Arranged Delirium

After reading “Smile and Say ‘No Photoshop’”, I felt somewhat confused. Wilson states that most people would favor magazines that represented a more real depiction of women. However, it does not seem as though magazine sells have plummeted over the last decade. Although I agree media has some input over young people’s decisions about their bodies, it is not specifically one program that is the cause of eating disorders and false expectations. I feel as though people should begin to recognize magazines as a way that photographers and designers express their visions, and not a direct representation of what women are or should be. I thoroughly enjoy reading through W magazine, because the images are different. They are exaggerated and visually pleasurable. They take clothes that I may wear, and project them in an artistic way. I know that those models are retouched, that the set is most likely placed in a warehouse in Los Angeles; however, I realize that I am reading it for entertainment, not to see what I need to work on so I look up to date with the models. Therefore, instead of attacking magazines, and specifically Photoshop, society should educate young people that being healthy does not mean being skinny, that media is a form of entertainment and a form of business, and that most magazine women and men they see are not actual representations of themselves, but are characters they portray for the sake of visual art. It may be easier said than done, but I think instead of taking away the magazines, and the retouched images, maybe they should just be thought of in a different light.

Photoshop is something new to me. I cannot say that I have ever used it before entering this course, but after reading this article, I realized that each and every day, I am subjected to its effects. I am your average 21-year old college girl. I have subscriptions to Glamour and Cosmo, and I enjoy flipping through the pages to see the fashion spreads and celebrity pictures. Until I read this article, however, I never realized the extent to which the photograghs are played with and changed.

I am not against the use of retouching altogether. The lightening of teeth and removal of a zit or two…who cares: it’s minor. My problem comes in when the images are not improved but rather distorted, and I am not the only one. Cindy Leive of Glamour duscusses in the artcle that readers have a “hunger for authenticity.” I just want to see real, everyday people like me. I could careless if Beyonce’s skin is darker than mine or if Reese Witherspoon has dimples. The problem is, however, that perfection sells products. We, as a society, are so focused on making ourselves into the most perfect version of ourselves that we fail to realize that it is impossible because not even the people on the commercials are truly flawless.

I applaud Peter Lindbergh for his French Elle covers. I feel that it is important for the public to understand and see that celebrities are not super-human, they too have flaws.

I have never used Photoshop before, but I have seen articles where the celebrities on the cover look completely different than they did in a movie.  After reading the article Say No To Photoshop, I agree with the comment that celebrities look better when they are not photoshopped to look differently.  I think that society tells us the way we should look.  The magazines that show perfect looking people just make us try to make ourselves look better, even though we will never achieve perfection.

I also enjoyed the One Size Fits All preview.  Certain aspects of the girls were probably photoshopped to change their appearance in some way, but I like how they portray that an outfit can look good on two different sized people.

I am interested to explore photoshop and to find out the different ways to change around a picture.  I think I will have a better understanding of the numerous amounts of things that people change in magazines.

After reading this, I thought of a recent commercial/advertisement for Dove. They are promoting “real girls” and showing women in their natural looks, no photo shop or touch ups (Which is hard to believe by today’s advertising standards.) What I feel is that it brings into question this: does the advertising campaign make one wonder if we really want to see “real” women in their underwear or stay with the anorexic, cleavage-enhanced, Photo shopped girls that we have become used to seeing. I applaud Dove for taking a chance and thinking outside the box. It shows that perfection is a flawed way of thinking by society today and just how much we forget what real people look like. It reminds us that not all of us have to be skinny and look good to get in front of a camera. The only problem I have with this advertisement is the use of the word real. I think average would have been a better choice. Girls who are skinny are just as real as the girl who weighs a bit more or is average as a better way of putting it. I think the term real was supposed to mean look we didn’t Photoshop these girls to meet a standard.

I was very interested in the Size Issue photos.  While I don’t think it’s necessary to remove traditional-sized models from the industry, I do believe it would be beneficial to have more representations of normal, healthy women.  However, this itself will not be without controversy over Photoshop.  Looking at the photos, you will notice both women have flawless skin, not a hair out of place, etc.  Even when the industry gives consumers something to temper the backlash against Photoshop, it will still be images that are Photoshopped, simply because the program and its application are so prevalent in society.

