Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Digitial Manipulation: To eat or not to eat?


With today's presentation of Digital Manipulation by the group in class, I was really surprised at the degree of some publications make in changing their images to make it look "perfect." When Thomas said something to the extent of "publications will change images solely on the basis of the expectation of perfection," I couldn't help but see that mere sentence resonating throughout our entire society. So much of our society expects perfection that we even take our day to day life images to the extreme by manipulating them to appear perfect. Considering that digital manipulation is characterized by color correction, lighting, and red eye correction, it seems evident that we are talking mainly about images of real human beings that are somewhat distorted from their own selves to make these people look more "perfect" to be presented to the public.

The pro-manipulation side of things essentially sites the main idea that if digital manipulation was institutionalized or restricted, it would be a breach of the first amendment under the free expression clause. This seems to be a legitimate argument from a clearly artistic standpoint obviously (as it this fact still upholds digital manipulation age we see today) but lets be serious---many of these photographers are using these images to distort reality to present the public with a product or image that is not a good representation of what reality is. The fact that children are so profoundly affected by the images that are so readily available on the internet and even riding around in mommy's Town and Country clearly is a problem. I believe the presenters said that something like 80% of elementary school aged children actively diet? That is just absurd. Sure, some people are inevitably going to be overweight and will need some dieting and change of lifestyle to be healthy, but the overwhelming numbers of girls (and boys for that matter) in middle school and high school that have body image disorders is incredibly disturbing. We as a society are always going to gawk at famous people (I mean i'm not gonna lie, looking like David Beckham wouldn't be so shabby) but the physical message sent through the media of images of these people is clearly distorted- so much to the point that they look like they have no problems at all. This is widely known to be untrue as we all know that no one is perfect, but the perpetuation of this idea of perfection time and again overshadows our perception of these people to the point that we begin to believe (even if subconciously) against our intuitions.

So, what I took away from what I learned today about digital manipulation is a disdain and disgust for the byproducts of it in our society. The effect on children, our overall mood, the swaying of public opinion, and the loss of public trust are all factors that I can identify with in thinking about digital manipulation of images. I'm not all negative towards it as some photos that are clearly not meant to influence our body image I can see as art and cool ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SqueezeSponge.jpg ). I do think that we need some sort of governing body that justifies photography, especially in relation to body image, doesn't need to be perfect to be sold or used in publications.

What do yall think? Is digital manipulation a good way to access the media presented to us? Do you think that digital manipulation is to blame for all of those staaggering statistics or are thier other factors? If it's restricted, would that be a major breach of our free speech or would it be "for the greater good of the common people"? This is a big deal in American society I believe and I think its a great topic to further discuss as we move forward in this ever-evolving technological age.

19 comments:

  1. Digital manipulation certainly can not be blamed entirely for all of the staggering statistics presented to us in class today, but I do believe that something needs to be done to prevent people from believing that the "perfection" they see in media is realistic and what they should strive for. I think that in this case the concept of "the greatest good for the greatest amount of people" should be applied. As the group pointed out today, it is primarily public figures that are manipulated digitally (in the negative sense); since these are the people that most people "look up to" or see the most often, they should be presented authentically. It scares me to think about the effect that these manipulated images can have on the "common people", especially youngsters who don't know any better.

