Wednesdays lecture was all about ethical issues surrounding design and photography. There is a pretty wide ranging amount of problems within these industries.
Our group came up with quite a lot of ideas:
- Permission & law issues
Anything from copyright to taking pictures of children without guardian consent. We discussed that in public places you could actually take pictures of whatever you want, however it would then become an issue of morality. Paparazzi comes in here somewhere too. The right to privacy is big debate. Some countries completely ban photography of people without consent. Here in the UK, law is pretty relaxed with regards to that. Things progressively seem to get more violent though, especially when big money is at stake to get the best picture for a celebrity/gossip magazine.
- Size & health of models
Are catwalk models too thin? We know a lot of designers like the clothes to hang off of the models in a certain way, but this draws in to an unrealistic view of people. Is it really meant to be for general people though? High fashion is generally more so art, than the things churned out for casual wearers. I suppose it's not a very good advert for the industry either way. Size Zero cannot be good for anyone.
- Fur trade
I do not feel in this day and age that the use of fur, as clothing can be justified to general western society. A lot of the problem with it, is it's still used as a way of portraying a high class of people. Using animal skin just so that you can look nice doesn't sit too well with me.
I suppose I don't mind the use of fur/skin if it had it come as a byproduct of an animal. But the sad thing is that most real fur comes from animals which are bred purely for their skin and a lot of the time they are mistreated. I really do not agree with that. Living conditions and the way the animal is killed has always been a hot topic for debate.
I also would stop and think about what I buy, if it was made clear that the animal had died just to make shoes for people.. As it stands, me included, people like to be somewhat ignorant.
- Labour costs of fashion/ Globalisation
Another point that always seems to be on tv or in the news, with programmes exploring sweatshops and the backgrounds of people in developing countries. The world is generally in a mess with this. The people with high paid jobs such as business people, engineers, scientists can go wherever they want in the world to work. However, the people with very little to no skills who are willing to work the lowest wage, or have to work the lowest wage will always be offered the job. This is why so many companies have everything made in china or developing countries as they pay less to get the product out in the first place. This has knock on effects for actual resources used also.
- Airbrushing
Touch ups to make women look younger, have bigger boobs, smaller waists, longer lashes. If you can name it, you can fix it. I assume there are also male versions to make muscles look bigger etc. I just think overall the market is insane for women. People who buy celebrity magazines, home magazines.. so much has been messed with, colourwise or anything else. Unrealistic views to sell products is a big business.
Touch ups to make women look younger, have bigger boobs, smaller waists, longer lashes. If you can name it, you can fix it. I assume there are also male versions to make muscles look bigger etc. I just think overall the market is insane for women. People who buy celebrity magazines, home magazines.. so much has been messed with, colourwise or anything else. Unrealistic views to sell products is a big business.
- Content itself
I saw in the paper the other week some articles surrounding the death of Michael Jackson. Some people on various feeds I saw were outraged that newspapers had chosen to show photographs of the star, dead. I personally do not really understand why this is such a big deal. I don't really like the idea of censorship, but morally I also am not entirely sure I could pick to run a story with pictures like that. We were also shown an image of Stoddart's where a man stole grain from a young starving boy. We then discussed emotional imagery and people using imagery in the wrong way.
I saw in the paper the other week some articles surrounding the death of Michael Jackson. Some people on various feeds I saw were outraged that newspapers had chosen to show photographs of the star, dead. I personally do not really understand why this is such a big deal. I don't really like the idea of censorship, but morally I also am not entirely sure I could pick to run a story with pictures like that. We were also shown an image of Stoddart's where a man stole grain from a young starving boy. We then discussed emotional imagery and people using imagery in the wrong way.
Quite a lot to think about.. I suppose I will add to this the more I learn about it.
After this discussion we went through some photography history and discussed the fact that photography is often used to portray a fact. If you take a picture of something, it is there at that time. No questions asked. But is what you see infront of the camera always right? No person can see the staging gone into it before the shot. I find this idea quite interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment