a hungarian singer has made a music video that shows how much editing goes into the physical appearance of people in the media.
the result is ... just ... wow. i mean , just look at how much they have to change her before she's "good enough". it's completely insane.
A lot of people on fashion newspaper, but also movies, music videos etc are edited.
Reality is another thing. I'm not against the use of photoshop etc, cause I was near 'that world' but I don't approve the excess.
i don't mind photoshop , or generally editing people to make them look "better" or whatever. when people say stupid things like "if athletes can't use performing enhancing drugs then models can't use photoshop!" it makes me so irritated because the point of models is to look as good as possible so that they can promote a certain fashion / cosmetics / whatever.
buuuut there's a limit to how much editing is okay.
i mean , in that music video i posted , they erase her freaking bra straps ffs. i mean , fuck knows no one needs to know that an adult woman wears a bra sometimes , right? that's just mental.
and making her skin paler ? that's wrong.
her neck doesn't need to be thinner. her eye normal eye color was fine. there's just so much done to her (and many other people) that is completely unnecessary and reinforces this idea of unattainable beauty that makes young girls (and boys) feel inadequate and ugly because they can't achieve it.
using photoshop , or another editing tool , to make someone look better is okay.
what isn't okay is using photoshop to change someone's appearance so entirely that they don't look like the same person at all so that they meet a media ideal of what an attractive person should look like.
Oooh yes... I took a class on exactly this. It's actually pretty easy to turn anyone into an imaginary "perfect" model. It's definitely offensive, which is part of why I think it's an amazing art form. A lot of the best art in history is offensive for the very same reason. Painting a nude woman on a canvas does exactly the same thing, since the painter usually goes for the more ideal look rather than the exact realistic appearance (with a few exceptions).
There are a lot of other great uses for Adobe products, but this is definitely the one that stands out the most in our media.
megumidesu Wrote:i don't mind photoshop , or generally editing people to make them look "better" or whatever. when people say stupid things like "if athletes can't use performing enhancing drugs then models can't use photoshop!" it makes me so irritated because the point of models is to look as good as possible so that they can promote a certain fashion / cosmetics / whatever.
buuuut there's a limit to how much editing is okay.
i mean , in that music video i posted , they erase her freaking bra straps ffs. i mean , fuck knows no one needs to know that an adult woman wears a bra sometimes , right? that's just mental.
and making her skin paler ? that's wrong.
her neck doesn't need to be thinner. her eye normal eye color was fine. there's just so much done to her (and many other people) that is completely unnecessary and reinforces this idea of unattainable beauty that makes young girls (and boys) feel inadequate and ugly because they can't achieve it.
using photoshop , or another editing tool , to make someone look better is okay.
what isn't okay is using photoshop to change someone's appearance so entirely that they don't look like the same person at all so that they meet a media ideal of what an attractive person should look like.
I agree with everything, and the point is: that's just mental.
Actually, some of the most effective promos are not showing the product they're selling, but to crate an 'unknown', to create a 'desire', and finally a 'need' are central and powerful objectives of commercial advertising.
Marketing is mental.
Photoshop
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