    I am, however, encouraged by the amount of celebrities who have been stepping out recently to acknowledge that digital manipulation happens all the time, that what their viewers are seeing is not real, and that they love their body just the way it is (without any manipulation). The most recent of these examples concerns Kim Kardashian and untouched pictures of her for the cover of a magazine that leaked on their website. After she was criticized for having cellulite and not having a "perfect" figure, she fought back by proclaiming that she loves and is comfortable with her body and "what curvy girl doesn't have cellulite?". I think that it is important for "common people", who usually are only affected by digital manipulation through red-eye reducer, brightness etc., to hear these comments from the supposedly "perfect" people to know that their appearance that is presented as reality is not, in fact, so. Im not sure, however, how digital manipulation can effectively be monitored (other than recognizing and knowing the truth of the matter) without running into heated debate surrounding the 1st Amendment, which is one thing that American citizens are not willing to give up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that digital manipulation is not the root cause of the dieting and negative self-esteem that were discussed in class. In particular dieting and eating disorders I think are more heavily influenced by american society and the pressure to consume, and ironically to diet and stay fit. Lately it has become trendy to be healthy and therefore tons of diet products are being released and advertised. The large emphasis the media has placed on dieting and health food, in my opinion, is the main contributing factor to young children dieting. I think that at one time digital manipulation played a greater role in promoting distorted and unhealthy body image, but lately the trend has turned away from the anorexic look and towards the healthy look. I think that digital manipulation definitely can greatly influence peoples' self-esteem. However I feel that many other factors should be considered when determining a person's self-esteem. I feel that people who report feeling negatively about themselves after seeing images of models and celebrities already have negative self-esteems and seeing a "perfect" individual just brings their insecurities to the surface. Most stars do have amazing bodies, and beautifully proportioned faces and at most times they are displayed in amazingly perfect images. I feel that even without digital manipulation most people who reported feeling bad about themselves having seen the manipulated images would do so seeing the originals.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do not think that digital manipulation is to blame for the abundance of eating disorders seen among children. As Scott points out above, the stars that we see photographed are already fitter and more beautiful than the average person. Additionally, when young people develop eating disorders, they are often comparing themselves to their peers as opposed to people in images. If a child becomes friends with a person who they think is prettier or skinnier then they are, they are far more likely to develop an eating disorder by striving to be like their friend, as opposed to developing a disorder in trying to be like a picture. Surely, edited images play a role in the development of eating disorders, but I believe that role is small. Furthermore, we are never going to able to realistically get rid of all edited images.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think digital manipulation should take some of the blame for the disturbing rate at which people are obtaining unhealthy body expectations,
    but I feel especially in the recent decade, magazines and ads may not accept photos that have not been digitally manipulated as much as possible. Particularly, being incredibly thin has simply become the predominant standard in the fashion world--and inevitably its VERY close connections to magazines and ads has made it the standard for these fields also.

    I really doubt that the government can do anything to help get rid of these unrealistic standards/control digital manipulation. But I definitely agree that something has to change!
    I interned at a fashion magazine last summer and a certain celebrity came in for the cover photo shoot. She was a lot heavier than her usual self (or from pictures in celebrity magazines), but no worries...all her "flaws" magically got fixed by the time the magazine was on stands. :(

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think digital manipulation does contribute to self image problems and eating disorders, but I think the bigger problem with "playing with reality" is when it is used for journalistic purposes. Everyone knows the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words." Pictures are obviously very powerful, and when people see them in news sources, they believe them to be true. So when we're distorting the number of planes actually going into the air for a war mission, we're playing with history--as the presentation noted.

    But like with digital manipulation of magazine covers, I'm not sure we could realistically, as a government, regulate digital manipulation. Journalists already have self-regulating standards for producing truthful work, and I think this may be the best standard for magazines and ad companies as well. What if Vanity Fair came out with a press release tomorrow saying how they've added a clause to their company policy that no longer will digital manipulation of their photos be allowed. I think it would cause a ton of very positive publicity, and also let young teens know that beauty does not need to be perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do agree with this post. I think the pursuit of "perfection" through digital manipulation has already posed an unhealthy social influence to the whole society. It is impossible for a normal human being to be or to behave perfectly; however, through modern technology, everyone can fulfill this goal easily. Like what we have learned in the previous lectures that more and more people have found out that social networking online is a much easier way than face-to-face interaction. We easily perfect our wording, creating an image that we want it to be presented to others online. Digital manipulation is very similar. Technology makes it extremely easy to create a perfect image that we would like ourselves to be. In fact, digital manipulation leads people into a myth that it is the perfection that all of us should pursue. Since perfection can be so easily done through technology, everyone initiates their pursuits of being perfect either consciously or unconsciously. As less and less interpersonal interactions people have today, the pursuit of perfection would even lead to a more serious consequence. People would gradually lose their ability of judging a fact of right and wrong, since they are always exposed to the "perfect" but unreal thing. For example, like what the group presented in the class, kids today go on diet commonly because they have been exposed to the "perfect" image and this is just a fact that they initiate their pursuit of perfection. However, they do not realize that the "perfect" image is actually something being digitally manipulated; thus, they would just follow the myth and distorted social influence unconsciously, since they haven't even developed the skill of critical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I completely disagree with Oliver's post. Digital Manipulation can and does have devastating effects on children and teens alike. The problem with images and photos being altered is that we have to be taught that the images are manipulated in the first place. I remember when i was little being in awe that someone could be perfectly symetrical and glow like they did in magazines. It wasn't until i understood that the photos were not real depictions, that i finally gained realistic expectations of myself and others. I believe that in order to print or run advertisements, photos, etc in any medium, there must be a disclaimer to alert readers of the unrealistic visions they create.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This subject may be a big deal in our society, but I can't agree with any movement toward preventing the creation of "perfect" images. Digital manipulation is art and its product should be viewed as nothing more than just that. Art does not have to represent reality, it is meant to appeal to our emotions, to invoke a response, whether that be joy, disgust, or envy.

