Essay #1
Photography has come to be a medium that allows people to express a multitude of ideas in different ways. Some people aim to express images artistically, while others simply aim to give an accurate picture for documentary. But in any medium where people create and share ideas, people will push the boundaries of what they can do; in the most extreme cases, stealing or lying about ideas. It’s safe to say most people consider this wrong, but in the case of image manipulation becoming increasingly prevalent, a new standard of ethics is surfacing. Is it okay to alter someone else's picture to make it your own? How much alteration is acceptable? Should consent be needed? Is it okay to enhance images in advertisements? These are all questions being debated recently and there are many different sides. I think manipulating an image is fine as long as it serves a creative purpose and doesn’t deceive people viewing it.
If a person takes someone’s photograph and alters it to make it their own, there is nothing wrong. The image should differ to a certain extent, however. This line would be hard to draw, because it would be hard to define. It might not work saying “the image must differ from the original by 40%.” It seems the only practical way is to say that if the image is sufficiently different from the original, it’s acceptable. The kind of alteration also factors in. If, for example, the person changes a photograph of a mountain landscape to black and white and claims it as their own, that’s not nearly enough. But if the person altered the hue and saturation, changed the colors, cropped out some of the picture, and overlaid a watermark of the stars in space, I think it would be sufficiently altered to be claimed as an original work.
Another issue is the altering of images in advertisements. Advertisements today are almost always processed several times over, whether it’s on television, the internet, or the magazine. With this known, I think it’s on the consumer/viewer’s end to take responsibility in knowing the image is most likely enhanced. The food you see on a commercial will never look as good when you actually order it; but you’d be taking it a little too seriously if you complained to the manager that your burger wasn’t as perfect as it was on TV. The problems occur when advertisements depict false images as true while hardly clarifying for the audience. If anything, they may briefly flash a barely readable message in the corner saying “Product sold separately” or “dramatization.” But again, by now these antics should be anticipated by most people, and it’s the audience’s responsibility to double check the legitimacy of ads.
And what about editing photographs for journalism, or a documentary? This is where the line is most important not to cross over. If the image is to be trusted to be accurate and true, it should remain wholly and entirely true. Things get complicated when an image could be manipulated somehow for dramatic effect. Color alteration to bring out a certain mood, like darkening or lightening faces is on the fence. This is just fine to do, as long as it is acknowledged that it’s a dramatic effect and not entirely objective. The real boundary to not overstep is editing what’s present in the photograph; like adding in a person who wasn’t there. I think overall, news images should rely on the content of the image and not have to be edited as a crutch.
Photography has come very far from its origins. Today, it goes hand in hand with technology in the speed it’s advancing. A photographic image no longer belongs to a photograph; it belongs to pixels, to projections, to 3 dimensions, even. The ability of man to capture and share images has changed the course of our history, contributing a way for us to communicate and express ideas in ways that words and music could not.
If a person takes someone’s photograph and alters it to make it their own, there is nothing wrong. The image should differ to a certain extent, however. This line would be hard to draw, because it would be hard to define. It might not work saying “the image must differ from the original by 40%.” It seems the only practical way is to say that if the image is sufficiently different from the original, it’s acceptable. The kind of alteration also factors in. If, for example, the person changes a photograph of a mountain landscape to black and white and claims it as their own, that’s not nearly enough. But if the person altered the hue and saturation, changed the colors, cropped out some of the picture, and overlaid a watermark of the stars in space, I think it would be sufficiently altered to be claimed as an original work.
Another issue is the altering of images in advertisements. Advertisements today are almost always processed several times over, whether it’s on television, the internet, or the magazine. With this known, I think it’s on the consumer/viewer’s end to take responsibility in knowing the image is most likely enhanced. The food you see on a commercial will never look as good when you actually order it; but you’d be taking it a little too seriously if you complained to the manager that your burger wasn’t as perfect as it was on TV. The problems occur when advertisements depict false images as true while hardly clarifying for the audience. If anything, they may briefly flash a barely readable message in the corner saying “Product sold separately” or “dramatization.” But again, by now these antics should be anticipated by most people, and it’s the audience’s responsibility to double check the legitimacy of ads.
And what about editing photographs for journalism, or a documentary? This is where the line is most important not to cross over. If the image is to be trusted to be accurate and true, it should remain wholly and entirely true. Things get complicated when an image could be manipulated somehow for dramatic effect. Color alteration to bring out a certain mood, like darkening or lightening faces is on the fence. This is just fine to do, as long as it is acknowledged that it’s a dramatic effect and not entirely objective. The real boundary to not overstep is editing what’s present in the photograph; like adding in a person who wasn’t there. I think overall, news images should rely on the content of the image and not have to be edited as a crutch.
Photography has come very far from its origins. Today, it goes hand in hand with technology in the speed it’s advancing. A photographic image no longer belongs to a photograph; it belongs to pixels, to projections, to 3 dimensions, even. The ability of man to capture and share images has changed the course of our history, contributing a way for us to communicate and express ideas in ways that words and music could not.
Essay #2
Trevor Magana
“Free Music”
Local (Orange County)
To Whom It May Concern:
In schools everywhere, music programs are being cut. I feel like kids should have a place to go that can be a free environment to enjoy and learn music. It could be a place where teen and adult musicians can come to teach kids, while also playing and enjoying music themselves. This would boost a sense of community and provide kids with a great environment to have fun and explore creativity.
