Beauty is in the Eye of the Publicity Campaign
I am taking Art Appreciation this semester and if there is one thing I have learned from this class, it is that beauty is indeed subjective. The students in my class disagree on a daily basis over which painting is beautiful. I wonder if we were looking at slides of present day human beings if the disagreements would exist? There seems to be one ideal of beauty in today's world and that's an unrealistic ideal. There is a new French law being proposed that would require all digitally enhanced photographs to be accompanied by a disclaimer.
Politicians in the French government are claiming that images that are used in advertising campaigns portray an unrealistic and unattainable beauty to adolescents. The disclaimer would read, "Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person." Any company that violates this new law could be punished by "a fine of over $50,000 or up to half of the cost of the publicity campaign , whichever is greater." Some publicity campaigns can cost several millions dollars, this has the possibility of being very detrimental to many companies. I can remember when airbrushing started to become a little more talked about, people always mentioned "airbrushing" when talking about the latest magazine cover, but over the past few years it has gotten out of control. They don't just airbrush, they create an entirely different person than the person who originally modeled. Which makes me wonder why they would even hire a model to begin with, I suppose for a stand in. Here is a video I found on YouTube that shows the lengths these companies will go to just to have their products being modeled by a perfect 10...it's pretty sickening. I say why not force a warning to these companies, why would people object to honesty? I think our society could only benefit from more honesty in everyday practices.
Some believe that this warning is unnecessary. Ars Technica thinks, "Clearly, there's a line somewhere between reality and fantasy when it comes to images in the media, and the widespread practice of Photoshoppery has only helped to blur that line. Still, do airbrushed images really require a Surgeon-General-like warning?" My answer to that is yes. When you buy cigarettes not only is there a warning on the packaging, there is an age limit for how old somebody has to be to even be exposed to that item. These ads can be very damaging to a young persons psyche, and yet everybody is exposed to these ads at every waking moment, regardless of your age.
I think the effects that these ads have on teenagers today are very damaging and if there is something that can be done to reduce the pain in any kid's life, I'm in favor of it. I graduated high school in 1995 and it was bad enough then. The pressure to look, act, dress and eat a certain way is too much for anyone of that age to deal with. I think it's time the public holds these companies and advertisers responsible for projecting these unrealistic images of beauty upon us.
Politicians in the French government are claiming that images that are used in advertising campaigns portray an unrealistic and unattainable beauty to adolescents. The disclaimer would read, "Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person." Any company that violates this new law could be punished by "a fine of over $50,000 or up to half of the cost of the publicity campaign , whichever is greater." Some publicity campaigns can cost several millions dollars, this has the possibility of being very detrimental to many companies. I can remember when airbrushing started to become a little more talked about, people always mentioned "airbrushing" when talking about the latest magazine cover, but over the past few years it has gotten out of control. They don't just airbrush, they create an entirely different person than the person who originally modeled. Which makes me wonder why they would even hire a model to begin with, I suppose for a stand in. Here is a video I found on YouTube that shows the lengths these companies will go to just to have their products being modeled by a perfect 10...it's pretty sickening. I say why not force a warning to these companies, why would people object to honesty? I think our society could only benefit from more honesty in everyday practices.
Some believe that this warning is unnecessary. Ars Technica thinks, "Clearly, there's a line somewhere between reality and fantasy when it comes to images in the media, and the widespread practice of Photoshoppery has only helped to blur that line. Still, do airbrushed images really require a Surgeon-General-like warning?" My answer to that is yes. When you buy cigarettes not only is there a warning on the packaging, there is an age limit for how old somebody has to be to even be exposed to that item. These ads can be very damaging to a young persons psyche, and yet everybody is exposed to these ads at every waking moment, regardless of your age.
I think the effects that these ads have on teenagers today are very damaging and if there is something that can be done to reduce the pain in any kid's life, I'm in favor of it. I graduated high school in 1995 and it was bad enough then. The pressure to look, act, dress and eat a certain way is too much for anyone of that age to deal with. I think it's time the public holds these companies and advertisers responsible for projecting these unrealistic images of beauty upon us.
Comments
Post a Comment