Only in US/UK/artists interests if it is their free choice to be photoshopped.

Submitted by John in Michigan, USA (United States), Mar 12, 2013 at 22:57

The question, does it hurt American (or UK/EU, or the artists') interests is an interesting approach to the issue. However, I am afraid Amit Srivastava comes to the wrong conclusion after a promising start.

If the photoshopping was done without the subjects' consent, it causes them to look foolish, or subservient, or worse. Altering their images without their consent is a form of political or artistic censorship that implies a negative judgement and furthermore, undermines their personal sovereignity, and in the case of the diplomats, that of the nations they represent.

Was it done with their consent? If the diplomats intended to show less skin, they would presumably have worn different clothing. It is highly unlikely that the diplomats gave permission to have their photos altered; if they allowed media to photoshop them, it would undermine their credibility, as people would begin to ask, was the diplomat even present at the event, was the event itself fake, etc.

In the case of the artists, if they consented to show less skin, presumably they would have had the photos re-shot so that they looked natural. If that wasn't possible, the artists are certainly famous and powerful enough to insist on a top-quality photoshopping job. Given the crudeness of the manipulation, it is quite unlikely they consented.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".