Has Photoshop gone too far? Kate Winslet and Brad Pitt are among several public figures who think so and the American Medical Association (AMA) is now backing them up.
Winslet was one of the first to break ground when she took action against GQ magazine for digitally altering her body in its photographs -- making her unrealistically thin. Pitt requested that there be no retouching on his W magazine cover, personally selecting, Chuck Close to shoot it, a photographer known for his extremely detailed portraits that expose skin flaws. While most people dream of magically removing their pounds and wrinkles -- and some celebs demand it -- more and more are seeing Photoshop as dangerous terrain.
The American Medical Association (AMA) recently announced it was taking a stand against image manipulation in advertising, stating that alterations made through processes like Photoshop can contribute to unrealistic body image expectations, eating disorders and other emotional problems. Surprisingly, professional and public reactions are mixed.
One eating disorder specialist, Carrie Arnold, reacted with "show me the evidence." In her piece, "What's Photoshop Got to Do With It," she quotes the AMA as saying "a large body of literature" exists linking media exposure to eating disorders, but after Arnold did her research, she found little scientific evidence to support the statement. The studies AMA cited just don't connect Photoshop to diagnosable eating disorders, as spelled out by the DSM-IV. She writes, "We don't think ads for disinfectant somehow promote OCD. We also don't think that those Bluetooth headsets promote schizophrenia because it looks like you're talking to yourself." Condemning Photohop may make for a good media story, but Arnold questions its validity.
In a post here entitled "Photoshop Isn't Evil," Elizabeth Perle wrote that her "knee jerk reaction to hearing this news was a long, exaggerated eye roll." The AMA's statement against Photoshop, she believes is "too little too late," adding it "frankly might make it worse for models, actresses, singers and other performers, for whom the pressures to alter their bodies will only be heightened."
Photographers and artists have their own take on this issue. "We have wonderful tools to create images, new digital cameras and photographic digital printers and powerful tools such as Photoshop and we are expected to do what -- nothing? I don't think so," says Jeff Schewe of Photoshop News. Some feel the AMA misses the point. Michael Graupman, in "Photoshop on the Chopping Block" writes, "perhaps it is time for a refresher course for the media and Americans of what Photoshop was created for originally: bringing a subject more into focus, not creating works of fiction." Denouncing Photoshop, many believe, will have little impact on America's distorted view of beauty and that the alteration of images in photography should not be singled out.
I disagree. The importance of the AMA's recent policy statement is that it is headed in the right direction. First, let's get the facts straight. Denouncing Photoshop sounds newsworthy, but it was not the focus of the AMA's statement. No one in the medical association -- which joins physicians to promote professional and public health issues -- talked about completely banning this creative technique from photography. Second, although physicians are studying links between photo distortion in advertising and the rise of eating disorders and other body image pathology, the connection and the solutions have yet to be determined.
The AMA is just beginning to raise public awareness about the impact of image manipulation on childhood development. They want us all to reflect upon the way in which unrealistic imagery may serve as a contributor to adolescent health problems -- and to consider creating ground rules for those who present these images to the public. As part of a general move toward overseeing potentially harmful media influences, the AMA suggests that ad agencies work with child and adolescent-focused health organizations to create guidelines for future advertising.
Clearly, these are complicated psychological and sociological issues, in terms of both the underlying causes for the recent explosion of adolescent eating disorders as well as the subtle (and not so subtle) ways the media influence these problems. Just as there have long been questions about the connection between violence on TV and childhood aggression, or between cigarette ads and adolescent smoking, more research is required to know how to move forward on the cultural impact of Photoshop. No doubt, the AMA's recent statement is a step in that direction.
Perhaps we are headed toward more dramatic policies, like the ones proposed in Europe. Two years ago, French Parliament member, Valerie Boyer, suggested that all published images that are digitally enhanced -- including advertisements, press photos, political campaigns, art photography and product packaging -- come with a warning label that reads, "Retouched photograph aimed at changing a person's physical appearance." Failure to do so would lead advertisers to be fined of up to 50 percent of the cost of the publicity campaign in question. With their first lady, Carla Bruni, having been airbrushed hundreds of times as a former supermodel and even President Sarkozy having his picture Photoshopped in Paris Match magazine, this new policy did not go over easily in the French parliament. But, according to Boyer, the proposal was not an attempt to "damage creativity of photographers or publicity campaigns, but to advise the public on whether what they are seeing is real or not."
While America is no stranger to the importance of promoting public health and protecting consumers from false advertising -- one of the principal missions of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission since its inception in 1914 -- it may take many more years before measures like the one in France take off here. Some believe that American photographers, models and the media -- who are used to showing off our celebrities as stick-thin and blemish-free -- won't go for it. Photoshopping and airbrushing, many believe, are now an inherent part of the beauty industry, as are makeup, lighting and styling. They believe photography is a creative art, a freedom not to be denied for any reason, regardless of its psychological or physical impact. Ultimately, it is hard to know where to draw the line between what requires regulation and what is part of the artistic process.
Yet we cannot waste any more time arguing about the pros or cons of the AMA's current decision to raise awareness about the health risks of Photoshop. Rather, we need to support the intervention and move it further along. Sure there are debatable issues: Is there enough research to support AMA's concern? Is questioning Photoshop extreme enough? Does it encroach on artistic freedom? Does it deflect from the larger issues -- the objectification of women, dehumanization of beauty?
But what is clear is the imperative to relieve our youth of the rampant pressures they feel when it comes to their bodies. We need to question the unrealistic goals set not only by the distorted images in magazines but by those promoted through celebrity makeovers, reality shows and parents who undergo radical transformations through plastic surgery. I see nothing negative in having medical and psychological experts join with the beauty and advertising industries in an effort to more positively influence young boys and girls. In fact, I applaud them.
Tell us how you view the impact of Photoshop on our culture? Do you believe that restricting image manipulation in advertising is a positive course correction or an encroachment on artistic freedom?
For more information, please visit my websites at www.FaceItTheBook.com and www.VivianDiller.com. Friend me on Facebook (at http://www.facebook.com/Readfaceit) or continue the conversation on Twitter.
Follow Vivian Diller, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrVDiller
Susan Liddy, M.A., PCC, CPCC: Obesity, Eating Disorders and Disordered Eating: Crisis in America
Negative Body Image? Blame Photoshop - On Women (usnews.com)
Body Image and Self Esteem - Body Image and the media
Photoshop Disasters: Technology Used to Uphold Dangerous Beauty ...
I spent about 20 years trying to attain a body and skin and hair like the models until I learned about hair extensions, fake eyelashes, lighting, photo shop. I've been photographed and thought I wasn't photogenic as many people think they are not because who looks good in a simple polaroid? Nobody.
This is a subject mothers of daughters should be aware of.
Thank you!
Su
Forget Photoshop and image manipulation, which are petty influences compared to the constant barrage of marketing messages promoting body dissatisfaction from the AMA's own entrepreurnial membership and related organizations.
How about a set of strict ethical guidelines for plastic surgeons, cosmetic surgeons, and all their professional-sounding "societies" that are really just disguised lobbies? America's body image is under attack not by photographers but rather the professional beauty industry.
for my part, i am a greater fan of decorating mags, vf articles, and in ie vogue i look at the clothes and photography as an art form.
but i consider this issue on a larger scale from my neck o' the woods: happened to be at a museum w my daughter yesterday. we were in a gorgeous, fashion-oriented interactive display. i looked around me, and the dichotomy hit me square btw the eyes: here we were in an environment that paid homage to over-skinny dolls, to fashion and to the little girl in all of us. a feast for the eyes. but, about 90% of the women in attendance, mostly moms, some grandmothers, were obese. not merely overweight, not curvaceous; obese. young and old - huge. truly, nearly all of them. i will not comment on their garb as that would make me sound cruel.
it's a shock every time i am out and witness this in my societal landscape. so now, in this context, i am wondering if the disconnect btw the idealized american version of perfected superficial beauty as discussed here is even remotely of the world in which these women exist? considering your article, i question if the chasm of perception from published female archetypes to these women is so great, that it is totally irrelevant to most of the "ordinary" world. surely there is a regionality to this issue.
The problem is the content of the magazines we read and the adverts we are surrounded by. I have seen magazines obsessing with peoples weight and fashion. Then adverts on the next page trying to sell you something to help you lose weight or look more attractive. How can people growing up in this environment not become obsessed with self image and even develop eating disorders?
Our efforts should be on removing the magazines and adverts that focus on these shallow motives, in order to profit from our unhealthy obsession with the way we look. An obsession most probably encouraged by commercialism in the first place. Photoshop is just an easy scapegoat.
Besides aren't you sick of duck lips?
Our culture was being changed before Photoshop with the availability of plastic surgery starting in the 1980s, and that can't be blamed on Photoshop which didn't really take a hold in advertising until the early to mid 90s. Also, fashion advertising uses the models as "clothes hangers" and in some cases the retouching is to make the clothes look good with no real interest in exactly how the model looks. In other cases the retouchers have no training in anatomy, so when they "fix" models they don't really know how to make them look right, which is once again an issue of education.
Almost every image you see in magazines is retouched to some degree, so we need to be having a dialogue with our children so they don't want to look like "circus freaks". When I teach photography and Photoshop to high school age students, we deconstruct images, looking for signs of retouchingso that they question the validity of any image they look at and won't use it as a standard to which they'll hold themselves.
PS: Duck lips are a sign of collagen injections, not retouching just FYI.
We have the ability to do all sorts of bad things, and what are we supposed to do, nothing? Exactly.
I don't believe Photoshop has to be an all or nothing thing -- it's like saying a glass of wine (rather than alcohol abuse) is bad for your health, right?
It's not these photographic processes that are at issue, but how they contribute to confusing reality with fantasy for young people. Glad you got the point. Thanks for your comment!
Even if there was a law put into effect tomorrow, the internet and all the advertising and retouching done in the last 170 or so years that photography has existed is still out there, are we going to start regulating those images too?
And no, we all don't know a manipulated photo. And will bet that there are lots that you haven't spotted.
Unfortunately, children don't. A recent study showed that children under 10 cannot distinguished a manipulated photo from a real one. That is where this trend has become dangerous. Young boys would (and may still) become susceptible over time....if they read as many magazine as young girls did.
BTW, its so much fun having the author respond to comments! I have fanned you and look forward to reading more.
Better to ask why, and rebel against definition of the self by others. But that kind of personal strength is something that the educational system does its best to destroy, even as it substitutes false self esteem force-fed. And once your mind is trained to accept the word of others and fear being "wrong", wave after wave of marketing (which is the entire content of many many mags) will fill the empty spaces.
I waste roughly zero seconds per day worrying about my body and its image. You can't blame any software for that.
Let me set you up with a group of adolescent girls and you can "convince" them to think just like you, OK?