OUGD501 Context of Practice Lecture Notes Censorship and Truth

Ansel Adams, Moonrise Hernandes New Mexico,

In terms of landscape photography his work shows experimentation with the development of the photographs to create different representations of the same image and location. This manipulation of photographs is something which is wide spread and not only applicable to landscape photography. For example, the soviet newspaper Pravda was the tool of the soviet party and the photos were edited to represent the party in a certain light.

Robert Capa, Death of a Loyalist Soldier,

The fact that it is now hard to tell if some of these photos are real or not. Piecing together the back stories of the photos and the photographer is the only way to know. The captions that accompany images often create the impression of a certain truth. For example this photo was in fact meant to be staged but a sudden attack made it genuine. The question is whether the truth of the photo is important if the message its self is genuine.


'The Gulf War did not take place'

The media was very controlled during the gulf war and it was a carefully mediated image that was represented back to western audiences. In actual fact it was a devastating war that many people died in but the violence with which the allied forces acted was covered up and restrained in the images that were reported went through the pentagon first. It gets to the stage that America audiences cannot differentiate 'between war games and war, entertainment and news'.

When we consider this censorship of information the question arrises of who is doing the censorship and to what ends they are doing it. Who defines what is 'obscene or objectionable'. This surely sits both in the individual and how they look at a text as well as how the text is constructed. 


When it comes to censorship and in advertising what people consider 'objectionable' mostly centers around the representation of sexuality and what is considered 'normal'. These considertions seem not to apply to fine art. The fact that it is some how allowable simply because it demonstrates great artistic skill is odd and a completely integrall assumption to a lot of fine art.

Amy Adler ourline the fact that there is an 'irreconcilable conflict between legal rules and artist practice', she make the point that is is floored to try and define what 'serious art work' is. There is even protection for 'obscene work' if it is deemed to have artistic value. But how and who decides this?

This is a point that really stands out to me as applicable to graphic design practice. When advertising takes often just as much skill and creative talent to create it is banned and criticized, where as the same content painted is praised and protected from criticism. Although it is a controversial subject and using overt sexual reference for only shock tactics seems immoral, it seems no less immoral than it being used to grab attention in a gallery. Does the fact that something is painted or draw somehow make it more acceptable because we have distanced the audience from the actual images of people in these situations. Who should be protected, artist, viewer or subject.