viz. - legal arguments

Reboot: Photoshop Disasters by Tim Turner

catherine_c — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:56 +0000

Image Credit: Ralph Lauren, by way of Photoshopdisasters

As a followup to my post last week on the British government's plan to meet with health officials, fashion executives, and advertisers in October 2010 to discuss the legal status of the un-indicated use of photoshopping in advertisements, I would like to re-showcase a blog entry by Tim Turner from October 2009 when British and French politicians began discussing possible photoshop disclaimer requirements.

The above ad, in which the circumference of Filippa Hamilton's waist appears to be less than that of her head, is a prime example of photoshop abuses in fashion photography and the rationale for next month's meetings. View Tim's "Photoshop Disasters" entry reposted after the break, or link to the original post and the comments, which include a video interview with Ms. Hamilton.

Some of you may have seen this story on the Huffington Post about an apology issued by Ralph Lauren for the peculiarly skinny model pictured here:

The image was first noted by Photoshop Disasters, one of my favorite blogs about visual culture (other than Viz., of course). The images collected there are often hilarious and sometimes unintentionally tragic (as this super skinny model indicates). The blog itself is a terrific read, and a hilarious way to pass a few spare minutes. What's great about it, however--in addition to its delightfully relentless snark--is how it invites a deeper engagement with images. In many cases, the tragedy of the poor photoshopping is obvious, in an impossibly thin waist or a terrifyingly elongated neck. In other cases, you have to look harder and closer to locate the details. One of the unintended consequences of living in the age of photoshop may be an increase in visual literacy: spotting the falsifications sometimes requires a keen eye for close-reading.

Illegal Photoshopping

catherine_c — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:37:49 +0000

Image Credit: The Illusionists.org

The pervasive use of photoshopped images in advertisements and magazine features has stirred up a veritable maelstrom of debate over the ethics and legality of image manipulation. On Monday, CBS News published an article on the British government's decision to meet with "advertisers, fashion editors, and health experts to discuss how to curb the practice of airbrushing and promote body confidence among girls and women."

Over the last year, British and French politicians have debated whether photoshopped images used in advertisements should be required to feature a digital modification disclaimer. Next month, several British politicians will argue that labeling airbrushed photos will make it clear that the images are mere "digital fantasies."

The image above is from the promotional materials for a project-in-progress by filmmaker Elena Rossini entitled The Illusionists. Rossini's documentary will seek to locate "the obsession over the pursuit of fairness, youth, and thinness for women - and the exaltation of those qualities," in a "deep rooted fear in the power of confident, mature women" and will seek to explore the ways that such expectations function as "one of the most effective weapons used...to stifle women's advancement and thus maintain the status quo."

The real issue, as identified by Rossini in her proposal, is one of age and impressionability. From youth onwards advertisers and fashion mavens attempt to train us (increasingly through the use of altered images) to associate diversity and age with unattractiveness, and whiteness, youth, and thinness with beauty.

Rossini's stance is akin to that articulated by Jo Swinton, a member of British parliament, in September 2009. Swinton proposed that modified photos should be banned "entirely in ads aimed at children under 16" according to the New York Times. Swinton explains that photoshopped ads lacking disclaimers may cause "teenagers and women" to feel "unhappy with themselves." The kind of digitized perfection made possible by photoshopping, demonstrated below in a video from the Dove "Real Beauty" Campaign, is utterly impossible to achieve in reality:

Video Credit: Dove Real Beauty Campaign

The Liberal Democratic Party, of which Swinson is a member, adopted her proposal into their official platform a year ago and is planning to take action next month. Similar legislation was proposed in September of 2009 in the French National Assembly by Valerie Boyer (U.M.P), who claimed that photoshopped images "can lead people to believe in realities that very often, do not exist" (Times). According to the 2009 article, Boyer called for warning labels on retouched photos used for "editorial purposes as well as on those in print ads" and would threaten violators with finds of 37,500 euros (currently $49,676) or "as much as 50 percent of the cost of an advertisement."

In Monday's CBS article, a number of European health professionals sounded in on the issue including Susan Ringwood, chief executive of Beat, a British charity focused on eating disorder awareness, and Dr. Adrienne Key of Britain's Royal College of Psychiatrists. Both suggested that the inclusion of legally mandated disclaimers on photoshopped images might help to counteract their ability to function as triggers or cues for individuals with eating disorders. Dr. Key points out that the link between "repeated exposure of thin or perfect bodies" and "a drop in mood, more dissatisfaction in the viewers' bodies, and drastic dieting behavior" is increasingly supported by research. Indeed, depictions of extreme (and digitally enhanced) thinness or, as the feminist blog in the Gawker family, Jezebel.com, has waged an ongoing anti-airbrushing campaign to demonstrate, the reduction or elimination of bones from models in store catalog item images and promotional campaigns, grant viewers - regardless of whether or not they believe these often startling images to be realistic - an open invitation for self-criticism.

