fbpx

It is the opinion of the majority that photographs consist of a collection of many detailed bits of information. Therefore, according to this perception it could easily be sectioned out and a new continuation of information compiled. This opinion was long ago embraced completely by graphic artists. Graphic artists see the photograph as a shapeless collection of elements from which they draw whatever helps them in terms of form and tone they would like to give to their own final work, displaying complete indifference and maximum contempt for the fact that the work they are using is someone else’s. It is doubtful if the same lack of consideration has ever been displayed in the face of any work of human expression as has been displayed in the face of photography. If any text, from a school composition to a work of literature through to a journalistic piece of writing were cut up in such a barbaric fashion, the writer and all defenders of human rights and human dignity would come out in defence of the texts. If any book were to present part of a painting without special mention of it being part of the whole, all the experts would stigmatise such behaviour. If a part was cut from any film, everyone would consider it censorship, or an unacceptable interference with the work of an artist. However, whenever one considers that the most published photographs on the covers of books, on posters, in magazines and newspapers have been altered or cut up without the permission of the artist that created it and without provoking the minimum reaction from all those who know of its mutilation, one realises the extent of the contempt displayed in the face of each individual photograph. However, a photograph is nothing more (and this in itself is already important) than a free and personal expression of ideas of a human being who made his choice of the complex of information in the world and gave us his opinion of the reality surrounding us. Any third person interference is to be considered a theft or counterfeit. Respect for the freedom of expression requires the condemnation of this widely used practise.