Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Rudy Torres on August 06, 2009, 12:07:04 am
-
Read this article:
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/08/bri..._airbrushi.html (http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/08/britain_wants_to_ban_airbrushi.html)
IMO, I don't think retouched images will ever go away. That's the business of beauty.
-
Read this article:
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/08/bri..._airbrushi.html (http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/08/britain_wants_to_ban_airbrushi.html)
IMO, I don't think retouched images will ever go away. That's the business of beauty.
To a certain extent, they are right.
images like those of twiggy rewinded 30 years back on her age and hundreds of beauty ads using aged celebrities or even celebrities on their 40ies made look like they were late twenties, should be outlawed, because they are misleading and an offense to the intelligence of the viewer.
Beside, they expose the stupidity of those art directors and client proposing them. Not mentioning the lack of creativity on their part.
Only a moron or someone who does not know who Twiggy is and to what age she belong, could believe that the lady still look like that for real.
Beside that ads representing overly retouched oldies, end up doing publicity mostly to plastic surgeons.
Old ladies when they see photos like that, simply ask them selves who the surgeon was and how many times she visited him.
-
I don't see a moral distinction between using Photoshop and taking a photograph in the most flattering light and from most flattering angle and with extensive make up. Neither are representative of reality. Photographers were making idealised images long before PS and many of them were hired for that very ability. Nothing has changed.
Besides, I think every young girl in the UK has heard of Photoshop by now and knows what it is capable of.
-
Here in Britain we have one of the most retrograde governments in the modern western world, so don't give these inept idiots in power any more ammunition to suppress freedom! Our freedoms have been eroded enough through censorship, unnecessary surveillance and draconian laws that are in place to either control us or extricate money.
Fashion photography is all about illusion, dreams, aspiration. But ultimately it's there for the shifting of products, be it cosmetics, clothes, luxury items, accessories or body enhancements. If a magazine was left completely bereft of retouching, no-one would want to buy it, and magazines have enough problems these days as it is. Besides, anyone who buys these magazines does so because it is a form of escapism from the humdrum realities of life.
Personally, I dislike the "airbrush look" I prefer retouched natural, i.e, when you can still see real skin and some of the 'imperfections' and character of the models. But I do like to enhance models with some retouching, the minimum that makes them look good. Anyone who shoots models knows that only a few, very few, can get away with hardly any retouching.
So what next, ban make up too because it also conceals the real person? And lighting because it obscures and falsifies reality?
Just too keep the sandal wearing 'liberals' happy, just print a little warning inside all magazines that says: "Warning, all images inside this magazine may have been retouched and could cause mild consternation to some of our moronic readers'
Ah, the absurdity of it all!
Edward
-
I agree, the concept of a ban is stupid almost beyond words and could only come from a politician.
Incidentally, I'm also angered by headlines such as "Britain/USA/China/etc wants..." Does the whole of Britain want...? They've all been asked, each of them, I'm sure otherwise the New York Fashion Mag/Any Other Sensationalist Crap Mag wouldn't say so, would it.
-
Further thoughts:
Do they want to ban art too? At what point do photos cease to be photos and become Photoshop 'artworks'?
What about CGI models which are already here to a small extent and growing in popularity?
Quick, someone go to the Louvre and burn the Mona Lisa! It might damage young girls' minds - she was actually 6 inches shorter than the painting and had a big mole on her chin.
This image is pure CGI:
(http://www.3dm3.com/features/69/main.jpg)
-
Read this article:
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/08/bri..._airbrushi.html (http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/08/britain_wants_to_ban_airbrushi.html)
IMO, I don't think retouched images will ever go away. That's the business of beauty.
Thanks for the article! Its half funny, half frightening. I must admit all the paranoia and backheadedness currently happening worldwide beats me. I see this similar to internet censorship. Generally I say its directed against new things, against changes, against the young generation. Sideeffects of war if you ask me. This wont last.
-
So what next, ban make up too because it also conceals the real person? And lighting because it obscures and falsifies reality?
Hahaha, well said Edwards. I love how these stupid moral outcries surface every other year or so, and every time they are shocked like it's the first time they ever heard about the concept of retouching. Newsflash, fashion magazines have been retouching photos long, long before the arrival of Photoshop and computers. These are usually the same people who bemoan the models being slim and tall. Do they really think people would buy these magazines if they pictured reality with average Jane & Joe modeling the clothes? Like you said, they are selling a fantasy pure and simple, and most people with half a brain know this. Like you I'm mighty tired of politicians and moral crusaders thinking they know what's best for me. They can all go FCUK (http://www.frenchconnection.com) themselves if you ask me.
