Censorship and Truth

 

Capturing a stereotypical beautiful image

Long time before digital photography

 Slight difference in the 2 pictures 

The manipulation that can be achieved in a dark room through the use of filtering

Is there an equal and democratic society today

 Man on the left image on the right is removed from history

Again the photograph has been manipulated, he has been eradicated from history 
It shows photography has been edited for a very long time

 

 The photograph shows what can be done Photoshop now

 Adbusters, consideration and question if what advertising does is ethical, whether it goes too far sometimes

 A manipulation again, making Kate Winslets legs longer

 The photograph is changed in order to manipulate the truth

Not actually called Robert Capa, changed it to sell more photographs, n foke law he was American but was actually eastern European, in that sense you have to question whatever he does is the truth.

Is this actually the point of death of a loyalist socialist fighter?

Fighting stops for a celesta, after this the man was shot   

Caption that goes with it is almost poetic, paints a poetic image and is very persuasive 

 

A certain image with a caption can change completely how we think about that image

 Questions the role of a digital journalist,

 Represents what actually happens during war, he says people have the right to know what goes on

This images shows what happens, friendly fire where many people died 

 suggesting its not really a war like we know it,

 Hes trying to get away from the idea of simulated war, that is only broadcast via a newsroom at a comfy desk 

 Designed to shock and represent what was really going on

 One of the first major shocking coloured images, described as being 'to true', do we want the truth to be hidden 

 Do we want an accurate representation of a hidden one form the comfort or being at home in an armchair

 hiding the reality of war

Generic set of statements

Censorship in advertising 

sexual ambiguity 

questions is it actually a woman eating a chocolate bar or does it have other hidden meanings, metaphor for se, does it say more about opinions of the person who views it and what they see or by the person who made the advert  

 Criticism was that it was around when many people were dying because of aids and it was blamed on homosexuals 

Displayed on a huge scale, was something to overtly sexual, had many complaints, sexualised, can see the nipple 

Placing her on her back makes it less sexual 

 Anatomy isn't correct, mythological sexual image Because its fine art and is part of society it becomes okay that it looks overtly insect 

Highly sexual images of young girls
Has a sexual encounter happened or about to happen 

 Public perception is changing of images like this, because its fine art does it make it ok
If it was a piece of packaging does that change how we think about it

 Is there such a thing as the average person, should art and design sit outside the boundary of the average person

is it snobbish and condescending

Will the average person get the message that's trying to be said

who is to decided if your a creative person or not who is to decide if its serious of not 
where does the line of 'free speech' lie

 does this encourage smoking

Are these images damaging to the children, is it like child pornography, should they be put into books or galleries 

 A sensationalist response

 Gaze theory ties in with these images
The idea of the mask hides the identity of the children

 Brook shields at 9 or 10 years old
Tasteless

Change in law and public perception 

 Legal view points are changing and public perception

 Ironically this is brook shields again, to address the balance she asked to be photographed again.
Is it just playing play to the public perception of woman