May 9th, 2009
Sex, Lies and Photoshop
by Miles Benson
In France, public health officials and psychiatrists are trying to pass laws that would make it illegal to promote false body image and eating disorders. They want to ban websites, censor media, and force media to disclose the extent in which their photos have been retouched.
This rubs me the wrong way. If you’ve been a long time reader of Now is not the Rhyme you will know I struggle with being open minded about censorship. But I will try my best to stay neutral as I often try to do.
With so much falsehood in advertising, how much are we affecting the minds of the younger generation? Social media seems to be pushing an unattainable fantasy world upon us. So hearing that laws are being considered to have publications clearly label ‘Photoshopped,’ both relieves and angers me.
I looked into some statistics and I see that nearly 24 million people in the US have some form of eating disorder. Almost 50% of Americans know someone with an eating disorder. And 15% of younger women in the United States show disordered eating attitudes.
With numbers and statistics like that I am very quick to judge photo retouchers and their industry. Especially since, I know people with eating disorders or rather have known people. I mean, in a way, I am also affected by retouched media and unattainable beauty. But, if I’m going to judge them I also have to judge myself. Professionally and personally. I also retouch photos as part of my job(s) and am susceptible to photos I know are retouched.
The main consensus is that the fashion industry and the media are the biggest causes of this. I agree with this. And maybe it’s a good example maybe it’s not…but, one of my favorite blogs is Photoshop Disasters; where the majority of the submissions on that site are of fashion models where you can see people trying to “fix” something on these models to look better but fail miserably. Which in retrospect, this site might be the best example, because you can actually see what they’re trying to do as opposed to professional retouchers where it’s harder to see what they’re doing.
A question is posed: if the models themselves can’t measure up to their images what does this mean?
When we’re looking at a painting it’s easier to think of it as a work of art, something abstract, something constructive; with a picture it’s harder to tell what’s been done to it. However, with all the work that’s gone into retouching these photos they’re also works of art. The product the model is being used to advertise for will never make someone look like the model themselves.
That kind of look is achieved with Photoshop.
I find it hard to agree with those who blame the media for people who have eating disorders, but I do think that we should put a disclaimer near the photo saying “This photo has been retouched.” Some people are saying they want publishers to show the extent in which a photo has been retouched, much like a before and after picture. But, we don’t do that for any other piece of artwork. If we’re going to do that, the law should remain consistent with every piece of artwork created henceforth.
Some people want to ban retouching entirely, but that can’t be the answer, can it?
This post and mostly everything that was written here came from this video.
Having time to think about this, I think what I was more concerned about after I watched this video was that the woman narrator in the video as well as others I have come across lean more sympathetic to supposed “victims” than the “victor.” I find this to be more a problem than the subject “issue” itself. Because here is someone who has an outlet to be heard by thousands of people; the outlet being The New York Times. Thousands of people are going to see this video and will form an opinion about it in their own head. And I have to wonder whose side will they take as a result of the way she is broadcasting this piece? I personally feel that they might be more sympathetic to the victims because of her inflection and question asking tones. To her credit as well the others I mentioned, they do a good job of taking an open minded stance by saying they don’t want to censor, they just want to educate. But you can tell in their voice and inflection that it’s almost as if for the sake of romance and to not offend they lean their stance to side with the “victim.”
Now, understandably there’s a GREAT chance I am wrong about hers and theirs stance on this, and probably am. However, isn’t what they’re doing “photoshopping” of words? Now, maybe it’s not her that was told to make the piece more sympathetic towards “victims” maybe it was an editor. But, that brings up a whole new topic of editing. Isn’t editing someone’s words for the sake of whatever reason the same thing? If so, how come we don’t offer the full transcript of what was originally said? In addition to all the revision the copy went through? Why is there a double standard?
I am concerned not about the program Photoshop, or the retouchers who do what they are asked, or the people who strive for the unattainable beauty that is portrayed; but more concerned about the means we take to get people to think the same way we do. When we get into a discussion where opinions are tossed around what are we ultimately hoping for?
People are going to disagree with each other and think their opinions are the correct one’s, and there is no way to solve the argument. Nor convince someone you are actually right. Because there is only personal evaluation. There is nothing in this world to which they can refer to see which is correct. So the only important question is where do your values come from?
Discussion: How does retouched media affect you? Should magazines disclose to what extent their images have been retouched, or should we carry on as we are? (Please leave your comments below, do not message or IM me with your answers)
May 9th, 2009 at 11:19 am:
I read this very quickly and would like to go back later and read this again and watch the video, but I love your point about people forgetting that photography, like painting, writing, etc. is an art form. That just because we connote photography with “realism” doesn’t mean that it is realistic, nor does it mean that photography should be realistic.
Obviously the focus of this debate is on fashion photography and extreme photo shopping, but even photojournalists are manipulating reality when they capture a mere second of time and place it in a context. When you think about it, there is nothing more artificial than a second lasting forever.
Admittedly, it is a shame that the media is hurting the body image and confidence of women everywhere. I am certainly a victim of this. My body causes me a lot of stress, and is very probably the thing about myself I dislike the most (and my body is not all that bad). Years of reading fashion magazines has certainly put odd notions in my head of how I should look, but I have to defend fashion photography, because it is only one piece of the pie.
The abundance of unhealthy food options, restaurant portions, and even the food advertising that is juxtaposed with images of perfect bodies all over the place, is a huge part of it too. Family values and dynamics also comprise a part of eating disorder development. And an individual’s psycology is part of it too.
I am no psychologist, but anorexia and other eating disorders, aren’t simply about girls that want to be thin. Eating disorders are about women and men that have bad coping strategies and issues with control. From what I know, most eating disorders aren’t about girls that “think they are fat” but about people that feel like they have no control over their lives and want to feel that they do. The ideal body image, and thinness aspect, is merely the tip of the iceberg…
So interesting post! I liked it a lot.
May 9th, 2009 at 4:29 pm:
This is an interesting point you make about editing and persuasion. That is why I think that the best solution to the problem is not forcing media to disclose their retouching techniques every time a photo or advertisement is published, but instead for teachers, parents, and special interest groups to educate about photoshop, advertising techniques, and the effects of media on individuals and society.
May 10th, 2009 at 9:17 am:
I teach a short unit with my students about media and how it affects individuals and society. I am so using this next year!
May 10th, 2009 at 10:37 am:
Nice! That’s awesome! It’s a good video. Do you think it leans more to one side over the other?
May 11th, 2009 at 4:57 pm:
Does the video report lean to one side or the other? Clearly. Just from the title you can see that the speaker thinks photoshop is dangerous (”Sex, Lies and Photoshop: Why magazines should let readers know if images have been retouched”). In fact, the speaker’s somewhat gentle tone and use of concession arguments strengthens her own covert assertion. If this was some sort of harangue, then viewers may not listen to her point.
I guess my question is, why is it so bothersome that the video lean towards one side? Does it anywhere state that this video is unbiased? I didn’t think so. So why would you watch something with the title, “Sex, Lies and Photoshop: Why magazines should let readers know if images have been retouched,” and assume that it will paint both sides of the issue equally?
You are equating bias in writing with photo shop. I do see what you are saying and its a good point. But in a sense the analogy is faulty because the issue isn’t that the photos are being altered to persuade an audience to buy a product. The issue is that the subliminal effect of the ads is hurting the psyche of individuals to a level where it is becoming a societal problem.
Of course other art forms can and do have this effect. But many of those have already gone through some sort of censorship (ratings, parental lock options, etc.) So logically, why not let fashion photography be next in a sense if music, movies, video games, and writing have already been targeted?
May 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pm:
In terms of analyzing bias in the video, I also notice this:
The speaker clearly sees a problem with the fashion photography industry, and this is indeed slightly biased in her reporting. But I don’t think she necessarily thinks that disclosing the extent to which photos have been retouched is going to solve the problem. That is why she ends with a statement about just waiting to see how things play out in France….Her attitude isn’t “France is doing this, let’s all give it a try! Great idea!” She thinks that it raises important questions about an important issue, but no where is it evident that she thinks France has the solution to this issue.
