Steve McCurry received major backlash when people found out his use of editing. After doing some pretty heavy research and even reading other posts on the blog of what people think, I was still pretty stuck on which side to take. Being super into digital photography since I was 14, photoshop is somewhere where I’m personally so comfortable. I think before anyone gets to learn photoshop, they see it as some evil software that only takes images and makes them into lies. You are taught that photoshop is bad, because everything is fake, and it produces false images. This can be true, but it’s also used to enhance art. Steve McCurry used photoshop to get the art that he wants. He a true artist, and I personally don’t think what he did was wrong. He was enhancing his art, to make it what he wants. I could see that his edited work however, would get backlash for being in Nat-Geo because people expect real, raw information from publications like that. But, he wasn't adding unicorns to unicorns to the desert, or making the poor look rich. The concept and ideas stayed the same even with his editing. I see this as fine. In an interview of McCurry he said “My photography is my art, and it’s gratifying when people enjoy and appreciate it. I have been fortunate to be able to share my work with people around the world.”. This was my true moment of when I realized his should not have been attacked for his use of editing. It’s his work and his art, he may do what he pleases. He is not a journalist he is an artist, his job is to create pieces he likes, that he feels others would also enjoy. His job is not to take pictures and share them so people see exactly what is going on in the world. Overall, I personally do not find it a problem that Steve McCurry used photoshop to edit his pictures. His work is amazing with or without, but his edited pictures are more captivating, simple and easier on the eye. I don’t think he did anything wrong and he is a true artist and photographer.
No comments:
Post a Comment