Glamour Girl
You know that photos in magazines are routinely retouched, don’t you? I’m not talking about news photos (although Errol Morris in the NYT did a fascinating study of Robert Fenton’s famous photos of the Crimean War, and proved that they had been “fixed,” as well as a series of Thought Experiments on photographs in general, but I digress). I’m talking about the photos of fashion models and celebrities that we see on magazine covers, in the pages of magazines as part of a story, and, of course, in advertisements. I mean, if we don’t outright expect ads to be retouched, then we’re living in fantasy land.
Still, that doesn’t stop many of us from swooning and slavering over these images and striving to look like them, even while we tell ourselves that we’re being tricked, we’re being fooled, no one looks that perfect.
Well, the New York Times had an article this week about a French parliamentarian named Valérie Boyer who’s trying to pass legislation requiring the labeling of photos that have been retouched. Call it truth in advertising. Or call it a fool’s errand, as one reader did in the comments section.
Actually, the Readers’ Comments are just as engaging as the article. I found myself agreeing with first one person, then another, with diametrically opposite views. Why not label such photos? Isn’t it just striking a blow for transparency, for honesty? What’s to be afraid of? If “everyone knows” all these photos are retouched anyway, what’s the problem? Then again, why bother? “Everyone knows”! And where do we draw the line? If you remove a blemish but leave forehead wrinkles intact, does that constitute retouching? Color reproduction on computer monitors differs. If I see your teeth in person and know them to be pearly white, but they don’t show up quite like that in your photo, should I be able to “correct” the color without having to disclose my action?
Retouching didn’t just come about with the digital age. Photographers have been retouching photos since photography was invented. The great Hollywood stars of the studio system in the 1930s, ‘40s, and ‘50s were glammed up to within an inch of their lives—and thank god for it, as they look magnificent in those glorious photos taken by George Hurrell, Ruth Harriet Louise, Clarence Sinclair Bull, Eugene Richee, and others. Should movie fans of those eras have been apprised that the pictures of their beloved stars had been retouched? Would it have made any difference?
I’m torn. What do you think? Read the article and weigh in below.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/04/09 at 05:26 PM