Cheers
-
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/08/bri..._airbrushi.html (http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/08/britain_wants_to_ban_airbrushi.html)
The New York Magazine story headline is wildly inaccurate. I think it should have been:
"British politician wants to ban airbrushed adverts aimed at children"
Here is the original press release from the British Liberal Democrat politician Jo Swinson:
http://tinyurl.com/ks24ov (http://tinyurl.com/ks24ov)
IMO, the BBC reported this story more accurately:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8181499.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8181499.stm)
So in considering the politician's main argument of banning airbrushed adverts aimed at children, perhaps it could be useful to ask a different question:
Is Jo right or wrong in wanting to protect children?
-
Is Jo right or wrong
She's wrong about a few things. Example: "The focus on women's appearance has got out of hand - no-one really has perfect skin, perfect hair and a perfect figure, but women and young girls increasingly feel that nothing less than thin and perfect will do."
That's just not true. There are stunning women out there, who do have perfect skin and hair and figures and who don't need any retouching at all. I see them every day. Sorry to break the bad news to the women who are complaining!
Retouching doesn't create images of women who are so perfect that they couldn't exist, it merely helps the less fortunate to narrow the gap with the women who have it all. If retouching were banned, it would just mean more work for the better models.
-
Further thoughts:
Do they want to ban art too? At what point do photos cease to be photos and become Photoshop 'artworks'?
What about CGI models which are already here to a small extent and growing in popularity?
Quick, someone go to the Louvre and burn the Mona Lisa! It might damage young girls' minds - she was actually 6 inches shorter than the painting and had a big mole on her chin.
This image is pure CGI:
-
I would not be very surprised that such a stupid idea comes in the mind of Sarkozy in France , freedoms retrogress
-
it certainly will, if somebody in his entourage awakes this idea in his mind. But then he would have to ban all past, present and future images of his current wife Carla!
Thierry
I would not be very surprised that such a stupid idea comes in the mind of Sarkozy in France , freedoms retrogress
-
I call her Marie-Antoinette
-
IMO, I don't think retouched images will ever go away. That's the business of beauty.
Ads aimed at Adults often (I believe) feature children because they tend to have better complexions... do they want this to be illegal?
Is it better to enhance photographs or starve models to get the ideal figure?
If an estate agent takes pictures of a house and photoshops them to make it look better or in better decorative order, that is clearly misrepresentation...
-
Mother England is known as a "Nanny State" so what do you expect.
Who cares what makes the merry go round.
If this will sell products and get the economy up and running again let them airbrush till it looks like plastic.
Why get excited about this trivia.
-
It's just plain illusory stupidity. Nothing else, nothing to worry about.
-
In my opinion a number of things are at play here. Using models to advertise products is one thing but some of the ads blatantly say that the product will remove lines etc and show aging models as "proof". That is false advertising. No different from saying that the new car you buy can do 0 to 60 in 3 seconds where in reality it takes 15 seconds. Plainly false statements.
If maybelline or max factor?? wants to show pretty women with their products on that is fine, just don't falsly state that you will magically look like that when you spend your money on them.
The other problem is that there is an absolute epidemic of young girls and young women with extreme body awareness issues. They are bombarded with images of perfect specimens and feel unwanted, unloved and under appreciated because they are in fact "normal". Millions of young women every year have breast augmentation surgery to measure up. They also have facial surgery to "fix" all their perceived problems. They also have body weight issues.
If older women, who by the way should know better, are spending massive amounts of money to look younger, who cares. If they're on their 5 facelift, who cares. But young girls need to feel that they are perfect the way they are, and not be targeted by the endless lust for profit that is so pervasive.
The Dove campaign was a good start, although it has questionable motives, but there should be lots of public awareness campaigns that counter the constant bombardment of these "perfect people" campaigns. And false advertising should be prosecuted.
Michael
-
Is Jo right or wrong in wanting to protect children?
Ah, the catch-all phrase for defending actions which are way out of proportion.
In case you were not trolling, it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children that Twiggy doesn't look like that in real life, or that Pamela Anderson's body is augmented.
-
If you want to censor the image of woman, then best start with the music videos.
Young women have body issues? What an ugly way to put it! Everything today is described as an 'issue' of one sort or another. Beyond being a manifestation of linguistic limitation akin to swearing, it has become so degraded a word to be nearly meaningless. Of course, it´s the fault of my pet hate: political correctness as in the impossibility of calling a spade a spade.
You have fast-food chains selling 'food' in a 'family bucket'; go figure, dear people, what animal you can expect to 'issue' from the orifice of such a regimen, one that still fails to turn its targets off! Why, then, be surprised that excess avoirdupois becomes an international curse?
Frankly, if you wish to find something feminine about which to worry, consider instead the daily insults to the feminine offered by the detergent industry with its thick-as-sh*t housewife smiling happily at the other moronic female that suddenly appears in her home, detergent package in hand, taking over the household as she removes stains in the twinkling if not batting of an eye. Now that is insulting. Maybe they (women) should take issue with that!
But beauty/glamour/sex/ambition/desire, they are all the spots that, once touched, open the doors to the vault. Why would commerce ignore that?
Rob C
-
Ah, the catch-all phrase for defending actions which are way out of proportion.
In case you were not trolling, it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children that Twiggy doesn't look like that in real life, or that Pamela Anderson's body is augmented.
Feppe, you are not trying to tell me that Pamela Anderson is not 100% natural, are you?
Rob C
-
On a closely related note, a study (http://www.irandokht.com/editorial/index4.php?area=per§ionID=5&editorialID=27) compared the body image of Iranian women (who have little to no access to western media with skewed body images) and those in Los Angeles.
Choice quote:
The Los Angeles and Tehran groups revealed a similar prevalence of eating disorder symptoms. There were very few differences between the two groups in symptoms of eating disorders and body image concerns. In the few instances where differences did emerge, the differences suggested that the Tehran participants had more symptoms of eating disorders than the Los Angeles Iranians.
-
Just for fun, suppose enough members of parliament were coerced into voting for a ban, not difficult since they all follow like sheep and vote as they are told.
How would it be enforced? Big team of forensic experts to prove that pixels had been altered with intent to create an 'airbrush' effect? How do you define airbrushing? How can you prove that pixels have been altered for this purpose and not, for instance, to bring about localised contrast.
Next step is a law to forbid any alterations whatsoever in fashion, advertising, public magazines and websites.
You would need to be compelled by law to keep an original image just as it is taken by the camera, difficult again, exif data can easily be changed. There would have to be another law that would prohibit the change of the exif data, this is now getting really ridiculous.
Another law to prohibit the use and possession of exif altering programs.
These politicians don't live in the real world and they won't stop using any excuses (sometimes well meaning) to remove liberties with the pretext of protecting our children, protecting motorists, protecting smokers, drinkers, protecting women, preventing discrimination, terrorism, protecting, preventing, protecting, preventing...until there is nothing left that you can do, you start to suffocate from over-regulation and you want to scream and you cease to be a human...
You suddenly realise you are no better than a caged animal.
What's worse, Vogue is covered in zits and flab and crooked noses and wrinkles and uneven lips and you think, wow, so that's what this Autumn sexy fashion is all about.
I'll buy it, it's so exciting!
-
In case you were not trolling, it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children that Twiggy doesn't look like that in real life, or that Pamela Anderson's body is augmented.
Feppe
This lady had no need of augmentation nor airbrush; September, 1966.
Rob C
-
Feppe
This lady had no need of augmentation nor airbrush; September, 1966.
Rob C
Indeed - although I'm sure there's quite a bit of airbrushing in the most famous photos of Brigitte Bardot, as well as other celebrities before her and since.
And I've always been partial to Ingrid Bergman
-
And I've always been partial to Ingrid Bergman
Sorry, can´t help you there!
;-)
Rob C
-
It is clearly another front in the photographers' famous campaign of terror against the citizens of Britain.
On a more serious note, how would they regulate this? I keep seeing "No More Photoshop!" in these articles, which is akin to telling film photographers that they may not use developer. Must we switch to shooting only jpegs? Must we only use C1 or Lightroom, or perhaps a specially crippled version of Photoshop with no layers, plug-ins, clone brush, healing brush, spherize, liquify, etc... which automatically watermarks the final image with a "girl-safe" logo?
-
The way to protect children is surely to give them good education - the tools for getting through life - and that could include a module on retouching as part of bioloogy, sex education or general studies the libdems are supposed to be hot on education but this is a total no go - how do you police it and how much would it cost to police and how much education could that fund?
I do think that there is an argument for creating a symbol a D with a ring aroung it a bit like the copyright C with a ring round it for differenciation between digitally altered and not
That would be most use for news, montages, etc
For news I never do what I couldnt have done in the dark room, dodge, burn, and spot
S
-
After reading other colleagues opinion , I still think that with overly retouched cosmetic photos we are entering the domain of false advertising. Especially when they pretend to be realistic and they are not a clear artistic interpretation of an image.
BTW I'm not a woman and I make half of my income from cosmetic images also for advertising, yet I think that misleading the public portraying a 60 years old woman and retouching her down to 40
it is "false advertising" as much as showing the iphone downloading a web page in less than 1 second. The iphone ad was withdrawn and rightly so.
On a previous post, I stated that doing cosmetic advertising ala "Twiggy ad", shows the lack of creativity and education by the Art Directors and Clients who advertise their products on such a manner. There is nothing to be proud or artistic on taking a celebrity, putting her in front of a boring beauty light, (they are all the bloody same) and then asking the "monkey" to clean the pimples, wrinkles and running a few "blurring" photoshop technique to smooth the skin.
-
After reading other colleagues opinion , I still think that with overly retouched cosmetic photos we are entering the domain of false advertising. Especially when they pretend to be realistic and they are not a clear artistic interpretation of an image.
It is a great misunderstanding to think that photography represent reality.
Have a look at some great artwork here:
http://www.lorettalux.de/ (http://www.lorettalux.de/)
http://www.azizcucher.net/1994_4.php (http://www.azizcucher.net/1994_4.php)
Cheers
tes
-
But the point is not that photographers have always retouched to some extent or have always manipulated images, the point is not even about the photographers at all. The point is about the advertisers misrepresenting their products.
I don't care if you retouch to make people look like mannequins, I care that advertisers CAN SAY that their products will make you look like mannequins.
How to test the ads? Prove it before you advertise it. Just like every other product on the market. And if the product is misrepresented, you're opened up to law suits and fines.
Michael
-
Three things to understand here-
1. There is a general election due in Britain next year.
2. The Liberal Democrats are the perpetual also rans of the UK's political system and are always desperate for publicity.
3. Britain is presently suffering a political mindset that can not see a problem without wanting to ban it or control it or record it on some fantasy database. And if no problem exists to justify further banning, controlling or recording of the nations inhabitants then one is simply invented.
The great and the good that run the place have simply lost the plot and now see it as their duty to keep the whole country under watchful eye and oppressive thumb. Don't go there, it has become an awful place.
Justin.
-
It is a great misunderstanding to think that photography represent reality.
Have a look at some great artwork here:
http://www.lorettalux.de/ (http://www.lorettalux.de/)
http://www.azizcucher.net/1994_4.php (http://www.azizcucher.net/1994_4.php)
Cheers
tes
Maybe my written english and syntax are not god enough, but you did not understand what I have written.
On my statement is written clearly, "Especially when they pretend to be realistic and they are not a clear artistic interpretation of an image".
On the case of cosmetic advertising, the images we are debating and i'm referring to are not artistic at all, like the Twiggy advertisement and a latest Monica Bellucci ad (for Dior, I believe). They are simply representing 2 women on a state pretending to be real, when they are not. those images are not a "metaphor", they are simply a gimmick, as fake as a fake dollar bill and they are not a clear artistic interpretation of an image, like the images you posted the link too.
The image you posted are not misleading, they are a "clear artistic interpretation of something".
Lorettalux images looks like drawings and do not pretend to be real and are not made with a purpose of selling any product.
linking those images you simply proved my point.
I do not have anything against "artistic image manipulation" as on the images you showed. that is actually great work.
Bellucci and Twiggy images are just a cheat.
-
The way to protect children is surely to give them good education - the tools for getting through life - and that could include a module on retouching as part of bioloogy, sex education or general studies the libdems are supposed to be hot on education but this is a total no go - how do you police it and how much would it cost to police and how much education could that fund?
I do think that there is an argument for creating a symbol a D with a ring aroung it a bit like the copyright C with a ring round it for differenciation between digitally altered and not
That would be most use for news, montages, etc
For news I never do what I couldnt have done in the dark room, dodge, burn, and spot
S
For example, on many real estate web sites, where they shows 3d renderings of houses not built yet, they normally write that it is not a real photo, but an "artist rendering".
-
Obviously, we need to outlaw all airbrushing.
Then, we need to outlaw Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, and their ilk.
Next, we should outlaw all cosmetics, because they only distort reality.
And then, of course, we really must outlaw all use of clothing, because it obscures any person's true appearance!
-
Obviously, we need to outlaw all airbrushing.
Then, we need to outlaw Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, and their ilk.
Next, we should outlaw all cosmetics, because they only distort reality.
And then, of course, we really must outlaw all use of clothing, because it obscures any person's true appearance!
No. Its obvious: The line must be drawn at digital. Cosmetics, lifestyle, etc. support natural beauty. Digital distracts, distorts. Regulating the use of false digital images will ultimately lead again to the more free, more honest, more open society we once knew. This neccessary regulation, as many others, only reinforces our true values which we all believe in. Proven values are the best, so we won't tolerate this change. This is going too far. We won't tolerate the digital change.
We resist to go.
(sorry, coudnt' resist either...)
-
false digital images
Interesting, but I chalenge everyone to come op with some "true" images of fashion or beauty - old or new.
My guess is you cant, they are all altered one way or the other, light, perspective, look, makaup, the list is endless.
Perhaps one should look at this industry as one looks at theater - not representing reality at all.
Digital images just adds another layer to something that was not real in the first place.
Cheers
tes
-
Interesting, but I chalenge everyone to come op with some "true" images of fashion or beauty - old or new.
My guess is you cant, they are all altered one way or the other, light, perspective, look, makaup, the list is endless.
Perhaps one should look at this industry as one looks at theater - not representing reality at all.
Digital images just adds another layer to something that was not real in the first place.
Cheers
tes
Actually, you are mistaken.
All you have to do is find some old fashion mags from the late 50s, the 60s and 70s and look at the editorial photography. Consider the work of Frank Horvat, Jeanloup Sieff, David Bailey, Helmut Newton et al for a moment and you will see all the grain you need to convince yourself that there was no untoward distortion of the female skin into plastic even though Sieff´s 21mm on a Leica wasn´t the most kind thing you can do to a woman. If you want to say that perspective (with the camera) changes reality, then even there you are leaving yourself open to possible error: perspective depends on position, so reality via your eye is just the same from those odd angles as through a camera - does your eye distort reality, then?
All anyone can truthfully say is that fashion is a world and a law unto itself. It has a language that most women and some photographers learn, some better than others. That´s pretty much all there is to it.
If you want to kick the ass of advertising, be my guest; as with Ms Leibovitz and her covers, the real photography exists inside the pages, not on the cover nor in the ads. Different species of animal.
Rob C
-
Interesting, but I chalenge everyone to come op with some "true" images of fashion or beauty - old or new.
My guess is you cant, they are all altered one way or the other, light, perspective, look, makaup, the list is endless.
Perhaps one should look at this industry as one looks at theater - not representing reality at all.
Digital images just adds another layer to something that was not real in the first place.
Cheers
tes
So very true. fashion is just another form of escapism. Does it really matter? Our species has an innate desire to appear attractive to the opposite sex (stronger amongst the female half) Fashion simply magnifies and distorts this trait often grossly misrepresenting what is good and worthy in a potential mate. But hey, there's money to be made and people to be exploited so lets just get on with it.
Justin.
-
Interesting, but I chalenge everyone to come op with some "true" images of fashion or beauty ...
I meant it as a contradiction. //edit: So basically I guess Im agreeing with you
-
I meant it as a contradiction. //edit: So basically I guess Im agreeing with you
Some posters came up with some philosophical and existential explanations for the use of photoshop, light or even clothing.
Stop trying of impress everybody with this pseudo intellectualism.
Limiting the use of retouching on certain advertising images is just a matter of fighting misleading advertising, nothing more.
A 60 years old woman looking 40 or 35 by the help of retouching on a skin cream advertising is misleading and should not be allowed.
there is nothing of artistic value to protect on a picture like that.
-
she will only look 35 on photos but never in her life
art (good or not) is artefax and should not be allowed should not be allowed by artists
-
there is nothing of artistic value to protect on a picture like that.
I totally disagree; I find it fascinating how art and photography deal with aging and the concept of beauty.
Actually, you are mistaken.
All you have to do is find some old fashion mags from the late 50s, the 60s and 70s and look at the editorial photography. Consider the work of Frank Horvat, Jeanloup Sieff, David Bailey, Helmut Newton et al for a moment and you will see all the grain you need to convince yourself that there was no untoward distortion of the female skin into plastic
Rob, I guess you think a Helmut Newton shoot represents reality, I would see this more as a well directed theater play.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the old style fashion photography, but Helmut Newtons approach to women and sexuality does not represent any "true" images, I would claim he did a lot of distortion of reality.
All anyone can truthfully say is that fashion is a world and a law unto itself.
YES - So we do agree.
Cheers
tes
-
I totally disagree; I find it fascinating how art and photography deal with aging and the concept of beauty.
