I am a little torn about this issue. I don't think they would ever be able to make airbrushed advertisements and magazines illegal here in America, and to make a law for advertisers to "tone the airbrushing down" would be very difficult to control. Swinson's proposition, though, is, conceptually, an interesting idea; governmental disapproval of such altered images would discourage their usage/creation, and the feminist side of me strongly believes that most adolescent negative body-image issues can be attributed to the unattainable standards of beauty/image of "perfection" presented in the mass media. It's sad how people become disillusioned with what they see in the media, and believe that there is something "wrong" with them for not looking as "perfect" as the images/models/celebrities they see on tv, in movies, and in magazines. But, it's natural behavior for one compare options while making selections, and we are built to be attracted to those with certain physical features (evolutionarily favorable); some pay more attention to this issue than others, but it's natural for people to care for their appearances and/or attractiveness to the gender/sex they want to attract.
People who deny that advertisements do affect their own body image are most likely lying, and may be doing so subconsciously; we will naturally want to know what has been deemed as "attractive" by the Majority, in order to gauge where, in this spectrum, we lie. Also, what we find attractive in may also alter what we look for in real-life people; we will have more of a tendency of developing unrealistic expectations in what is and isn't "normal." When ads present unrealistic body images and the Majority deems them as being "beautiful," we will subconsciously try to look more like this image of beauty/perfection, in order to increase our chances of passing our genetic materials on. It's the survival of the fittest, with beauty/attractiveness being our measure of a person's fitness. Negative body-image issues sprout when we realize that we are unable to fit the mold of "beauty" that the Majority has agreed upon. Therefore, it would be ideal for the media to cease its glorification of such naturally-unattainable beauty.
However, the "artist" side of me thinks that denying airbrushing/photoshopping rights to the media would be defeating the main purpose of the entertainment industry, and in a way, censoring a form of art--most materials made for the visual media (magazines, movies, television, music videos, commercials) aren't necessarily made to sell the truth; their main purpose is to present an image/product/person/artist/idea (whether it be deceptive or realistic) to the public, that will convince people to buy into its argument/purchase the product. Principally, people look to the media in order to escape reality; for example, people watch fantasy movies to temporarily suspend themselves in a fantasy world and view music videos for their unrealistic images/nonsensical scenarios, just as how they look at fashion magazines in order to admire their subjects' beauty (look at how beautiful the leather looks on that purse, look at how Angelina's body looks in this ad) or to be entertained by their absurdity.
Tampered-reality is what the media/advertisements may serve, but it's only because it's what the public craves; if it wasn't, I'm sure the product companies would rather use ordinary-looking people/items in their ads because it would be a hell of a lot cheaper. Sexually-suggestive themes are commonly seen in these tampered-realities because people's reactions to these usually-absurd scenes (enjoyment/curiosity/shock/thrill of seeing something which is not commonly seen in everyday life [ex: a girl doing a sensual dance while eating a gigantic hamburger and washing a car]) are so strong that they only re-enforce the ads' creation (advertisers want their message to be the "strongest," most memorable), and using sex in ads is a cheap and easy way to deliver such an effective emotional effect. The ads are presented to us, and we play ball. It takes two to dance.
Also, if we were to stop the photoshopping of advertisements, would we also have to censor celebrities' public-personas? Part of the fascination people have with rock stars, for example, is the "larger than life" sexuality/image/lifestyle many of them exude; the celebrities could, and most likely are, creating illusions of who they are in order to promote themselves--thus, creating a false image in order to sell a product (themselves). What would we do about those who have achieved artificial bodily features via surgical means? Would we choose not to put them on film at all, since they are exhibiting a body/face which would have not been attainable to them through natural means? How about those who enhance their appearances by wearing hair extensions, push-up bras, and/or cosmetics? Where would we draw the line?
In order to make a product get noticed by the public, advertisers will proceed to create images with the intention of attracting the public's attention--it's the name of the game/art form. I'm not saying that I agree with or approve of the things advertisers do, but I really don't see our society's consumerist mindset shifting enough anytime soon to discourage the "enhancing of subjects' bodies" from continuing. To create a campaign to discourage or abolish the creation of unrealistic ads has its noble intentions, but it is highly doubtful whether there will be any way to successfully execute or establish clear rules to achieve such an objective.
No comments:
Post a Comment