It's amazing how much power Dangin has exerted over the media. More so than any other individual, Dangin is the most responsible for the media's portrayal of the human body. What I appreciated most about the article was the cognizance Dangin shows about his own work. In fact, I think congnizance is what makes Dangin the best in his field. Instead of manipulating photos to the point of dehumanizing the subjects, Dangin is careful to not overmanipulate. He is aware of what he is doing and the societal implications of his work. But at the end of the day, Dangin is just doing a job that is in high demand and he answers to his clients. So while I appreciate Dangin for his judgment, we have to keep in mind that he is limited by his clients desires.
I also appreciated the fact that the author places Dangin's work in the context of photographic history. Photo manipulation is definitely not a novelty, but has been conjoined to photography since its inception. The very act of taking a photo is manipulative; the photographer is choosing to include and exclude within his/her camera's frame, thus completely dictating what the viewer sees. Is postproduction manipulation really that different than production manipulation? I don't really think so. I wish there were more Dangin's so as to avoid photoshop nightmares. Also, when looking at photos we need to remember that they are representations of "reality" presented to us by various persons with varying persepectives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment