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=iYhCn0jf46Uhttp://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
