Retouched photos set an unrealistic bar for suggestible young girls, and therefore cry out to be exposed. In France, legislators have pushed for a law that would require a disclaimer for any digitally enhanced photograph.
Retouched images also spike page views, and not because of an attentive desire on the part of readers to protect vulnerable teens. The endless cavalcade of before-and-after shots is an outgrowth of the voyeurism, gossipmongering, and schadenfreude that fuel our celebrity industrial complex. People want to see actresses in all their wrinkled, full-figured glory for the same reason they want to purchase tabloids replete with pictures of A-list love handles.
They want assurance that stars are just like us, which is to say imperfect. It now seems that sexy-messy-sea-hair is also all smoke and mirrors. Now my own sea-hair seems a little less like a disastrous personal affliction. But how many adult women actually take the images in fashion magazines — artificial as they are, feats of makeup and lighting and camera angles, even without retouching — at face value?
We certainly see enough countervailing tabloid shots to know exactly what celebrity thighs look like. Only when an image has been egregiously botched — as with that Ralph Lauren ad last year , in which model Filippa Hamilton resembled a shrunken apple-head doll, her face far too ample for her emaciated body — is there any admission, often in the form of a suspiciously fulsome apology, that a blatantly renovated image is not au naturel.
Magazines and advertisers want it both ways: They want the credibility afforded by seemingly documentary photographs, but they also want the sexy, buzzy aura of a stylized illustration.
They want to have their photo, so to speak, and Photoshop it, too. The age-old game of glamour creation, from Renaissance portraiture to Playboy centerfolds, has always been one of frank enhancement.
Retouched pictures simply claim the traditional prerogatives of illustrations: to exaggerate, accentuate, and improve upon their subjects — basically, to lie. For much of the last century, models and movie stars in fashion magazines and advertisements were often rendered as drawings or paintings. Of course, illustrations also appealed to their vain subjects, who were usually portrayed as idealized versions of themselves. In the ads of illustrator Gil Elvgren, for example, the women are libidinous fantasies — a busty girl-next-door seductively rides a carousel to sell Coca-Cola; another, for whom busty is an understatement, shills for a Certa mattress.
His pinups were even more outlandish in their homogenized well-endowedness. Not surprisingly, Hollywood starlets were eager for Elvgren to elevate them with his magic paintbrush. The melon-breasted, small-waisted sameness of his images invented something of a new pulp genre: physiological science fiction. Much like our latter-day Photoshop humanoids, the artwork of Elvgren, Vargas, and their peers rely on elements of caricature, fixating on erotic body parts, the breasts and hips, as well as on secondary sexual characteristics — big eyes, smooth skin, all the alluring physical accessories.
For example, take a woman who is on the curvier side and is happy with her body. She sees an image of someone like Kim Kardashian or Beyonce without retouching and values their curvy figures, thus feeling confident about her own.
Later, she sees the same photos, but their curves have been minimized by Photoshop. Suddenly, the woman feels as though her body type is not good enough for advertisers or consumers.
Therefore, even though she is fully aware of the retouching, she is still hurt that people felt the need to retouch a curvy figure in the first place. Hailed for their live fashion shows in which they look to be absolutely flawless, many have argued that Photoshop cannot be producing unattainable body image standards if real women look like this.
Lima drinks a gallon of water a day. The concoctions include powdered egg. Then, 12 hours before the show she will stop drinking entirely.
This regiment is surely detrimental to the health of the models and is almost comparable to a real life retouching through extreme diet and exercise. The company is attempting to bring back the idea that natural is beautiful, regardless of shape, size or imperfections. While Photoshop is not the sole cause of body image issues, it definitely contributes to the ways in which women view themselves. Sadly, Photoshop is so common today that its effects are almost permanently ingrained in women as the true standard of beauty.
This group presentation was a great topic and well done. Another problem is the fact that people watching it get hurt by it. I thought the fact that there are people who said they would rather have cancer than be fat is so upsetting.
People say that these bodies are realistic????? I was astonished when your group explained the diets that these girls are on before the fashion show. Photoshopping in advertising is a serious problem. It creates unrealistic expectations for people. I also really liked that your group showed the Dove Real Beauty commercial, but for men.
I have never seen that one and I thought that was great! You must be logged in to post a comment. Are Males Affected By Photoshop? Images on Women in Different Cultures Outrageous body ideals unfortunately, are not only an issue in the United States. Actions taken against the use of Photoshop In the celebrity world where stars are constantly lauded for being perfect and holding to the golden standard of glamour that an A-list Hollywood star would be admired for, one may or may not be disappointed to know that celebrities are humans too — and would much rather remain that way.
Is Photoshop Bad? How much of photoshop is ok, is light retouching ok? Where is the line drawn? Like special effects in a movie With the media being shown through the predominant lens of the male gaze, are guys just as affected by the prevalence of photoshop? In what ways? October 29, at pm. October 26, at pm. Leave a Reply Cancel reply You must be logged in to post a comment.
0コメント