scalp looks much more like a small animal than it does a proper portion of follicles filled.
Cutting one’s own hair seems a luxury. All the time people tell me how nice it is that I don’t have to make the drive somewhere and pay some Joe to trim my headhairs. Admittedly, in this sense, it is a bit nice to be able to control my own hair length-reducing schedule, but throw in the fact that I am a natural-born and bred procrastinator, and the situation is a bit more complex. And since my hair in its more grown-out stages can be judged more by breadth and than it can by length [see previous re: small animal], and well, all is not peaches and cream, as adage-abusers say.
There are some perks to what, at this point, might seem a predicament. One is this: to the thin-haired types, the grass is much greener on this side of the Fence. But we are equally cursed! It is too rather difficult to sit on this side of the fence and see anything but the green on that other side. I suppose I could still consider it compliment.
From another positive angle, I’ve the opportunity to fulfill the Texas big-hair stereotype [haireotype?] by keeping my hairs looking like they do right now. And why not reinforce what Hollywood already does about the Great State where I was raised? Sure, it’s not regularly men who are subject to the perception [whether it is true or if it isn't], but I suppose Here’s better than anywhere else to fit in.
Finally, there are a number of grassroots organizations and support groups available for those of us with a large helping of hair upon our heads. I’ve expressed my concern at different points with other like-minded[/haired] before, hoping that these commoners will provide plight-consolation, and usually they do! Not trying to give away too much information since anonymity is what adheres our group and keeps it functioning, but affirmatively existing is an underground network of those of us who share the plight.
That to say, if you too struggle with the reality that your coiffure is nearly too heavy for your head so much so that you have the need for frequent trips chiropractor to provide therapy to your neck and back because of the weight it must bear, well, I understand.
+
*this post is dedicated to The Great Laken and Alexandria the Great Wall*
Among the many ethical questions communicators of news must consider is the one of embellishment. For the writer-journalist, it is concerned with presenting straightforward, facts-based communication. But then even facts with the right syntax can purport an agenda or bias. The question for the photographer is no different — only the medium. So how much is too much?
It might or might not be that the resolution of the question is a less complex to one who has not enjoyed that particular thread of creative process — consumed by countless hours behind a computer screen making minuscule adjustments to photographs. Even so, the question is no less important, especially considering one tiny touch-up has the potential to impact perception of millions and millions of people.
The recent Greenberg issue asks this very question, [by the way: I am of the persuasion that she was not operating outside of her volition as Artist, but it was neither professional nor photojournalistic - and that is the issue here], but even more timely, the most recent issue of Newsweek has some up in arms about the decision to publish a tight-crop portrait of Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin without any retouching.
In the words of Fox News anchor Megan Kelley, Newsweek’s selection of photograph and choice to not remove “the normal flaws human beings have,” is a “gross slap in the face to Sarah Palin.” Kelley went on to claim that avoiding such edits is simply not what they do in the magazine business, and that Governor Palin should be entitled to equal treatment of “gorgeous supermodels.”
Although all photographers will differ even if slightly as to which extent the practice of retouching should be applied to photographs, no one of us can escape the nature of our subject and what is to be communicated by him/her/them/it [and thus how much editing is to be done to express it]. It’s an issue of genre – Is the photograph telling a true story of an actual event? Is it narrating fantasy? Is it selling a product? Not that any of those are excluded from legitimate photography [yet only one is photojournalism], but there must be both an awareness of the subject, the audience, and the photograph’s social function in order to make a balanced, contextual ethical decision.
Again, though, all photographers will differ on exactly how much is too much, usually there is a sense [however abstract of the spectrum from Non-Fiction to Fantasy. Though even in the case of glamor magazines one must think on what extent of retouching lends itself to false advertising. Minor edits on a photograph, depending on breadth of circulation, can store up a very large social significance. After all, it wasn't outside of Joseph Stalin to take advantage of conniving photo manipulation techniques in war propaganda.
But this is over and against what anchor Megan Kelley said when making a reference to "the magazine business," by which she meant "the most gorgeous supermodels in the world." However, no serious news outlet uses a healing brush on the face of public figures, because, I think, the function of their photograph is not to provide [a mirage of] beauty, but rather to depict a real event, an actual happenstance, a person or thing that exists.
Therein is the issue with Kelley’s statement — that her criticism was out-of-genre. In the case of Palin, no product is being sold [though the consumer model does often seem to be the glue for the entire American political process], and it is Newsweek’s purpose to depict her as realistically as she is real. After all, is she not supposed to be “One of the Folks?” Surely normal folks have, as Kelley put it, “normal human flaws.”
Newsweek has even developed a language to navigate these waters, naming an unaltered image a Photo, and images which are retouched and edited Photo Illustrations. There is actually a growing body of literature on this subject, and, even the National Press Photographers Association has laid out a code of ethics on the very topic, warning of serious consequences for infringement of this and other bias-related offense.
As photography in whole continues to move in the Digital direction, this question — although nothing new — is one that must be considered now more than ever. Technology in its many new manifestations continues to append great ethical complexity to news media and its relationship to the public hermeneutic. It’s for this reason we must remain alert and committed to developing new language to maneuver the ever-morphing landscape of mass media and its purpose in society.
… .. … .. … .. … .. …
Editor’s Note: If you read all of it, well, thanksyou.