Unrealistic Standards: You, Me, and Photoshop
You are driving home from work and to the left you see a billboard towering sky-high 50 feet in the air obstructing views of the landscape with an ad for Calvin Klein Jeans. It’s a young girl, her skin is flawless, she has the perfect body and well, her hair seems to be blowing in the absolute ideal direction. You can’t help staring at the ad as you are waiting for the stoplight to change. Now you suddenly have this image implanted in your head. You start to compare yourself, but is this a realistic reachable standard that you should actually be comparing yourself to?
French member of parliament, Valerie Boyer,a mother of two teen daughters, thinks not. Currently she is worried about what the effects of these extremely retouched photographs are doingto the expectations of today’s youth. Boyer is currently trying to push a law into effect in France that will force all images to be labeled as retouched. But many are worried that this issue is not that cut and dry.
This is not the first time the issues of retouching going too far have been brought up. In late August of 2009 an Oil of Olay ad of Twiggy, a 59-year-old former model, sparked controversy in the UK because of the retouching done in the advertisement. The Liberal Democrats, headed by Jo Swinson, the chair of the policy working group and MP for East Dunbartonshire took action by calling for a ban on photo retouching in the UK.
Several things need to be considered when placing such laws into effect. First, what does the term “retouch” actually mean? Basic digital darkroom techniques include tonality and contrast changes as well as the lightening and darkening of parts of the image, known as dodging and burning are traditional darkroom practices which have been accepted as part of the art of photography for decades and not considered retouching. More advance techniques of image manipulation including smoothing of the skin, liquefying body parts, and countless numbers of other tools and techniques that are limited only by the imagination of the artist are obviously considered retouching. But what if a few minor blemishes are removed? Technically its retouching, but worthy of being governed by a retouching law?
In 1860 an iconic portrait taken of President Lincoln was a composite of his head onto the body of the Southern politician John Calhoun. How would the American public have felt about one of its most revered presidents if there was a RETOUCHED label on his portrait?
So is this a question of raising awareness of retouching or a question of preying on a young, insecure market segment.
In 2009 a Ralph Lauren advertisement of model Filippa Hamilton-Palmstierna was retouched to such an extent that her head appeared much larger than her body. Ralph Lauren was largely criticized and later issued the statement, “We have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body.” Later Hamilton-Palmstierna was fired for not fitting into sample size clothes she needed to wear. She is a healthy size 4.
Within the last year much attention has been focused on the manipulation and the targeting of youth in ads due to the extreme and unrealistic standards that are being brought forth. Many, like Valerie Boyer and Jo Swinson, are fighting back, but some think that the laws that could be placed in effect may go to far to include the retouching of fine art photography as well. And if the fine art world is included in these laws what about the likes of product photography? The problem lies in the advertising industry, not in the retouching department. The issue is that unrealistic imagery is set next to text telling consumers that this is what they should look like or this is what they need to buy to look like that. In the end it is the consumer who really need to realize that it is a fantasy world they are looking at and that these idealistic images were created to make them buy unnecessary products so companies can make more money.
Because of this widespread debate of image manipulation many campaigns, like Dove’s past firming lotion ads, have taken this controversial matter and used it to gain more attention and free press. But that doesn’t mean they are doing it for the average American to feel better about themselves. It’s a marketing, which can possibly be foreseen as 2010’s new controversial marketing ploy.
Coming this February, V Magazine will be featuring curvier models, which many see as a move forward, but is it really? These models are still being airbrushed leaving them with smooth skin and perfect hair. So fat or skinny, isn’t the point of this to tone down the unrealistic standards and promote a healthy lifestyle? If a magazine is going to do something like feature curvier models, why not feature an average girl that is 5’4” and has shorter legs or the woman that has a bit more of muscular body type? Studies show that obesity is not healthy and neither is being under weight.
So in the end why aren’t the advertising agencies being held responsible and shouldn’t consumers be held responsible too? We know that a special firming lotion is not going to make us look skinner or that a pill is not going to make us look like the perfect woman on the front of the bottle. Yet we still purchase these products telling the ad companies that what they are feeding us is working and that it’s okay. So why do consumers keep buying in? If consumers were really appalled by airbrushing and the manipulation of images, don’t you think they should boycott those products until the companies start to catch on?
We have become accustomed to this visually stimulating imagery that consumes our daily lives. From this consumers should figure out how to filter through what is real and what is unrealistic. If people want freedom of speech then they need to take the bad with the good and educate themselves and realize that we live in an era where there are many unrealistic standards and that not everything seen is something to believe.