Furthermore, she ends with a statement to the effect of: I dare one magazine to publish an edition without any photo shopped pictures. In this statement, she is asserting subtly that perhaps photo shopping just needs to stop altogether in order to fix the problem of contorted body image.
You say that what concerns you is her covert bias. I think the real issue is that many, I’ll even say most, people are too ignorant to be able to recognize bias. This, and also that people see what they want to see in many cases, whether the counter argument is presented or not.
May 11th, 2009 at 6:18 pm:
I guess another thought I had based on your post is that…who is the “victor”? And the answer is, I guess, everyone who earns a living off of photo shopped pics. It is just another issue of money reigning supreme. If we want to sell products, we need enticing ads, ads that produce a need that isn’t already there. All advertising has subliminal effects, so why target the beauty and fashion industry and not other industries? Perhaps that is where the bias is more prominent…
May 16th, 2009 at 10:54 am:
“I guess my question is, why is it so bothersome that the video lean towards one side? Does it anywhere state that this video is unbiased?”
No, it doesn’t. I guess when I read/watch something I always hope for an open minded unbiased take on a situation. But I don’t often see people think this way.
“You are equating bias in writing with photo shop. I do see what you are saying and its a good point. But in a sense the analogy is faulty because the issue isn’t that the photos are being altered to persuade an audience to buy a product. The issue is that the subliminal effect of the ads is hurting the psyche of individuals to a level where it is becoming a societal problem.”
Doesn’t the subliminal effect happen because we alter the images to persuade people to buy products, look closer at something or make something more interesting to the viewer? This is my question…because we edit text so heavily for the sake of time or for the sake of making someone not sound like an idiot or to make the piece more interesting that isn’t that the reason we do that to persuade the audience to keep reading, to be interested in what we are writing?
“Furthermore, she ends with a statement to the effect of: I dare one magazine to publish an edition without any photo shopped pictures. In this statement, she is asserting subtly that perhaps photo shopping just needs to stop altogether in order to fix the problem of contorted body image.”
The interesting thing about what she said is that she’s not specific. She dares any magazine to not publish photoshopped images. She probably doesn’t mean this…but, it’s presents the thought that there is not a single magazine not photoshopping their photos. Again, which based on the the wide availability and viewership the New York Times has, it concerns me.
“People see what they want to see in many cases, whether the counter argument is presented or not.”
I like that statement. It’s true, because it also applies to me and this comment right now. I don’t enjoy her covert bias…so in many ways I want to find things within her text that that supports my “photoshopping of words” comment. As I did in the previous paragraph. But, you know that’s what I run into all the time with this blog. I present a thought, hoping that I make the thought to the point and easily understood by all so it is understood in the way I understand it, but people DO interpret things differently. And they don’t always understand it the way I would for like them to.
“I guess another thought I had based on your post is that…who is the “victor”?”
I guess what I was saying by “victor” is exactly what you said, people who use retouching as a means to sell a product or service or to make something more entertaining or enjoyable. I feel it feels more “right” to side with victims because it’s the human definition of right and wrong that make us more sympathetic to victims. But, I can’t help but drawn and be also sympathetic to the victors as well. And I feel that the problem I have is our biased sympathizing to people who could be considered “victims.”
Great comments Teach, seriously these are great! Anybody else have any thoughts on this?
May 18th, 2009 at 3:25 pm:
I know you’re looking for other people to comment, but I want to say in response:
I actually really liked your analogy to photo shop and text editing, and was mostly playing devil’s advocate.
And, I like what you said about it being easy to side with “victims” since we tend to be more sympathetic to them, and I agree that it is important to look at the victors’ point of view as well.
And, for the record, if I had to vote on it, I would vote against the “censorship” of photos.
August 15th, 2009 at 6:13 pm:
[...] Miles over at Now Is Not the Rhyme wrote a piece about the tricks that designers play with Photoshop, and the consequences that arise. I started writing a loooooong response titled “What is [...]