Context of Practice Lecture 8: Censorship and Truth

In this lecture we covered the notions of Censorship and truth, the indexical qualities of Photography and rendering truth, Photographic manipulation and the documentation and rendering truth, censorship in adverting, censorship in art and photography.

Editing photographs is not new skill, though with computer programmes such as Photoshop it has become far easier. Photographer Ansel Adams used this technique in throughout his career especially in his 1958 image 'Aspens.' He edited these photos by 'dark room manipulation' where he would alter the light levels and cover certain areas up to create different contrasts in places of his images.

This was also done for political value such as this 1917 photo of Starlin with, and without Trotsky:

This shows the slim line between what is real and what is digitally and or what is directly manipulated that alters the truth and questions if this was convincingly done in 1917, how much of modern media is truth?

Sometimes too much truth is shown, such as Ken Jarecke's photograph taken in the 'Mile of Death' in the gulf war called "Iraqi soldier" which was banned from the front page in 1992 after too many complaints. This is too much as people reading the paper and eating their breakfast were put off by this image, weather that is right or wrong is questionable. People sat comfortable in their homes looking at the innocent dead killed by friendly fire.

This advertisement for Opium perfume was banned in 2000 for its sexual content and henceforth complaints. It was 'the most complained about advertisement in the last 5 years' but rotated 90 degrees so the image was upright, it became perfectly acceptable. It could be argued offense was taken because the woman looks to be in some sort of high state, with the title 'Opium' emphasis this. Or it could be for its sexual content and her nipple showing, but why this is lessened by turning her vertical is beyond me.

However, when a photo like this is banned, I find it strange pieces like Agnolo Branzino's 1545 piece Venus, Cupid, Fully of Time (where a mother and son are kissing naked while the son touches the mothers breast) and Balthus's paintings of sexualised young girls (such as 1945 the golden years, and 1938 Therese dreaming) are not. Even things like when in 1981 Andy Earl's Bow wow wow cover (inspired by the 1832 painting Dejeuner sur L'Herbe) can get away with being allowed with a naked 15 year old girl on the front cover, but an advertisement of an girl of age is banned, to me is a sign of a very strange system indeed. But perhaps this is under the obscenity
law, which differentiates from protecting art and prohibiting trash, to me, however, I see painted pictures of clothed but sexualised underage girls more offensive than a photograph of a naked woman of age.