Last week, the American Medical Association officially denounced Photoshop (and other image manipulation programs), stating that its use is bad for your health.
They explain: "Such alterations can contribute to unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image -- especially among impressionable children and adolescents, according to a decision announced this week. The AMA has adopted a new policy that encourages ad agencies to work with agencies devoted to child and adolescent health to develop guidelines for ads."
I'm certainly not part of the pro-Photoshop camp when it comes to mainstream media (and other platforms that distribute these highly-altered images on a large scale), so I was surprised that my knee-jerk reaction to hearing this news was a long, exaggerated eye roll.
Then I heard Tina Fey's voice in my head, repeating one of my favorite segments from Bossypants: "Photoshop itself is not evil. Just like Italian salad dressing is not inherently evil, until you rub it all over a desperate young actress and stick her on the cover of Maxim, pretending to pull her panties down."
I'm not even going to try to assign real-life meaning to that metaphor, but Fey's general sentiment explains my feelings about the AMA news: Photoshop isn't the issue, folks.
The fact that we are coming around now to finally put pressure on our glossies (and other companies in media, advertising, and beyond) to change the way they operate is far too little, far too late. This may seem obvious to say, but magazines aren't using these images because they just don't understand or care that Photoshopping promotes unrealistic and highly problematic representations of beauty. They get it. Trust me.
Magazine covers tend to get the most critical attention when it comes to airbrushing, yet little seems to be changing (the handful of cases where brands turn "Photoshop-free!" into a marketing campaign, aside). Major mags are not drowning as quickly as the "print is dead" advocates have predicted, and many titles are continuing to stay afloat through (among other strategies) relaxing the lines between church and state -- a.k.a., ads and articles -- and doing whatever it takes to get their newsstand sales up. It is not surprising that Photoshopping is the worst it's ever been. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Does an increased use of Photoshopping also reflect our unattainable cultural ideals? Of course. But it's time to start acknowledging that the conversation is much more complex than that. Raising awareness about why it is bad to alter images in mainstream ads and media (especially print) oversimplifies the problem.
What happens when you take Photoshop out of the equation? We're left with models and performers who are still under an enormous amount of pressure to go to enormous lengths to make their bodies look a certain way. And while men feel these pressures increasingly these days, the pervasive use of image alteration software is only one small piece of the strong, sexist undercurrent that continues to dehumanize women as objects in the vast majority of these images and videos in our popular culture.
Taking a public stand against Photoshop does not unpack these issues in a meaningful way, and frankly, might make it worse for models, actresses, singers, and other performers, for whom the pressures to alter their bodies will only be heightened.
None of this is to say that I don't believe getting ad agencies and media to promote more realistic representations of women and men would be an amazing accomplishment. But it is not realistic and it is not the most practical use of our time, energy, and resources. However much it pains me to say this: Let's leave Photoshop alone. It's time to widen our lens.
Follow Elizabeth Perle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lizperle
Vivian Diller, Ph.D.: Is Photoshop Destroying America's Body Image?
Look at the body sizes of models in the past and compare them to current standards of beauty if you really want to understand the impact of media on the social viewpoint of "beauty" and consequently it's undesirable effects. This is something the author failed to take in to consideration while writing this.
There was a time where photoshopping and airbrushing did not exist; models and the idea of beauty were plump women with large breasts and -gasp- imperfections.
Or what?
If media images do affect people this way, then why is it that only bulimics are affected this way?
If bulimia is caused by media images, wouldn't the logical treatment involve isolating the bulimic with pictures of fat people? If media images have this impact, why are Americans generally so overweight that their health is seriously threatened? How many people die from bulemia, as compared to obesity?
Just asking. I wouldn't want to suggest the good doctor might be trolling for business, or just plain full of it.
Lastly, my post simply stated that the author ignored the fact that societies ideas of what is "beauty" is influenced by what the media portrays as "beauty". This is seen regularly on acceptance of fashion trends that are market with the use of which ever models the industry deems an "ideal beauty".
Instead, they are busy trying to drum up business by feeding anxieties, most likely because they've got another dubious pill to sell.
That said, it would be nice if you had to enter a password every time you used the Liquify tool.
It's a remarkable tool. Remember, Photoshop doesn't change people, people change people.
I love Photoshop and it's not evil, it's genius.
Everyone knows it's all doctored up, yet still many are insanely trying to look like a living embodiment of a fake photo.
I've played with Photoshop and I love the artistic effects and manipulations that are possible. But count me as one who has a big problem with it when it's used to pass people off as something other than what they really are. I think it's kind of creepy. Make that very creepy.
And in that vein, how about reality TV. How many people believe that is real? Sadly, there are many out there that do believe it is real.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/hillary-clinton-der-tzitung-removed-situation-room_n_859254.html
Hey, there are tons and tons of photoshop tutorials on YouTube. Do a search 'Photoshop tutorials' or search for the photoshop version that you have. Have fun!
Digital images must be similarly treated. The same digital image will look different on paper and on a web page. In the fashion industry the entire process begins with makeup, lighting, and exposure before any program such as Photoshop is ever applied.
The notion that fashion magazines set up impossible standards of beauty due to Photoshop is ridiculous. To paraphrase the gun lobby: Photoshop doesn't kill people, people kill people.