[rollei_list] Re: Rollei at the Movies

  • From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:18:17 -0400

Peter J Nebergall wrote:

Just as it is possible to make anyone look like a crook by liting,
framing, and angle choice, Arbus "darkened" her products to fit her
vision.  As a survivor of major depression, I understand what she was
doing -- and how she was documenting her world view ("The truth IS, but
'reality' is what a given person thinks about the truth," she might
say...) but it is the skewed view of a depressed person.
One could just as easily paint with light as with darkness.

P.J. Nebergall

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:10:02 -0400 Craig Roberts <crgrbrts@xxxxxxxxxxx>
writes:
As I mentioned in my message, Eric, I do have releases. The subjects

are self-advocates. In my work, I live with strict HIIPA regulations and protective sensibilities and, in this case, the law is satisfied.

That's part of the reason I posed the ethical question.

Thanks,

Craig


My view is that if a subject gives an artist informed consent, they understand that the artist may create and interpret in any manner of directions, and that is precisely what they are consenting to. If they expect only a portrait a la Sears or WalMart, then they are not giving informed consent. Given that, to attempt to protect them or judge there sensibilities relative to what they might find acceptable is irrelevant, impossible and frankly condescending...


Eric Goldstein --- Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: