Ugly Truth Or Beautiful Lie?

Ms. Valerie Boyer is a member of the French Parliament, and she has a problem with phony photography. In the New York Times article Point, Shoot, Retouch and Label?, there are two debates being discussed in my opinion. The main issue discusses whether print advertising should be forced to disclose when an image has been altered from its original or natural form. As this issue is debated while Ms Valerie Boyer’s proposed law awaits its vote, my first question is “To what degree would disclosure be legislated?” After all, when an image is photoshopped or digitally altered, it is probably not the entire image. There might be a loose hair eliminated, or a pimple removed compared to trimming a model’s waistline or slimming her thighs.  I truly doubt that an ad agency would pay a photographer and an entire staff, plus a model in order to then pay someone to sit in front of a computer and completely recreate the image.  Of course I realize that any ad is double and triple-checked by very discerning eyes before it is moved into publication.  What about drawings or paintings?Surely, there wouldn't be limitations on conceptualized creations such as these.  But there almost would have to be, or we'd be doomed to animated television commercials and virtual supermodels in magazine ads.

The main concern is how these images affect girls and young women’s self-esteem. While I am certainly in support of protecting girls and young women from imagery that over sexualizes these young female models which are portrayed to be sexy, submissive subordinates as discussed in Jane Caputi’s Everyday Pornography and Sut Jhally‘s Image-based Culture. I don’t know that such a law would produce the result that Ms. Boyer is seeking. What about the ads that aren’t airbrushed or photoshopped? Those images would still promote the same gender inequality and perpetuate idea that skinny is beautiful, but with the use of people that are actually that sexy, that skinny, that “perfect.”

Beauty is a matter of opinion.  I don't know any woman (other than my six-year-old daughter who doesn't know any better yet) that is totally comfortable with their body or their looks.  It is a constant struggle for them.  Why?  Because not only are they their own worst critics, and incredibly conscious of every square inch of skin, fabric and hair follicle, they are too aware of other women's bodies too.  So when the friend with narrow hips comes over, your wife, girlfriend, sister or daughter thinks she's overweight by comparison.  Unfortunately, Little Miss Narrow-Hips doesn't like how her jeans fit and believes that she needs to lose a few pounds too.  Here's an example:

Jenny: Oh! I love those jeans!  (Those fancy pockets would draw too much attention to my wide butt)
Janey: Thanks! I got them on sale. (I feel fat in them, which is why I didn't pay full price)
Jenny: They look great on you! (I could never wear jeans like that with this big caboose of mine)
Janey: Thank you! I love the pockets! (I need to take the attention off my thighs)

And I bet I'm over simplifying the complex insecurities swirling inside these imaginary women's heads.

(She hates her jeans.)

The second issue is the limitation of creative freedom. Advertising isn't just about the product. These days, advertisers are selling you a lifestyle.  They are trying to portray their product in the most-positive light possible. Whether it's a new (probably also improved!) type of lotion or socks, attractive and happy people will be called upon to depict the greatness of the product.  Why?  Because everyone pays attention to the pretty people. Pretty people are admirable. We all want to be attractive.  And if we can't be, then we want to be pretty by association.  Advertisers know this.  And they know that women are worse than men, which is why half the pages of a women's magazine are advertisements. 

So let's take this absolutely gorgeous baby girl and remove that freckle on her chin... and remove that stray hair... and brighten her eyes a bit... widen her smile just a touch... now what a pretty baby!  This is an ad for an air filter, by the way.

(Breathe that fresh air!)

Besides, I'd be willing to bet that advertisers would find some way to get around any sort of legislation. There is always a loophole to be exploited. I also believe that any sort of disclaimer would be viewed with a degree of skepticism by viewers. Similar to the warning on a box of cigarettes... She sees the warning, she knows the cigarettes have negative health effects and prolonged use could result in cancer or death, but how long will that take? One pack won’t kill me, right? As one pack turns into two packs then into a habit, soon she can’t even see the warning label on that pretty box of cancer.