It’s definately no secret that magazine photos of celebrities are retouched.  I think that erasing a blemish and changing color is fine.  Who would want to be on the cover of a magazine worldwide with a huge zit on their face.  No one.  However, I think that changing the size of a person and erasing wrinkles is wrong because that changes what I consider to be the true nature of a person.  Wrinkles are a map to a life and the size of a person reflects their lifestyle.  If magazine never change and keep photoshopping pictures, I really won’t care.  I think that it’s all artwork in the end, and it’s up to the artist to do what they want, and the consumer/viewer to make their own opinion of it.

While reading the above article I couldn’t help but think of the classic phrase, “a photo is worth a thousand words.” Like the others I agree removing a simple pimp or giving the model whiter teeth is alright for a magazine. But now that more and more people are dabbling in the area of photoshopping, I feel that we are losing a sense of the real person when viewing these images. Even on social network sites people are altering their images to look more editorial. I like seeing wrinkles on older women’s faces. It entices me to want to question her about her life lived. It makes me want to question the hardships she may have suffered.

However, I feel that putting a negative connotation on photoshopping could have a backlash. Instead of people just changing the way they look in film. They might opt for a more permanent solution. Instead of auto fill, filters and lighting effects women will increase their use of Botox, breast augmentation and liposuction.

After reading the passage “Smile and say no ‘Photoshop’”, I find that we should change the way when we talking about using Photoshop. Instead of we shouldn’t use Photoshop, we should say we can use Photoshop in some extent.
I have heard about that Kate Winslet got unhappy when she found the magazine using Photoshop to make her seem thinner. She is trying to pursue the natural beauty. I totally agree with or even respect this kind of thought, especially in this modern society, where a lot of people want to look slimmer, taller and prettier, although they know it’s a kind of idol.
Maybe using Photoshop in this case, is because the mainstream in our society is emphasizing on skinny body shape. We can see this from those T-stage shows. Those models are very slim and bony. And to some extent, these models and the actress are our vane. So people just wanna follow the trend to be thinner. And for those lazy individuals, Photoshop may become their best friends.
What’s more, ad is used to attract the consumers, I don’t think using Photoshop to modify their images on the products has some problems. In another way of thinking, can you imagine our life without Photoshop? At least for me, I would doubt whether I would buy the food with a picture of a fat woman sitting in the sofa…
If people do not false propaganda their products, do not exaggerate the feature, do not break the laws，only using Photoshop to embellish the images properly seems fine with me.

I think it’s funny sometimes when a celebrity is retouched but the retoucher messes up and it is obvious. I recently saw an article on msn.com about this and I find it great that we are talking about this in class. They talked about one cover that had Demi Moore on it and they shaved off some of her hip in the photo but then it appeared that they shaved off too much and so it was off from the rest of her body because the side of her stomach was wider than Demi’s hip. Ralph Lauren has also been in the news being criticized for making their models appear super skinny which then ends up appearing that the model’s head is bigger than her body.

You can’t blame companies for touching up photos though, because they need to sell a product and therefore their ads must be flawless, the models must look perfect. And since society feeds off of beauty, companies must use programs like photoshop to create perfect ads so they can make a profit and survive. Some people might not view having skinny models as great for the image it places in societies minds, but face it, you will buy something if the ad shows a pretty person because it’s meant to convince the buyer that they will be beautiful if they buy it, it’s called advertising.

After reading these articles on Photoshop editing, I looked through my recent issue of Cosmopolitan.  Within the first ten pages of this issue, there are about 5-6 advertisements for beauty products ranging from make-up to body lotion.  The ad that caught my attention the most was the Cover Girl ad with Drew Barrymore.  Her face is absolutely FLAWLESS!  Can she attribute her perfect skin to the make-up though?  I agree with Katie P’s opinion that society puts such a focus on being perfect just like the stars who promote these products, but the fact of the matter is, we can’t be perfect like them because they are not perfect.  Another thought that comes to mind: do those of us in society who realize that these airbrushed photos conceal the truth purposely not buy the products because we know that the ad is not portraying its true effects.  I myself turn to my friends for advice about beauty products etc.