So, this super boring inspiring picture is art?
[attachment=15883:20090804..._250x250.jpg]
-
So, this super boring inspiring picture is art?
[attachment=15883:20090804..._250x250.jpg]
I could defiantly see this image on the walls of NPG in London in a group show dealing with the concept of beauty and age (in the digital age) together with:
http://www.lorettalux.de/ (http://www.lorettalux.de/)
http://www.azizcucher.net/1994_4.php (http://www.azizcucher.net/1994_4.php)
I would go to see this show.
Cheers
tes
-
Let’s be honest about this, the fashion industry has cheated at different things when it comes to advertising for decades, “wow doesn’t that dress fit great” turn the model around and she’s got several bull dog clips running up her back or gaffer tape to make it fit better. Go into the shop and pick the dress up will it fit you the same way? I doubt it. That’s before the shutter is even pressed. The fashion industry has been using these tricks since before this MP was probably born. Sure sign it’s the funny season….
David
-
I could defiantly see this image on the walls of NPG in London in a group show dealing with the concept of beauty and age (in the digital age) together with:
The Hayward Gallery had an excellent exhibition along these lines in 2004 called "About Face".
http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/visual-ar...past/about-face (http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/visual-arts/hayward-exhibitions/past/about-face)
Sadly the catalogue is long out of print.
-
The Hayward Gallery had an excellent exhibition along these lines in 2004 called "About Face".
http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/visual-ar...past/about-face (http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/visual-arts/hayward-exhibitions/past/about-face)
Sadly the catalogue is long out of print.
Dear Ryan
Thanks for this link, I did not see the exhibition but have the book - it must have been a great show.
Interssting artist and interesting chapters like chapter 4 - TRANSPLANTS (faking faces - making faces)
You edited out some interesting links before I got a chance to read - if possible could you PM me the links.
Thanks
tes
-
You edited out some interesting links before I got a chance to read - if possible could you PM me the links.
Ah yes, sorry about that...I wasn't sure if anyone would be interested. Here are the links for you and anyone else who may be interested in a philosophical view of reality.
Simulacrum:
“The boundary between artificiality and reality will become so thin that the artificial will become the centre of moral value.”
"Morpheus refers to the real world outside of the Matrix as the "desert of the real", which was directly referenced in the Slavoj Žižek work, Welcome to the Desert of the Real. In the original script, Morpheus referenced Baudrillard's book specifically."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum)
Jean Baudrillard:
"The concept of Simulacra also involves a negation of the concept of reality as we usually understand it. Baudrillard argues that today there is no such thing as reality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard)
Slavoj Zizek:
"The Real is not equivalent to the reality experienced by the subjects as a meaningfully ordered totality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_Zizek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_Zizek)
(I would personally love to see a section on the LL web site dedicated to purely academic aspects of imagery, perception etc.)
-
Ah yes, sorry about that...I wasn't sure if anyone would be interested. Here are the links for you and anyone else who may be interested in a philosophical view of reality.
Simulacrum:
“The boundary between artificiality and reality will become so thin that the artificial will become the centre of moral value.”
"Morpheus refers to the real world outside of the Matrix as the "desert of the real", which was directly referenced in the Slavoj Žižek work, Welcome to the Desert of the Real. In the original script, Morpheus referenced Baudrillard's book specifically."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum)
Jean Baudrillard:
"The concept of Simulacra also involves a negation of the concept of reality as we usually understand it. Baudrillard argues that today there is no such thing as reality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard)
Slavoj Zizek:
"The Real is not equivalent to the reality experienced by the subjects as a meaningfully ordered totality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_Zizek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_Zizek)
(I would personally love to see a section on the LL web site dedicated to purely academic aspects of imagery, perception etc.)
Why this general assumption that there can only be one reality? We have many realities presented to us via modern communication and we are able to choose the one that most accords with our inclination. I could choose to believe in soap operas and involve myself with lives planned rather than lives subject to fate, or I visit the pub and immerse myself in the comforting platitudes based on other peoples perception of reality. The difficulty with having such a choice is that we lose awareness of what it means to exist as an individual and enjoy freedoms that do not revolve around the endless mental masturbation that makes up much of modern media content; and if we lose ourselves in this fog of existences then it becomes only too easy for others to take advantage of our confusion by claiming that they have the only true compass and that the morals we should apply are those that our guide dictates, usually to their own advantage.
Justin.
-
I would personally love to see a section on the LL web site dedicated to purely academic aspects of imagery, perception etc.
