My daughter recently got married in Washington, DC, and it was a beautiful day. However, there was a freak snowstorm that left a layer of white snow before the ceremony.
One of the guests invited a friend who had beautiful bright pink hair. There was no seating plan and the friend sat in the aisle towards the front of the ceremony. In the video and in most of the photos taken of the ceremony, against the snow-white backdrop, the friend with the bright pink hair distracts your gaze so much that it takes the focus off the wedding: the bride and groom.
Would it be ethical to replace the hair digitally with more neutral colored hair? Or would it be disrespectful to the pink-haired guest? — Name withheld
From the ethical:
This is not a technology column, and your ethicist is not an expert on how cameras work. But I do know that light entering those (presumably digital) cameras would have landed on a variety of color detectors whose output must be interpreted by algorithms to produce an image. Use different algorithms, get different images. Certain white balance settings, for example, can target certain color temperatures. I’m also not an expert on the human visual system, but it also has to interpret the incoming pattern of photons. The fact that the pink hair in her photographic records of the event stands out in the way that it does arises from the interplay of these two interpretations. Why assume that it is the only way to represent reality?
You wanted these photos and videos to capture something of the experience you had at that time. But when you were at the wedding, the pink hair didn’t scald your retinas. In this sense, the images you are seeing misrepresent the experience. Colors have properties such as luminance, chroma, and saturation, which affect their appearance. Someone with the relevant experience could surely preserve the pink, which is something you remember, while reducing the degree to which it is attention-grabbing, giving images that are more true to what you witnessed. For tips on how, you’ll have to go elsewhere. My point is just that a camera doesn’t come with a toggle preset marked “true”.
My ethical preset would center on the fact that the person with the pink hair surely had no intention of bombing the wedding and would probably be mortified by what you’re seeing. Having pink hair does not mean that you think that every situation you are in is about you. Any reasonable choice you make when editing the images that mitigates the problem is one that you could defend to the guest. You would not be disrespecting this person; you would be respecting your event experience.
Thoughts? If you would like to share an answer to today’s dilemma with the ethicist and other subscribers in the next newsletter, please complete this form.
one extra question
I work in design. Recently, there has been a proliferation of tools that use artificial intelligence to help us generate images of human-like models, for example, an image of a hand holding a phone. From time to time I would like to change the skin tone of a model in one of these images. Of course, I would never do this with a real model. Are ethics different with an AI model?
The way the AI generates art involves a bit of randomness. So saying, “Do that same image again, but with a darker skin tone,” won’t always work. Also, this is strictly for AI art that is legally generated with no copyright restrictions. — Name withheld
From the ethical:
Imagine you were an artist painting a human form on a canvas. There is no model in your studio to whom your image responds; he is working from his imagination, that is, he is guided by his memories of the innumerable human beings and the images of human beings he has encountered. Change the tonal values of the skin as you go, layering the pigment on top of a primer. How can this be objectionable? However, this situation is, in relevant respects, analogous to the one you describe. AI imagers like Midjourney and DALL-E 2 can produce representations of people without depicting any specific person.
You say “of course” you wouldn’t change the skin tone of a real model; I wonder about that precept. I pointed out earlier that the palette of a digital photograph is an interpretation of what the camera “sees.” That goes for chemical photography, too: what you get depends on choices about film stock, lighting, and camera settings, not to mention decisions made in the darkroom. Yes, there may be racist reasons for changing skin tone, as has been suggested in discussions of tabloid photographs of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. But any alteration of skin tone (or hair or features) in an image should not be condemned. These are matters that must be judged on a case-by-case, or frame-by-frame basis.
readers respond
The question in the previous column was from a reader who had recently gotten out of a polyamorous relationship with two friends. The letter writer sought guidance on how to navigate the aftermath of the breakup, particularly as the throuple members continued to pair up in different configurations. The reader wrote: “Over the past year, as multiple complex situations have arisen, we have all longed for a role model. The monogamy-focused media suggests that one should avoid dating a friend’s ex. Is this correct? And if so, can this concept be universalized? … What do we owe to our romantic partners and friends when situations are complex?”
In his response, the ethicist noted: “What is universally applicable is not a specific rule; is the idea of considering people’s vulnerabilities. … What we owe to other people in these circumstances is to give due importance to their interests and our commitments, and not just do what pleases us at the moment. A polyamorous arrangement without explicit zones of exclusivity and clear conventions can leave things dangerously cloudy. It would be best if everyone discussed their situation together, established ground rules, and came to a shared understanding about pairing up with people inside and outside of your group. Making love isn’t always better in the dark. (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
thanks to the ethicist for a completely sensible and elegant response to the troublesome throuple. I was impressed by the non-judgmental consideration and the inclusion of the Bloomsbury example with an embedded aphorism. — Terry
⬥
The end result of having a group discussion and the establishment of ground rules that the ethicist suggests are correct; Creating transparency and agreement within any group dynamic is vitally important. There are also resources specific to polyamory. One place to start is the book “The Ethical Slut” by Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy, highly recommended by community leaders. — Steal
⬥
As ex-spouse of In a formerly open marriage, I would add that while the ethicist’s advice to establish “explicit zones of exclusivity” is ideal, this still leaves each partner as susceptible to betrayal as any monogamous relationship. These terms can easily get by the wayside when a partner decides they want more access to the third (or fourth, etc.) person than the initial agreement defined. — Jennifer
⬥
love and interdependence develop in complex directions. My decades-long polyamory is based on two values: the freedom to respond to real attractions and a love for people, regardless of whether they have other romantic or sexual relationships. Just as a parent can love more than one child, adults can love more than one person, I think. I agree with the ethicist that relational secrecy can only harm others, and that it is advisable for the three of you to establish ground rules. — Donna
⬥
This whole situation shows that Supposedly, people can break free from the old conventions of monogamy, but still be totally caught up in possessiveness and the resulting expectations and assumptions. Polyamorous relationships are going to run into the same old roadblocks as long as the people involved remain trapped in notions of proprietary love. — Lily
—————————————————-
Source link