It's an image used within imaging since the 70s. It's used because everybody uses it. It being part of an old Playboy centerfold isn't the relevant bit here.
Lena said “Once upon a time, I was the centerfold of Playboy,” says the former model in the new documentary Losing Lena. “But I retired from modeling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too.”
Sometimes we keep doing things because we don't stop and think, but it's good to stop and consider if we should continue or change. "Because we've always done it that way" / "because everyone's doing it" can mask many nasty things we wouldn't start doing if given a completely fresh context.
That's very true, but when looking at all the source materials I don't consider this to be one of those nasty things that absolutely need changing. If I was releasing imaging research or any other kind of publicly accessible data I would not use the image just to avoid the angry mob, but I think this is blown out of proportion.
The Lenna image isn't whimsical, it's a cropped nude photo. The people against it don't want image processing to be boring, they want it to be more inclusive. There are hundreds of other whimsical examples that would not be alienating to a good chunk of women.
Most women don't care about this at all. It's way, way down the bottom of the list of sexist bullshit in this industry. Complaining about it is more performative than anything. It's a way to pretend you're doing something for women.
Can confirm, I know a woman who works on image and video compression and she doesn't think Lena is a problem. "It's a pretty woman. What's not to like?"
Note that video compression has "foreman", of the opposite gender, and the angry mob hasn't gone after that one.
Lena doesn’t harbor any resentment toward Sawchuk and his imitators for how they appropriated her image; the only note of regret she expressed was that she wasn’t better compensated. In her view, the photograph is an immense accomplishment that just happened to take on a life of its own. “I’m really proud of that picture,” she said.
> Forsén herself has also suggested that the photo should be retired. In 2019, she said she was “really proud” of the picture and she re-created the shot for Wired magazine, which called her “the patron saint of JPEGs”. But later that year, the documentary Losing Lena spearheaded the latest effort to encourage computer science to move on. “I retired from modelling a long time ago,” Forsén said on its release. “It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me.”
Doesn't it seem weird that she was proud of the picture when interviewed in a neutral
context (Wired), but wanted it removed (not very strongly might I add) when interviewed by documentarians making a film with the express purpose of trying to get her picture removed? In the movie quote she even alludes to the title of the film: "Let's commit to losing me". It basically sounds like she gave them the soundbite they wanted.
Imo the reasonable thing to do would be to assign a higher credibility to her opinion in the Wired article higher than her opinion in the activist documentary.
Because the legitimate argument "it is against the wishes of the model" masks the underlying, foundational but hidden reason, which is "it appeals to the prurient interest of men in women, which I find detestable". Thus, finding another model who both consents to having her picture used but still appeals to the prurient male interest fulfills the stated claim while frustrating the unstated one.
Not really, if she understood well what the photograph was being used for at the time, you can't retrospectively wish against it. That's like saying Oh I don't want to be a pornstar anymore, take down all my content thanks.
That’s not what she’s saying. It’s a very simple and reasonable request. Choosing to not respect her wish is essentially choosing not to out of spite for her since the effort to respect it is essentially nothing.
She absolutely can. And we, collectively, can choose to respect that wish by using a different test image in future. And why not? It's no real burden to make the change.
I mean, I don't think Beyoncé should have (or does have) any legal recourse in that kind of situation, but publishing unflattering photos of people just to make fun of how they look is a fairly crappy thing to do. The decent thing to do in that situation would be to refrain from publishing the image unless there were public interest grounds for doing so.
The whole dynamic of this discussion is weird. There's a bunch of people coming up with long winded arguments, not-really-relevant examples and other guff.
And there's a bunch of us repeatedly saying "why not just be decent?"
I agree, being a decent person is an active choice we should all strive for.
The burden here is that a number of people are so afraid of being "woke" that they'd rather double down being scummy than just find a different jpeg. If it was their daughter I'm sure they'd have a different opinion
> If it was their daughter I'm sure they'd have a different opinion
Are we back in the 60s where a father has to sign off on the daughters job application? We are talking about a woman who willingly signed up for a playboy photoshoot, had been aware of the image being used and circulated for decades with no issues.
How could she possibly have known what the internet would become, or how vast? Nobody could have "understood" how their photo could be widely disseminated like today.
At the end of the day its a stolen photo, and immoral to continue to use against the express wishes of the subject, no matter how you want to justify it -- she asked, so just respect it instead of finding ways to justify being a jerk.
I assume you were downvoted because downvoters would not believe your question was genuine.
It is a fact that in the past groups of people have been ostracized, ignored, paid less, acknowledged less, respected less than today based on their race, gender, sexuality, country, profession etc. This has been raised as an issue and for some years —perhaps decades— a counter-motion has been going on: openly promote/respect/acknowledge people that were previously demoted/non-respected/unacknowledged.
The exaggerated examples of these counter-motions are called “woke”. Imagine that we would like to promote the role of ants in the environment because they were largely ignored in the past, so someone makes a movie where an ant beats by sheer physical strength a lion; that would definitely be “woke“.
There are cases where people can disagree whether something is “woke”; for example, think a woman who travels in time to a patriarchal society centuries ago where women were considered property and part of the background and yet she acts in an independent, outspoken, audacious way to men around her without anyone punishing her. That could be called “woke”, but it depends on one's sense of exaggeration.
Reactions against such exaggerations is called “anti-woke”. A great example IMO of a humorous “anti-woke” statement is the image included in the following link, which is a poster for an imaginary documentary:
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2440971-netflix
> The exaggerated examples of these counter-motions are called “woke”.
This is your definition. I doubt you will find any agreement on what "woke" means, because right-wingers use it to refer to anything and everything that they dislike.
Petee has simply said that we should respect someone’s pretty reasonable preferences. You’ve popped up out of nowhere utterly furious for seemingly very little reason.
If this is how you behave I think most of us would far prefer to have Petee as a coworker than you. If you’re having a lot of conflicts with your colleagues about this, the problem might not lie with your colleagues…
