The Ethics of Photoshop
False advertising and beauty
The Ethicist (Randy Cohen) at The New York Times takes a look at the recent Ralph Lauren controversy. Two advertisements featuring women who appear so thin as to seem otherworldly have surfaced and caused quite a stir, prompting the company itself to issue the following apology:
After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately.
Pictures of models in print media and on our television screens are routinely altered, and if we account for the professional makeup, hair styling, lighting, and other “special effects,” we would have to admit that there are numerous layers of illusion in beauty-based advertising. But unlike cereal, these ads don’t require an “Enhanced to show texture” disclaimer. At least not yet.
French legislators have proposed adding “warning labels” to doctored images, and British Liberal Democrats have proposed banning them altogether, citing their harmful influence. Those concerned argue that the marketers’ emphasis on perfection has created a sort of dual reality; there’s the media world, which is inhabited by impossibly beautiful and infinitely successful mannequins, and the real world, in which we all must cope with our imperfections. Airbrushing and photoshopping images, they say, makes the problem exponentially worse.
Is this a clear case of false advertising, or are the critics being nitpicky? If we’re primarily concerned with the unrealistic expectations that result from ads, it seems unfair to single out post-production for regulation. Again, image alteration is only one piece of the false advertising puzzle. A beer ad will often contain very attractive models, decked out in expensive clothing and makeup, having unattainable amounts of fun, and acting as if said beer is nature’s most powerful aphrodisiac. Where would a disclaimer even begin?
Drawing the line at photo-alteration might make sense, however. Even if it is somewhat arbitrary, it is more workable to ban or require admission of altered images than to wade through the details of production. And even if this kind of regulation has little to no effect on consumers, it could at least have the consciousness-raising effect of starting much needed conversations about media and body image.
The best argument (other than the moral case against impossible aesthetic expectations) may be one of consistency. Food producers must display alterations and additives to their product as well as explain altered package imaging. Reporters and writers must delineate fact and fiction, noting where they embellish or veer from the historical record. Is it too much to ask that makers of beauty products and clothing admit it when their ads have been substantially “enhanced”?
Or are we simply taking fashion marketing, which doesn’t directly effect our health or knowledge of historical events, too seriously? After all, Ralph Lauren hasn’t made any false claims about his clothes. It will be interesting to see whether these “Photoshop regulations” become law and spread.
-Colin
Image courtesy of photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com
Related posts:
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
