The agency, and those who side with it, are against using Photoshop to alter reality WAY beyond what a make-up alone could do. We, photoshopographers™, of all people, know perfectly well how you can make someone 10, 20, even 50 years younger using just Photoshop and no make-up.
The issue today is, however, are those corporations just satisfying existing needs, or are they actively creating and peddling new ones? Ever thiner, younger, more perfect?
Granted, it is a complex issue, with a lot of logical inconsistencies. Why are we against altered reality in make-up advertising, and do not complain when colored sugar water with gas bubbles or gum that bubbles are advertised?
And it gets even more complex when we start considering the role of government in shaping our lives. Should we be forced to buckle up when no one else but us would be hurt if we do not? If a government agency acts today with the best interests of the public in mind, and the most honorable of intentions, are we certain that will continue to be the case tomorrow, once they have unrestricted power to do so?
1. It's a foundation according to the ASA.. foundations are expressly formulated to hide blems, wrinkles, etc. The ASA is trying to say Photoshop altered beyond reality (what a foundation would do), but this just can't be proven. Makeup can change someone into a Klingon.. so I'm sure it can get rid of a few wrinkles.
Now, the question on whether or not we should be using Photoshop vs. makeup, or what mix of each, in our work.. do you want a governmental agency who is probably untrained in both making those decisions based only on what they perceive as untrained critics making those decisions for us who do know? I sure don't. I don't want anyone telling me how I should complete my art, much less untrained govt agencies.
2. New needs. This is the crux of all inventions is it not? We didn't know we needed airplanes until someone built one. We didn't know we needed indoor plumbing, boxes of cereal, Liptor, medical procedures.. Anyone reading a newspaper, or a website (another invention many said we didn't need) knows we're living longer, looking younger, living more efficiently, and any number of things because someone invented a product and 'sold' it to us. Personally I'm all for better looking women who age as gracefully as they wish.
What we 'need' are decisions best left to the individual, not our government.
3. Are we against altered reality with makeup? I really don't think so. Many are against this particular case, but I don't think they're stopping to consider all the other exact same cases we're confronted with every time we access the media. If the ASA had said.. "look at these 20 examples, but we're prosecuting just this one.." how would we feel then? Our news anchors are made up with wigs, toupees, heavy makeup not to mention every entertainer out there.. menu's in restaurants are product photography and not reality.. there are thousands of such examples we see and gloss over in our daily lives but we're not stopping to consider them because they're not headlines.
4. Yes, very complex. But government control over our lives is a fundamental question everyone should spend time considering. And when we realize the "government" isn't really some big all knowing "Oz" behind the curtain, and instead mostly power hungry greedy men who are merely competing with those they're trying to restrict.. then it becomes even more convoluted. I've always said the truth is revealed by motivation. Ask yourself, what is the true motivation of the ASA in restricting these ads? Of course we have no way of knowing, but it's food for thought. But I'd bet money there's at least several revealing back stories involved. Someone at Lacome pissed off someone in govt, someone in power was turned down by a girl that looked like Julia Roberts, someones wife spends too much money on makeup.. it's small stupid stuff like this that have been known to start wars..