Image Credit: Ann Taylor, by way of Jezebel.com

Dodai Stewart of Jezebel poses her apt take on the issue in a response to Monday's CBS article, asking whether it "won't...take more than legislation to correct how we currently look at women's bodies?" Stewart writes that "although extensive Photoshop is detrimental - magazine editors and advertisers are, essentially, lying to us, the public - the real problem is that what we consider 'attractive' has also become, for the most part, unattainable." She calls for a broader campaign, extending beyond legislation (though that "would be great"), and "demanding diversity," "offering feedback" and relying on consumers "cognizan[ce]of the brands we support."

Jezebel's insistence on raising awareness of the widespread use (and abuse) of photoshopping in promotional materials and their refusal to bow down to the demands of corporations to obscure their attempts at misrepresenting human figures and elevating unattainably "desirable" beauty standards is a step towards a broader realization of the effects of visual manipulation upon self-image, perceptions of beauty, and body confidence.

Inherit the Wind

Sarah Wagner — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:25:09 +0000

Made in 1960, Inherit the Wind is a closely rendered version of the "Scopes Monkey Trial" of 1925, with most of the courtroom arguments being taken straight from the trial transcripts.

(I’ve been surprised by how many people have never seen this movie, and that some don’t know the trial very well. For a summary, check out this entry in wikipedia.) The rhetoric text I’m using this semester, The Elements of Persuasion, has a whole chapter devoted to the actual trial, so showing the movie fit in especially nicely this semeter.

The movie works very well in a 306 class as a way to discuss arguments on several levels. First, there's the basic argument of the trial, which was not just about the Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution, but about the reconciliation of scientific and religious views of the world. At the same time, there is the subject of admissible information: the court rules that scientists who would argue the validity of the theory of evolution are not allowed to testify, based on the judge’s ruling that its validity has no bearing on whether or not Scopes (“Cates” in the movie) violated the law.

And then, of course, there is the argument being made by Stanley Kramer, the director of the movie. While many of us might see the legal case alone, the defense and the prosecution arguing the Truth of the Bible versus the Truth of Intelligence (which are indeed major arguments), and while many of us might feel justified in seeing creationism and its proponents as ridiculous, the director is after something else. In this movie there are five central characters: the Teacher, his Fiancée, a Baptist Minister (the Fiancée’s father), and the Defense and Prosecuting attorneys. The Teacher and the Minister stand for intellectualism and religion, or maybe “thinking” and “faith”. The attorneys are those who would defend each. The Fiancée, caught between her father and her husband-to-be, loves Thinking and wants to love and be loved by Faith. Herein lies the real struggle. She loves both, but is told that she can’t love Thinking and be loved by Faith, nor can she stay connected to her Faith and love Thinking.

With the movie’s tight camera work during the trial scenes, the tension between these two all-or-nothing perspectives on the world builds dramatically to two points in particular: one in which Brady, the Fundamentalist Prosecutor, reduces the Fiancée to sobs when he shouts at her to condemn her lover; the other in which the Defense brings Brady to his own demise, left stammering on the stand as his disappointed supporters leave the courtroom. At first glance, it’s a victory of Thinking over Faith. And yet, the sight of the Prosecutor, a good man and a gifted and beloved orator, trying to find his footing by nonsensically reciting the books of the Bible, is heartbreaking.

What has surprised me most about showing this black-and-white movie in class is the students’ engagement with it. The first thing I notice is that they laugh—at the melodramatic scenes as well as at the parts meant to be funny to the 1960 audience. And in a scene near the end, they react with intense shock (imagine a classroom-sized sharp in-breath) to a slap in the face. They seem to connect, unsurprisingly, to the cynical reporter (based on H.L Mencken). I see no nodding heads, I don’t have to wake anyone up. Why? In one class discussion a couple semesters ago, one student couldn’t believe the trial happened nearly 100 years ago because at her Christian high school, this debate was still very much alive. Another student remarked that the movie was especially interesting to him as a biology major.

The movie, especially this semester, is not old. As all of us watch the current political news, we hear discussions about small-town conservative America versus progressive urban America, about intellect versus common sense, and about faith versus logic. People bemoan the divisions in our country, and yet hold fast to the idea that they are right to value their perspective over another. The other side is so ridiculous as to be angering, and their views do not deserve to be reconciled with ours. Still we say, you can’t love faith and logic, small-town America and progressive policies, book learning and common sense.

(I expect many of you know the website American Rhetoric. If not, you should check it out. This site gave me the idea to show Inherit the Wind in my 306 class in the first place. Click this link and you can watch one of the crucial scenes of the trial, and/or read the transcript from the movie.)
americanrhetoric.com