    The focus in dealing with problems that this "perfection" brings cannot be on repressing the photo editting. I could see a requirement for all publications to label doctored pictures, even on advertisements the same way cigarette cartons must include the cancer warning and cereal boxes say "enlarged to show texture". The problem, after all, isn't that these pictures make people look pretty. The problem is a misrepresentation of reality with isn't officially acknowledged as a misrepresentation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. People are too easily shaped by what Britney is doing these days, or how Hollywood perceives things. These statistics make me concerned that our youth are valuing the wrong things, and there is a deeper seeded issue here. I for one never paid attention to my eating habits or cared what my hair color was growing up, I just wanted to go play with my friends and do well in school.

    As for the issue of digital manipulation, I don't mind that someone is altering photos of celebs to sell a magazine to the mindless public, good for them. I do believe that they should not simply state that it was a photo taken of the celeb. Rather, they should be required to notify viewers that it has been altered. Without the label it is a lie by omission.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Digital manipulation, in my opinion is a bad thing for the general public. Being presented with these images everyday is a way to make people feel inadequate. I have found that going through a Self or Shape magazine that after wards all I can think about is how much weight I need to lose and what areas of my body need toned up. Now this could be considered a way to motivate people and help fight obesity but most of the time it is just making people more self concise of who they are and these constant comparisons can really affect someones well being.
    At the same time, like the person above stated, people should realize that these images are being manipulated and to not live their live by them. I know this is caddy but looking at paparazzi photos of celebrities without makeup and dressed down really brings me back to reality and shows me that NO one is perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I also don't think that there is a strong correlation between digital manipulation and obesity and also too with self-image. I do think the images would negatively affect someone with low self-esteem but if I look at a photoshopped picture of some curvy actress in a binki with slim legs, a flat stomach, and so stretch marks/cellulite I am not going to suddenly feel fat and depressed. It is sad that the kids feel the need to diet, but honestly there are a lot of chubby kids who some portion control wouldn't hurt them.

    Digital manipulation isn't necessarily a negative. Fixing lighting in a photo or erasing maybe awkwardly bunching fabric doesn't really strike me as a big deal. Even slimming someone's thighs doesn't strike me as something to get up in arms about. I think part of the reason why is because it has become so mainstream that everyone knows that photos are photoshopped for magazine covers like cosmo, self, vanity fair, and billboards. I think the issue is with pictures that are supposed to be reporting some news issue. When someone stages photos of a natural or human disaster, I do think that is wrong since they are creating the picture. Or even adding extra smoke, missile, or planes because it creates a false image of something that is supposed to be capturing a moment in history. People expect those photos to be accurate depictions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. When it comes to subjects like this, I do not like digital manipulation at all. I hate how Americans have this distorted view of beauty and want to inflict it on children. It is just wrong. I think that they should encourage a healthy reality instead of trying to have people live up to an image that is not even real or that the majority of people cannot even identify with. I think that this goes to show how vain people are these days as well. If it were left up to me, I would do away with digital manipulation. It is doing more harm to society than benfitting and in the long run, it will only progress into something worse.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I completely agree on the issue of body image digital manipulation. The statistics are staggering, and it is scary how many teenage girls are affected in a major way by the skinny models of beauty magazines. I can sympathize with the sentiment.. I've never read a beauty magazine and not felt unhappy with my body or looks after I've read it. It's completely unrealistic and we need some sort of standard for the way in which they alter model's bodies to be unrealistically thin. Perhaps a bottom line weight for the model and then restrictions on how many "inches" they can take off? I think digital manipulation is a new and developing art form, but like all art, it must be used for the purposes of artistic expression and goodness. It is a manifestation of our technological developments, and being thus, we need to develop new laws and standards to keep up with its implementation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When digital manipulation affects only the appearance of an individual, I do not think much emphasis should be placed on it. The fact that, as the American public, we would think differently of the celebrity if they were a bit larger, we are the ones who need to change as a society. Children should be taught that such magazines do not reflect accurate photos and are essentially fake. Even if these inaccurate photos were to be eliminated, the low self-esteem which can be enhanced by such media would still persist.

