Photoshop is a manipulative, arguably abused, art form. It seeks to be deceptive and to leave no record of itself. It is an art that is at its best when it is undetected, mistaken for reality. Which, on the whole, is an easy task; most often, its artists are not credited because then, Photoshop would be revealed, a culprit thrown into the limelight alongside all of its projects, the models and athletes and celebrities subjected to its effects. But an art form with such great power must be brought into the limelight. Photoshop has become mainstream; it’s a standard, used for completely transforming photographs rather than mere touch-ups. And because of this, it is inevitable that consumers’ exposure to these images is taking its toll.
Take Ralph Lauren for instance. Their advertisements send the message that “perfection” is to be inhumanly slender. In an ad released in Japan in September 2009, Ralph Lauren morphed model Filippa Hamilton into a lanky creature with hips thinner than her head. Clothing draped over her skeletal features, she resembles those who suffer from severe anorexia. In whittling down a model who is slender to begin with (Hamilton is a mere size 4, 5’10, and 120 pounds), Ralph Lauren goes so disgustingly far as to suggest that such emaciation is necessary and beautiful. Even Hamilton, who was not aware of the modifications until after the ad had been printed, acknowledged the photo’s negative potential when she said, “they [Ralph Lauren] owe American women an apology, a big apology.”
Ralph Lauren is just one example among many. Between 2008 and 2009, Reese Witherspoon donned the covers of “Vogue,” “Marie Claire,” and “Elle.” Each magazine took the liberty (and where they think they derive this liberty from is a mystery) of manipulating her into “their” version of Reese Witherspoon. “Vogue” chose a Witherspoon with a soft complexion and azure eyes. “Marie Claire” crafted a woman with sharp features and eyes of steel. And “Elle” decided that Witherspoon’s face was not round but oval and that her eyes looked best hazel. It seemed they all agreed on at least one thing though, their creation would be stick-thin, exposing slender arms or protruding collarbones.
Photoshop seems to have an opposite effect on men. While magazines are shrinking women to inhuman sizes, they’re beefing men up. Andy Roddick for instance, a professional American tennis player who was a previous World No. 1, was featured on the May 2007 cover of “Men’s Fitness” magazine. Due to his career and lifestyle, Roddick is clearly not lacking in the exercise department. Even so, “Men’s Fitness” couldn’t help but alter Roddick’s figure. Inflating his biceps to the point that his head appears shrunken, the magazine constructed a Roddick who more closely resembles an action figure than a tennis player. And next to this gleaming, disproportionate body is an ad: “How to build BIG arms in 5 easy moves.” Apparently the ad must be referring to five simple clicks of a button, because even Roddick admits, “I’m pretty sure I’m not as fit as the Men’s Fitness cover suggests.” One would think it would be enough, perhaps even over-the-top, for “Men’s Fitness” to ask their target audience, men between the ages of 21 and 40, to achieve an appearance like that of (then) twenty-five year old Andy Roddick. But expecting consumers to measure up to an enhancement of a young, practiced athlete is going way too far.
As “Men’s Fitness” so blatantly suggests, these photographs are not simply “art for art’s sake;” they are a means to an end, a very manipulated and profitable end at that. And every cause has an effect, and the effects these images have on consumers couldn’t be much worse. Valerie Boyer, a French member of parliament seeking to pass a law that would require all retouched photos to be labeled, insists that “These photos can lead people to believe in a reality that does not actually exist, and have a detrimental effect on adolescents. Many young people, particularly girls, do not know the difference between the virtual and reality, and can develop complexes from a very young age.” This blurring, erasing even, of the lines between expectation and reality has left people vulnerable in the absence of boundaries, and this vulnerability translates into slews of problems and insecurities.
Obviously there isn’t really a healthy way to go about achieving the figure of a skeleton. To date, there’s no real cut-and-paste exercise routines or instant volume-erasing methods available. But these images, though falsified, still make people try to replicate these ridiculous standards or, at the very least, they mercilessly degrade people’s self worth (Who can feel thin when today’s “thin” is utter emaciation?). And since there are no healthy techniques to obtain such unhealthy figures, people have to resort to harmful measures.
Women’s Forum Australia addresses these efforts in “Getting Real!” a short documentary the organization recently created. In an interview, Melinda Tankard Reist, the forum’s director, names just a few: “These messages make women feel depressed, they affect their self esteem, they make them perform badly academically, they contribute to eating disorders […] We know that girls as young as eight have been admitted to hospitals with anorexia nervosa.” If that’s not enough, an interviewee no older than ten expresses, as if it’s commonplace, that she plans to lose weight by going on a raw fish diet.
Photoshop has become a tool used to hack away freckles and birthmarks and dimples; it strips people of their individuality, their identity, and their self-worth. Treating humans as if they’re moldable objects, Photoshop creates statue-like silhouettes of celebrities, defining them not by their differences but by their gross similarities: the iridescent, airbrushed complexions, the ivory teeth in flawless rows, and the over-toned physiques. And then magazines plaster these images on their covers, selling the idea that humans’ differentiating features are not only unappealing but are also wrong enough to be cut out.
But Photoshop has not managed to remain as hidden as magazines would like it to be. It’s a good thing that Photoshop has yet to have the ability to cut itself from the greater, moral picture. People are speaking out against it, and renowned photographers like Peter Lindbergh, who can easily trace Photoshop’s pixilated footprints, are rejecting it. For the April 2009 issue of French “Elle,” Lindbergh photographed eight European celebrities sans retouching and make-up. These eight women appeared with frizz, beauty marks, wrinkles, and all; they appeared as raw, real human beings, not as the typical idealized, altered images that Lindbergh rightfully refers to as “objects from Mars.”
So why do magazines and companies still continue to hold their consumers to alien-like standards? The detrimental effects their Photoshopped images and ads have on people today will have to come full circle at some point. And when they do, these magazines and companies should be prepared for some harsh, well-deserved repercussions of their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment