Nothing new about this revisionism. Take a look at .href Roger Ebert's 2008 column "Thank you for smoking" with its side-by-side images of a famous photo of Robert Johnson and the 1994 postage stamp made from it. Compare and contrast.
There's a big difference between the fauxtography you alude to (or airbrushing someone out of an old Politburo picture after they've fallen into disfavor and been eliminated) and these cosmetic enhancements.
It's no longer fashionable to smoke, so we now want to see iconic figures such as Bette Davis, Robert Johnson or Winnie sans tobacco, the better to idealize them with our current sensibillity. It's more like airbrushing a picture in Playboy to diminish or remove wrinkles or skin blemishes. It's not the real girl or the real Winnie, it's our fantasy of them.
Generations that grew up with the unadulterated images of Winnie and the rest know something's off. But what of the schoolkids who visit the museum now or in ten or twenty years for whom this way well be their serious encounter with the historical figure. We hope that the historical record won't be sanitized. Young Winston fought in the Boer Wars and had a great that dd not suffer fools gladly. Nappy would rather see Winnie chomping on his cigar—Roses! They smell like roses!—but if they tell his story straight and don't portray him as a blood-thirsty warmmonger, 's OK.
That's a lot different than willful distortion for the sake of propaganda or to rewrite history.
Nothing new about this revisionism. Take a look at .href Roger Ebert's 2008 column "Thank you for smoking" with its side-by-side images of a famous photo of Robert Johnson and the 1994 postage stamp made from it. Compare and contrast.
If you haven't watched it yet, Sol's video of Dick Morris's recent talk at Ahavath Torah in Stoughton concludes with a wonderful Winston Churchill story.
What's the difference between this and adding black clouds to pictures of Beirut, or otherwise revising history?
Sheese.
There's a big difference between the fauxtography you alude to (or airbrushing someone out of an old Politburo picture after they've fallen into disfavor and been eliminated) and these cosmetic enhancements.
It's no longer fashionable to smoke, so we now want to see iconic figures such as Bette Davis, Robert Johnson or Winnie sans tobacco, the better to idealize them with our current sensibillity. It's more like airbrushing a picture in Playboy to diminish or remove wrinkles or skin blemishes. It's not the real girl or the real Winnie, it's our fantasy of them.
Generations that grew up with the unadulterated images of Winnie and the rest know something's off. But what of the schoolkids who visit the museum now or in ten or twenty years for whom this way well be their serious encounter with the historical figure. We hope that the historical record won't be sanitized. Young Winston fought in the Boer Wars and had a great that dd not suffer fools gladly. Nappy would rather see Winnie chomping on his cigar—Roses! They smell like roses!—but if they tell his story straight and don't portray him as a blood-thirsty warmmonger, 's OK.
That's a lot different than willful distortion for the sake of propaganda or to rewrite history.
That's a lot different than willful distortion for the sake of propaganda --- Nappy
That is exactly what this is.