    I agree with Amber in that the problem with digital manipulation is in the deceitful representation of an event. Since we rely on these media sources for information, it is their responsibility to accurately depict events. As for individuals' appearance, it's the responsibility of our society to not place so much emphasis on others' appearance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Advertising and thus digital manipulation is by no means the only cause of body image problems of children and adults in American society. However, it does appear to play some role As asserted during my presentation, digital manipulation in advertising should be revealed through some sort of warning to the public. Many argue that the general public realizes that images are digitally manipulated. I believe that the majority of the public does not understand the degree and frequency of which digital manipulation is used. By warning viewers, there would no longer be any question as to whether or not viewers realized images were manipulated.

    As for digital manipulation in journalism, I agree that a code of ethics should ideally be enough to prevent malicious digital manipulation from occurring. Unfortunately, that just doesn't work. As shown in my presentation, several major publications have been found guilty of malicious digital manipulation. I do not believe that an FCC-like governing body is the best idea, but some sort of watchdog group should be created to reveal editing that does occur.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is a hard question to answer. I agree that images should not be altered to seem "perfect" because of the effect it has on our society as a whole. It would also infringe on the right of the companies of these images to make them the best they possibly can in order to sell the most copies. It is an ethical versus rights issue. I don't think there is a right answer, because everyone has their own opinion. I also think it would be hard to change the stardards that society expects in magazines and other sources that provide these images. Even if media were made to regulate the amount of editing, models are still going to look super skinny, athletes and professionals are still going to feel pressure to be muscular and thin, and girls and boys are still going to use these people as figures to try to simulate.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I completely disagree with the notion that digital manipulation is the cause of eat disorders and extreme dieting. I think it is fair to say that these manipulated images help to push impossible standards of perfection, and these standards can lead to extreme dieting and eating disorders. In that sense, digital manipulation definitely adds fuel to the fire of eating disorders.
    Sure digital manipulation has plenty of pitfalls, but so does everything. In the same sense, it has plenty of beneficial uses as well. It is important to realize that digital manipulation also includes enhancing photos and videos of poor quality. There are countless cases where enhancing security videos and photographs has helped to solve crimes.
    Basically, I feel that digital manipulation can go either way. It can be extremely beneficial, or it can be used for all the wrong reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Digital manipulation most likely does play a part in such statistics, but I don’t think it is the only thing to blame. Even without digital manipulation, many of the actors, actresses, models, etc. represent an ideal which most of the world does not/cannot maintain. Digital manipulation then places this ideal even further from reach. Restriction on digital manipulations will be difficult to enforce mainly because of the lack of clarity concerning when digital manipulation is no longer “for the greater good of the common people.” At what point has digital manipulation crossed a line? Possibly defining such limits could aid in establishing restriction, but many see digital manipulation as a form of art and free expression in which restrictions would be unconstitutional. I’d be surprised to see restrictions set on digital manipulation. Seems the debate is not in the hands of the government, but rather the “artist’s” personal code of ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In a psychology class that I am taking this semester two students presented on eating issues and their causes. A question was raised at the end – do you feel that eating (either over eating or dieting) is based on genetics or environmental factors. If you are around people who are constantly going out to eat (overweight) or those who eat unhealthy are you likely to become overweight as well?

    Magazine ads are readily available to whoever is interested in reading them and because of this I feel some eating issues stem from. I feel that young boys and girls see this pictures that have been digitally manipulated and feel like that is what they should look like. They are unaware of all the changes that have been made to some of these pictures allowing the models to look “perfect”. So, with that being said I do feel as though eating disorders for some are the cause of the changes that are made to photographs.

    ReplyDelete