It would be interesting, although I think it would degrade rather quickly. There aren't many web sites where I have seen any topic like that stay "on topic" for very long.
It is too easy to set up a weak "straw" argument against a point - goverment outlawing all retouching, etc. - then just poke fun at it. But there are many real issues underlying this discussion that should be addressed!
My undergraduate degree was in Photography, Philosophy, and Sociology. I have to say my opinion of the whole fashion industry was pretty low coming out of school at the time.
Now, after 25 years and after working on the fringes of the industry, I can't say my opinion is much better. But my position is also much less polemic. Plus I am pretty sick of philosophical jargon by now.
This Dove "Real Beauty" "Evolution" video is an interesting comment on the industry. Pretty much doing what the posters suggested - using education to counter the constant drum beat message from the beauty industry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U)
http://www.dove.us/#/CFRB/arti_cfrb.aspx (http://www.dove.us/#/CFRB/arti_cfrb.aspx)[cp-documentid=7049726]/
From Wikipedia:
[blockquote]As part of this campaign, in 2006, Dove started the Dove Self-Esteem Fund that claims to change the Western concept of beauty from ultra-thin models with perfect features to making every girl (and woman) feel positive about her looks, no matter what they are. In an effort to promote the Fund, Dove ordered a series of highly-successful online-based short films promoting the self-esteem concept, which to date includes Daughters (which also aired as a 75-second television spot suring the Super Bowl XL), Evolution (which went on to win a number of honours, including two Cannes Lions Grand Prix awards)[3], Onslaught, and Amy.
The campaign has been criticized on the grounds that Unilever also produces Fair and Lovely, a skin-lightening product marketed at dark-skinned women in several countries. [/blockquote]
Of course when things get too extreme - like more models dying of anorexia - some action starts to seem more reasonable.
[blockquote]Skinny models banned from catwalk
POSTED: 10:57 a.m. EDT, September 13, 2006
MADRID, Spain (Reuters) -- The world's first ban on overly thin models at a top-level fashion show in Madrid has caused outrage among modeling agencies and raised the prospect of restrictions at other venues.
Madrid's fashion week has turned away underweight models after protests that girls and young women were trying to copy their rail-thin looks and developing eating disorders.
Organizers say they want to project an image of beauty and health, rather than a waif-like, or heroin chic look.
But Cathy Gould, of New York's Elite modeling agency, said the fashion industry was being used as a scapegoat for illnesses like anorexia and bulimia
This ban came after the model South American Luisel Ramos died after a starvation diet, which is a BMI of less than 15. She was only 22 years old when she died of a heart attack. Her diet consisted of only green leaves and diet coke for three months[/blockquote]
The arguments against taking any action **always** seem to devolve into some sort of illogical "slippery slope" argument though. "Well, if you ban *that* then the govenment can ban ..... " From Wiki:
[blockquote]In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.[/blockquote]
We use very complex forms of judgement daily to determine what is "acceptable", although differences remain, and standards evolve over time.
For example, if you are vegatarian/vegan (I'm not, was long ago ... ) you will hear "Well, vegtables are living things too, you are killing that carrot you are eating ..." Well, yeah, sure - but still it seems less destructive than factory farming ... (just an example)
To show the general fallacy behind the "slippery slope, " just extend the argument to it's extreme on any subject:
"Well, if you prohibit sex with young children, before you know it even sex for a married couple will be illegal!" Uh, no. We make some very fine distinctions about when certain acts are acceptable: with children/your own children/without consent, etc.
Best,
Michael
-
in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
..and the trouble with the middle ground is that the extremist will claim his view as occupying it and category B is still beyond what he desires and the rest of us fear. So if we move to a position that meets the extremist half way then we have taken a distinct step towards category B. Another extremist then comes along with a view even further from category A than his fellow described, we then meet this chap half way as well and lo and behold we have a chain of events leading from A to B and beyond. A slippery slope in fact.
Taking the age of consent as an example we are dealing here with a biological certainty, that is the young mature and become viable parents. Humans are unique in that we then apply morals to this unavoidable truth. Even (most) politicians agree that the power of nature is stronger than political will and so each society comes to terms with it in their own way. The age of consent in Ireland is 17, in Austria it is 14. Altering it either way from 16 in the UK will be claimed as descending a slippery slope by pressure groups in Britain. Which would you say is unacceptable, complying with Austrian or Irish Law?
