Major kerfuffle lit up the blogosphere this week when a horrifically altered image of a model appeared in a Ralph Lauren ad. It gave rise to two key questions:
1. Had RL done the Photoshopping to make this woman look circus-freak thin or was it the work of a prankster? (RL ended the intrigue and offered a mea culpa today.)
2. Could RL, as copyright owner, demand that ISPs take down blog posts critical of the image under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A few blinked but others didn't.
Let's tackle both in discussion.
What are the social implications of digitally altering subjects' appearances? How much is too much? What factors prompt these kinds of manipulations? What are the ethical lines?
Do you infringe another person's copyright when you post an image for purposes of criticizing it? Should Blogger have taken down the image? Should Boing Boing's ISP have done the same?
What, if any, are the lasting implications for the RL brand?
Friday, October 9, 2009
HNTP (How Not to Photoshop)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Regardless of how the photo was altered, I think one positive thing about the distortion is that it doesn't look real or appealing.
So many times when pictures are photo-shopped, women look absolutely flawless. As a result, girls see these pictures and set their standards to match these digitally modified images.
I think in this case, the fact that the image was overdone (to look like an alien) is almost a good thing. The model in the RL photo does not look like the typical healthy and flawless photo-shopped woman.
This image tells the truth. It screams, "this photo has been digitally modified." My concern would be about the other images that are less obvious. What about the images that you can't tell if anything has been altered?
RL (or whoever modified this image) obviously took it too far. But at least we can see through this image, while we struggle to see through less obvious photos that young girls use as a standard for themselves.
seeing this image makes me think RL has an incredibly unhealthy obsession with thinness, these girls are already thin enough so why make them smaller? If they weren't even observant enough to notice that this add was messed with to the point of looking ridiculous, then they themselves are not setting a good example for anyone by offering the photo to the public and saying "we didn't notice this mistake because this is how girls should look". i mean come on, if you wanted her skinny and didn't notice how awkward it looks, that really disturbs me and puts a terrible image in my mind. if buying RL clothes means being sickly thin, i hope no one buys RL and he looses a lot of money
I think consumers should take a stand and not purchase RL clothing. This image altering happens way too frequently, and I think it's incredibly insulting towards women, especially in terms of their progress towards equality. Yes, images like these may impose impossible ideals, but even deeper, they send that historical message that (men's definition of) women's bodies define their success in society.
I applaud the guy who exposed RL's altering, but now it's time to act and not just criticize. Consumers have the greatest impact on a designer's success. If we show RL that these images are hurtful, and quite frankly, ridiculous, then he will either change his approach to fashion or go out of business.
Post a Comment