This could take place once a week at a local community center, like the Boys & Girls Club. There are often rooms not used on certain days of the week that would make the perfect space. In addition, if there are any vacant spaces available for donation, your kindness would be greatly appreciated. I feel like this program would be very beneficial and is a great opportunity to give back to the community.
People would be encouraged to bring their own instruments, but we could also provide some. With a $5000 grant, you could buy several guitars, bass guitars, hand drums, a drum kit, a microphone and PA, noise makers (shakers, tambourines), and still have money left over for more. Extra money could go towards things like bean-bag chairs and other furniture.
Sessions would be filmed and shared on a blog, hopefully showing the productivity of such a project. It could attract more people and maybe even inspire other projects like it to pop up in other places in California, or even nationwide. These films would highlight the fun the kids and the volunteers are having.
If the Free Music program caught on, kids, teens and adults alike would have a place to simply go and enjoy music together, no strings attached. When I was a kid I always wished there was a place to go outside of school and play guitar or drums with friends and also learn from more experienced people. I wanted to have fun, and not necessarily pay money for private lessons of classical training. But such a place never existed, and now I leave you to ask: why shouldn’t it?
Sincerely,
Trevor Magana
“Free Music”
Local (Orange County)
To Whom It May Concern:
In schools everywhere, music programs are being cut. I feel like kids should have a place to go that can be a free environment to enjoy and learn music. It could be a place where teen and adult musicians can come to teach kids, while also playing and enjoying music themselves. This would boost a sense of community and provide kids with a great environment to have fun and explore creativity.
This could take place once a week at a local community center, like the Boys & Girls Club. There are often rooms not used on certain days of the week that would make the perfect space. In addition, if there are any vacant spaces available for donation, your kindness would be greatly appreciated. I feel like this program would be very beneficial and is a great opportunity to give back to the community.
People would be encouraged to bring their own instruments, but we could also provide some. With a $5000 grant, you could buy several guitars, bass guitars, hand drums, a drum kit, a microphone and PA, noise makers (shakers, tambourines), and still have money left over for more. Extra money could go towards things like bean-bag chairs and other furniture.
Sessions would be filmed and shared on a blog, hopefully showing the productivity of such a project. It could attract more people and maybe even inspire other projects like it to pop up in other places in California, or even nationwide. These films would highlight the fun the kids and the volunteers are having.
If the Free Music program caught on, kids, teens and adults alike would have a place to simply go and enjoy music together, no strings attached. When I was a kid I always wished there was a place to go outside of school and play guitar or drums with friends and also learn from more experienced people. I wanted to have fun, and not necessarily pay money for private lessons of classical training. But such a place never existed, and now I leave you to ask: why shouldn’t it?
Sincerely,
Trevor Magana
Essay #3: Censorship
Censorship is done out of fear. And I believe, its done out of a lack to really direct attention to the real problems and causes beneath the surface. There have been countless examples of censorship, from radios to art galleries to television; sometimes, it’s justified. Sometimes it makes sense. But more often than not, it’s turning a blind eye to what’s really going on.
I think when a radio station decided not to play the rap song that cusses every 3 words and sings about murder and sex, they have the right to do that. But that doesn’t mean that song or record shouldn’t exist. That’s where I draw the line of censorship. If a private party wants to choose what it shows, fine. But when the government begins to limit what an artist can or can’t create, that’s ridiculous.
When art is censored, it’s like silencing the curiosity of a society. We need that – we need dissent, we need expression: its part of being human. I can only imagine that it’s an issue of power and control that a force would want to silence the expression of art. Because that only serves as a method to subdue and discourage people from progress.
Often, the reasons the forces-that-be give are that it would corrupt youth, or deface morals. The truth is, if the material was so offensive or brash, people would be off-put and do the shunning on their own accord. But if it attracts an audience, then who’s to say those people shouldn’t be allowed to share that experience? When you try to suppress these connections, you’re trying to suppress culture. And that’s a futile endeavor.
These efforts of censorship have never lasted in the long term, and I don’t think it ever can or will. And if it does it can’t end well.
I think when a radio station decided not to play the rap song that cusses every 3 words and sings about murder and sex, they have the right to do that. But that doesn’t mean that song or record shouldn’t exist. That’s where I draw the line of censorship. If a private party wants to choose what it shows, fine. But when the government begins to limit what an artist can or can’t create, that’s ridiculous.
When art is censored, it’s like silencing the curiosity of a society. We need that – we need dissent, we need expression: its part of being human. I can only imagine that it’s an issue of power and control that a force would want to silence the expression of art. Because that only serves as a method to subdue and discourage people from progress.
Often, the reasons the forces-that-be give are that it would corrupt youth, or deface morals. The truth is, if the material was so offensive or brash, people would be off-put and do the shunning on their own accord. But if it attracts an audience, then who’s to say those people shouldn’t be allowed to share that experience? When you try to suppress these connections, you’re trying to suppress culture. And that’s a futile endeavor.
These efforts of censorship have never lasted in the long term, and I don’t think it ever can or will. And if it does it can’t end well.