Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I sure care - not that that surprises you: not so much that it's a rewrite of history as that it is a really appalling cheapening of King's legacy. This is not like using a rock icon's song to sell cars, or the image of Fred Astair's dancing on the ceiling being used to sell vacuumed cleaners. This is, rather, using a film clip of the most important speech by the most prominent leader of the civil rights movement to sell the image of a corporation. And not only is it taking the speech totally out of context, it is doing something that we can assume, based on his record, King himself would never have done, or approved of. But I have to say that while I am a huge fan of King's - although I believe that to some degree his role in the movement was overblown - I am no fan of the King family for the way they have commercialized "the legacy" since his death. Martin Luther King, Jr., was and should always remain one of those rare individuals throughout history whose person, and legacy, belong to "the people," rather than to his family. But that's just my opinion. BUT...if the King thing bothers you, wait until you read what I'm sure will be the AP pickup - and everyone else's rereporting - of a story that ran in this a.m.'s Boston Globe. Worried about the photoshop alteration of still photos? Fagedaboutit! MIT researchers have "taught" a computer to produce absolutely believable video footage of people saying things they never said. In other words, they can put words in someone's mouth, show the footage to test subjects, and have the test subjects unable to tell the real footage from the doctored footage. At this point they can only do it with footage of people speaking directly to the camera - as the President does in one of his addresses ;-) - but they are sure they will be able to improve the technology to the point where the angle won't matter. What does all this mean? That in the very near future we will be unable to tell doctored video from real video, and if footage of, say, a Presidential candidate turns up with the candidate saying something embarrassing, we will never know whether it is real, or a "dirty trick." B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of George Lottermoser Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:42 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Photoshop dilemma abridge@idea-processing.com (Adam Bridge)5/13/0211:47 AM > Thus cutting Lenin out of an > image breaks the one for one relationship with the original photograph. Or > moving a pyramid. Or adding several images from other sources. > > Once the one-for-one is lost I contend that the final work is no longer a > photograph. It's something else: a graphic art perhaps. Apparently the owners of the Martin Luther King estate have seen fit to sell his words as well as images of him - for advertising messages. So we can now seem him making the "famous speech" in a totally new context and environment and hear the words edited to new purpose. Personally I see this as a rewrite of history and without integrity. These rewrites will affect a new generation's perception of history. Does anyone care? I do. Sad way to make a profit. George - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html