Hello everyone!
I was asked by Good Morning America to comment on airbrushing photos. Specifically Kelly Clarkson was extensively airbrushed on the cover of Self magazine. She looks much thinner than in real life.
Here is the link to the interview:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=8324832&page=1
What do you think? Do airbrushed images on magazine covers affect how you feel about your body? What about your friends, wives, girlfriends, sons and daughters?
Do you think that images should be more realistic, or is it just artwork that has no effect because no one believes it is real?
I would love to hear your opinion – please post a comment if you have a moment!
All love,
Sarah Maria
I believe it portrays an unrealistic image of what is 'normal', or 'natural'. The images (which is all they really are, right?) can fool people into believing that this is how people are supposed to look.
Phillip, then what is real and what is not? Who says what is normal or not?
If the body is in us, then the projection is as our own process or what we are dealing with.
What we see is these images, is an interpretation of someone who thought this was the way one supposed to look, many followed this pattern making it a statement. Still it is an interpretation…
love
Adriana
Dear Sarah Maria,
I work in the Marketing segment and it is incredible how many hours we work retouching the models in photographs. Call it a phase of image expression, I really do not know how to describe it or even nominate it. What is more incredible is that the models and the clients are the ones that ask for this work. By trying to portray esthetic we felt into hedonism. Beauty is natural, it has always been but now a blemish is out of the picture. The process is already so far advanced that, today, a substantial part of our surroundings is made up of objects and images and people that appear to be something other than what they are.
Looking back across history, we can trace humanity's growing ability to simulate appearances, in the discovery of perspective, for example, that allowed painters and drawers to create the illusion of three-dimensional space; or the creations of wigs and make-up. We can also surmise that the creation of simulations and of the invented scenes and situations found in fiction is inborn. We do it spontaneously, in day and night dreams, and in the play of conversation and interaction, as well as in the arts.
I do not pay much attention to this, a phase of expression but not real at all.
BTW, it is great to hear from you.
Big kiss
Adriana
Hi Adriana,
Rightly as you say, "… the body is in us, then the projection is as our own process or what we are dealing with."
What is projected is being manipulated to appear differently than it really is. The image does not accurately reflect the person from whom the image is collected. It's like a fun-house mirror. Can it be healthy to assume that the distortion is desirable? The projector of that image was not satisfied by the image, but felt it appropriate to distort it for gain or favor. Is that also healthy behavior? And what of those then following this pattern and making a statement? For those we should have sympathy as they have no belief in the image they themselves project, but instead default to cover themselves with the false image of another.
By the way, I do believe that people believe these images.
Both men and women.
Men believe because of their need for sexual fantasy objects; women believe because it means that there is always hope, so long as there is a program around.
Very jaded.
This is interesting: I almost posted a smarmy comment on twitter saying that
“Photoshop is the best friend of 70 percent of Twitter profile photos. Born again in Adobe.”
It’s unavoidable. When I get a photo, I will probably do a bit of tweeking, but I prefer people not knowing what I look like. It is both a security issue and a kind of deliberate “manipulation” if you will.
I think I get fewer responses to my tweets because there’s no pic; people like having a visual, and I simply refuse to give it to them. I believe attractive women get more attention than do either unattractive ones or ones like myself who refuse to be known, for a variety of reasons.
Orneriness is my least attractive character quality. I am rather amazed by the amount of cleavage and sexuality put into Twitter’s little profile photos, presumably all in hopes of getting a little attention. I am uncertain as to why else it’s so important . . .
I’m not sure disputing it makes any difference. It’s here to stay, as well as all the bigotry and judgment that goes with with . . . part of life in the body.
I admit I may be jaded, but we know which women pull in the big bucks, and it is always about S-E-X and selling attractiveness.
The only other women who seem to make big bucks sell mostly to women (I’m thinking of Oprah and Martha Stewart). If you want to be a crossover artist, the goods must appeal to the male sexual impulse via attractiveness.
There was an award given awhile ago that The Guardian reported on, for women writers. Did you know that there are statistics and studies out there (please don’t ask me to hunt down the facts, just accept the anecdote) that show that men buy books primarily by men, while women buy books by both men and women.
My guess is that it is the sex thang, for lack of a better way to put it here.
Enough for now.
Thanks for asking.