Context & Thievery (per se)
Kennerly's very public denouncement of Newsweek's use of his image and the contextual change he felt happen when they cropped it can almost be compared to someone crying foul over stealing - and in this case it's all about the context of the original photo and what was robbed from it when cropped.
The argument over the context of imagery is definitely not new, you often see this with the fair use of images in fine art and parody. Appropriation artists (pop artists, street artists, and even comic book artists) often fight the fair use battle and in some cases successfully defend their appropriation with an argument about context. If an image is altered, i.e. by cropping, reproduction, alteration or through incorporation into another image, it is often argued that the context of the image is changed - therefore the appropriated image becomes an entirely different one from the original.
The most recent and high profile instance of appropriation artist vs. "The Man" happens to involve Shepard Fairey and the AP.
For reference, here is a quick look at the images and a link to an article in Photo District News:
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/legal-news/e3i423339706237af10532f29eea64b9a9f
So what does the appropriation artists battle with fair use and the context of imagery have to do with journalism - especially with the Kennerly-Newsweek controversy?
I would have to say A LOT!
Just look at the two images:
Kennerly's Original
Newsweek's Crop
These images along with the accompanying blog/article "News Photographer Excoriates Newsweek for Cropping to Make Cheney Look 'Sinister'" can be found here: http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/legal-news/e3i423339706237af10532f29eea64b9a9f
The two images become completely different images although one is derived from the other. The focal points, the framing, the important aspects of each image differ almost entirely.
Although I would have a hard time proclaiming that Newsweek's "appropriated" ... errr, I mean (awkwardly) "cropped" image of Cheney portrays something "sinister or macabre" like Kennerly did - I would not hesitate to say that it misrepresents the truth of the original photograph. The family, the setting and the overall scene is notably absent in Newsweek's version. This is where Kennerly's outrage - which has been shared by many - is almost validated, not only as an artist, or as a photographer, but as a journalist. Newsweek altered the truth in Kennerly's original image to suit it's editorial need.
Are photos & images immune to the ethical standards of written word in journalism? I hope not.
10 comments:
I'm going to have to disagree.
I don't see how cropping the photo 'altered the truth,' as you put it. In the original image, Cheney is showed cutting some meat with his family surrounding him. In the cropped image, Cheney is shown cutting some meat. How does this at all change the truthfulness of the image?
In my opinion - it doesn't. I don't look at that photograph and see an evil man butchering the victim of Guantanamo Bay. I see a man making dinner. It's the same thing I see in the original image.
A Man making a dinner alone is still different than a man making dinner with his family - there are so many contexts and sub-contexts within that which we see with our own eyes. Interactions, relationships that are happening in the original photo that you don't see in the Newsweek's alteration. In fact Frank de Maria even stated "[that] We cropped the photograph using editorial judgment to show the most interesting part of it."
Maybe you should ask yourself who gets to determine what's interesting and why?
Also there wasn't any mention of an evil man butchering people in Guantanamo - that parallel is absurd when analyzing the changes of the photo's meaning and it's use - it's a parallel that is not even stated in Kennerly's reaction.
I don't see any altering of the truth either in that photo. So they cut out the part that shows his family. Well as I see it---the story in Newsweek WAS NOT about his family so what purpose would they serve in the photo regardless of the insinuations of the headline??
Moreover, I would be willing to bet that when they sent Kennerly on his quest to photo the Cheneys that they did not ever ask for photos of his family, but rather CHENEY specifically. Therefore, cutting out people that were neither wanted nor asked for seems perfectly fine to me.
Lastly, different people see different things in different photos, even without headlines. If not for Kennerly pointing out that he thought the photo/headline that were ultimately used posed a sinister and evil agenda, would anyone else ever thought twice about it? Probably not.
Once again, I point out, Newsweek is catering to the vast majority of their audience, as do every other newsoutlet. If the audience doesn't care for Cheney then they likely didn't care less and actually got a good chuckle about the photo.
And if we are going to rip apart Newsweek for something seemingly so minor, at least to me. We should then go after FoxNEws for their allegedly "fair and balanced" approach since they seem to enjoy rewriting people's quotes and they too put some rather questionable pictures on the air.
If we crucify and criticize one new organization, we must hold the rest of them to the same standard. (Ironically, photographers for Fox don't seem to care how their pictures get portrayed.)
I agree - that parallel is absurd. That was my point. This whole situation is over how due to the cropping of the photo, Cheney seems to appear as more sinister. I disagree. I believe the cropping of the photo has done nothing but isolate the image to the man which the article is about.
Couldn't Newsweek have found a better picture of Cheney instead of cropping that one? There must be thousands - and if they weren't interested in Cheney as a person, why would they send Kennerly to his daughter's house? Yes, the article is about Cheney and not his family - but don't you think that a person's family is a part of who they are?
One thing I am feeling is being completely missed here is that everyone seems to be focusing on the idea that "Cheney looks evil" but that is not really the issue. The issue is that Kennerly's work in full form was altered considerably and the context changed.
Kennerly put it best when he stated "I took that photograph at his daughter Liz’s home during a two-day assignment, and was shocked by its usage. The meat on the cutting board wasn’t the only thing butchered. In fact, Newsweek chose to crop out two-thirds of the original photograph, which showed Mrs. Cheney, both of their daughters, and one of their grandchildren, who were also in the kitchen, getting ready for a simple family dinner.
However, Newsweek’s objective in running the cropped version was to illustrate its editorial point of view, which could only have been done by shifting the content of the image so that readers just saw what the editors wanted them to see. This radical alteration is photo fakery. Newsweek’s choice to run my picture as a political cartoon not only embarrassed and humiliated me and ridiculed the subject of the picture, but it ultimately denigrated my profession."
Nearly everything one reads in a paper on sees on tv is due to an editorial decision. Kennerly's picture is no different. He's not special.
For instance, look at the cover of the NY Times this morning: it's a picture of Obama at the UN next to Ahmadinegad (however, he spells it). The two men were never in the same room during that security council meeting yesterday. Yet, the Times made the EDITORIAL decision, in order to illustrate a point, to crop both pictures of both men and put them side by side. They cropped the people around those men and the story being reported on is not a positive one for Iran. Does this mean that photographers can cry that the Times did something unethical w/ their work? Not likely. Same w/ Newsweek.
However, as for Cheney being at his daughter's house, well we don't know if that was because he didn't want to meet anywhere else, etc. His "people" made that decision w/ Kennerly. I don't think think it had to do with the story as much as perhaps that was just the only time and place he wanted to meet with Kennerly.
How was the photo greatly altered? Altering a photo and cropping a photo are profoundly, profoundly different.
Altering a photo would be what Nicole just pointed out. If they had Photoshopped extra blood on the cutting board, or darkened Cheney's clothes to make him look more sinister, THEN you'd have a case for making accusations of alterations.
They simply cropped it. They cut out the part of the photo which had no relevance to the article - his family. Saying that his family should be included because 'it's a part of who he is' is in my opinion not a very strong argument. If the image was of Cheney and his friends hunting, and they cropped it to just Cheney, would you argue that his friends standing around a camp site should be included too?
How can a staged picture represent the "truth" while a cropped part of that same picture becomes a lie. I understand that context is important, however Kennerly tried to feed us one context in his original image and Newsweek simply created a different context by cropping. This is what is done in many written articles. We are given the facts in an article, but within the framework of the writer's choice. I think the only thing that makes the cropping a big issue is Kennerly's response and not the actual photo.
I agree with, Chanda. Kennerly's reaction is what makes this an issue. Since he did not write the article and likely did not know what the article was about or where the writer wanted to go with it, how can he be upset that it was cropped? A picture of Cheney making dinner with his family somehow would not fit into an article about Guantanamo, (or w/e it was). The subject was Cheney and thus his picture should be the one and only one shown be it at a cutting board, behind a desk, or jumping out of an airplane. Hia family had no place in the story thus no reason to be in the picture. Much ado about nothing, if you ask me.
Woohoo 9 comments -
A hot topic this is!
Although we can argue until we are all blue in the face about the semantics of what "altering" a photo is, the importance or non-importance of having Cheney's family in the original Newseek-Kennerly fiasco - one thing is certain - this is preference & opinion based.
It's quite obvious that what made this a hot topic is Kennerly's public reaction - and it's a reaction he is entitled to as the photographer even if he has no legal recourse. He expressed his dissatisfaction and his reasoning. The photo was cropped significantly and Kennerly felt that the photo had been altered in such a way to represent something different than the intention of the original photo. You may not see the difference, don't care that it exists, or don't think it matters - but that is just another opinion.
Post a Comment