Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Nobody's suggesting the drawings should be
bowdlerised. They all *should* be more detailed, and
most (if not all) drawings illustrating disease are
more detailed.
This wasn't clear to me from the preceding posts.
Why is a clear drawing inoffensive when a photograph offends?
(I have no idea, but then I have little idea
why the photo offends in the first place.)
As I mentioned, a detailed drawing would be a good idea.
Of course, it shouldn't *replace* a photograph -- how could it? --
but *complement* a photo.
-- Toby