However, what is unacceptable is for politicians to use the fear of our children being harmed to further their own ambitions. The Contact Point database is a classic example of the government employing this fear to gather unto itself the full details of each child in the country. Not only is this a breach of the fundamental right to privacy but is also dangerous in that vulnerable children can be more easily identified by those with access to the system who might be inclined to prey upon them, and who trusts the UK government to keep such details secure?
Justin.
-
Painters like Goya were already using photoshop
-
Painters like Goya were already using photoshop
I love when someone drop from the sky sentences like this.
It is going to illuminate the mere mortal living on the ground.
-
Britain should just get on with the Thought Police and be done with it.
-
I love when someone drop from the sky sentences like this.
It is going to illuminate the mere mortal living on the ground.
it doesn't come from the sky but from history, but you certainly find Goya post-processing very boring
-
Britain should just get on with the Thought Police and be done with it.
I fear that is just what they are doing. There was, and still is, much criticism of New Labour and its control freakery tendencies within the party, but does it shame them? Nope, they are simply extending it to the whole country.
Justin.
-
freakery
Interesting imagery has always been a process of manipulation, either by lens, light, retouch tool, makeup artist, or just setting the color and tone and if the initial concept is good, the person or crew that produces it is talented, then it will stay interesting.
JR
-
it doesn't come from the sky but from history, but you certainly find Goya post-processing very boring
I simply though that Goya is completely out of context on a thread like this.
Goya cannot be on the same context where you can put a photographer taking a pic of old Twiggy with a couple of umbrellas (like any assistant in the '80ies could do) and then give the photo to a few hundred bucks retoucher.
Many guys on this thread are making confusion among art and some artisan work of average standard.
-
An interesting article from Scott Kelby on this idea...
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2009/archives/6016 (http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2009/archives/6016)
Mike.
-
Some posters came up with some philosophical and existential explanations for the use of photoshop, light or even clothing.
Stop trying of impress everybody with this pseudo intellectualism.
Limiting the use of retouching on certain advertising images is just a matter of fighting misleading advertising, nothing more.
A 60 years old woman looking 40 or 35 by the help of retouching on a skin cream advertising is misleading and should not be allowed.
there is nothing of artistic value to protect on a picture like that.
You insult me.
And you misunderstand #37.
It is an assumed anti-retouching view to illustrate some special kind of thinking. If you can't figure it, it's probably not for you.
By the way, retouching images: Thats what I do all the time.
-
Just to throw this out there, we are (well most of us anyway) outraged when news organizations photoshopped images and put them on the front page of newpapers and newsmagazines. (Iraq, OJ etc) because it was argued, that they changed the facts, or it manipulated our perceptions of what really happened.
It was the equivalent of a reporter writing lies in his article or slanting it in chosen directions. Hmmm. Well don't they anyway. Is news really pure and neutral. Are unretouched photographs not chosen with a particular slant to press home the point of the editor. Do not editors even in unremarkably stories choose unflattering pictures of the politician that they wish to demonize or ridicule because he is not from the same political cloth as the rag he works for.
But if news stories, fudged with photoshopped exagerations or outright misrepresentations is so powerful that it has the whole media in an uproar, and people fired from their jobs, doesn't that say something about the power of a picture. Is it because photographs are so powerful, they leave an indelible impression that imprints on our brains. Is reading about a brutal murder anywhere near as distrubing as seeing pictures of it.
It has been proven that celebrities on the cover of magazines, even ones that are not even slightly related to the inside material, help sales of the magazines on the newstand. Same with eye contact. Beauty/sex sells. Naturally these images are manipulated generally because these people are mostly an illusion, a person turned product, to be sold for the profit of some corporation. Be it music, movies etc, this beauty illusion, is all part of the packaging of this commodity.
Do not these same innocuous often banal pictures taken en mass, thousands of them a week bombarding our senses, start people to be unconsciously motivated to mimic the looks they see, or if not, to feel less than happy about the way you look. Or your wife looks.
Do not these beauty images reinforce the view that you, the way you are, is not good enough. You need a make over. You need xxxx product to look like this. Spend some money and you can look like this. Buy lipsticks, makeup, diet pills, shampoo, breast implants, nose jobs, teeth veneers, clothes, cars etc etc.
Yet people here rapidly dismiss the ideas that these images are, ho hum, so what, we've always done it, it doesn't hurt anybody, people should know better, ignore them etc.
Well Ok, but if these advertising misrepresentations are no big deal, why the outrage when news pictures are manupulated? Both can lead to destructive behaviors, and both are powerful.
I know. You're going to tell me that they are two different things. I guess my response is, really?