"Society promotes unrealistic standards of beauty." (using photoshop, of corse)

[JustJazzie]

Last night, this article came across my screen. Ill link, but don't bother looking at it.

The headline is "Society promotes unrealistic standards of beauty. These 'before and after' images of photoshopped celebs are proof of this."

Read More: 30+ Before & After Images Of Celebs Reveal Society’s Unrealistic Standards Of Beauty

I've noticed many people chiming in and blaming photoshop for our modern view of beauty and what it should be. And know that many are against "too much" photo shop- or even "photo shop" at all.

But it did leave me wondering- before photography the main artistic mediums were what? Painting and drawing, unless I am mistaken. (I admit my art history knowledge is limited)

Do you think people were upset back then that the (non specific) queen was painted without (m/any) wrinkles?
Do we really believe that The Mona Lisa (whoever she was) had perfectly porcelain skin?
How many antique nude paintings included celluite to its full degree ?
Do we really believe that whatever imperfections were included or excluded in the final piece were not at the artists discretion?

Obviously, the medium has changed. And our idea of beauty has evolved. How far do you think they took these modifications in classic art? Do you feel it should have any bearing on how we view ethics in our artistic leeway?

Editing to add an example:
http://www.marileecody.com/gloriana/elizabethrainbow1.jpg

This links to a painting of Queen Elizabeth I of England.
The portrait, according to my research was taken when she was in her late 60's. Yet she is portrayed youthful, and "iconic."

In this one, she is about 42. Yes there is change between the two, but the change doesn't appear to be "aging" in a physical sense.
Queen Elizabeth I - National Portrait Gallery

I guess what I am really wondering is "why are photographic artists being held to a "higher moral standard" so to speak, when compared to artists of other mediums?"

 

[Desert Rose]

Society also has unreal ideals of intelligence, athleticism, wealth and most other attributes. I suppose it is our way of trying to always achieve more and better for ourselves. Not necessarily a bad thing.

I am always amazed when someone says they think I am pretty because I just see the awkward girl I always have in the mirror.
You never really know what someone else will think is attractive do you?

Women in the 18th century wore such thick makeup that if they dared smile too much it would literally crack and chip off, that's where the phrase 'crack a smile' came from.

Today I only wear makeup very rarely for some social functions like the Christmas eve family get together, but not otherwise.

I think we are more accepting of peoples natural looks today than ever before, honestly.

 

[Derrel]

Photoshop use in portraiture, fashion, and beauty work, as well as in editorial and advertising photography, has become INSANE in its intensity,m pervasiveness, and its ridiculousness. I see soooooo much skin smoothing and tooth whitening and eyeball perfecting, it's just become ridiculous to me. Wonme nin their 60's and 70's with almost no visible skin wrinkles? No dimples? No under-eye bagginess, perfect looking skin, devoid of moles, age spots,skin tags,wrinkles, puffiness,etc?

Dolly Parton is in her eighties now. Cher is 70 yars old. Here is what Chere might/ could/probably should look like link to Old-Cher-29321.jpg ). But how does she look with all of her plastic surgeries and all the airbrush/skin perfecting/photoshop work done on every one of her publicly-released images?

Cosmetic surgery is on a steep rise, as baby boomers struggle to hold on to their youth.

 

[Desert Rose]

My mother wore makeup every day of her life, I wear it maybe 4 times a year tops, and people say we are more obsessed with looks? I see the opposite trend.

I think some photographers are obsessed with a perfect image more than the models are. In the context of art, I definitely think editing has a place whether it's PS, PSP, Affinity, GIMP or any other software, but in documentary photography it is useless.

Did PJ use too much editing and effects on the elves as they wandered through the forest in his rendition of Fellowship? Maybe. Could he have used less? Yes. Did it add to the dreamlike portrayal of them? Definitely. I think it is a good thing in the right places like art, fantasy (which includes fashion and some portraiture) and a bad thing in anything claiming to be documentarian (including the other portraiture, science, forensics, reconnoitering, insurance documents, etc).

 

[JustJazzie]

Photoshop use in portraiture, fashion, and beauty work, as well as in editorial and advertising photography, has become INSANE in its intensity,m pervasiveness, and its ridiculousness. I see soooooo much skin smoothing and tooth whitening and eyeball perfecting, it's just become ridiculous to me. Wonme nin their 60's and 70's with almost no visible skin wrinkles? No dimples? No under-eye bagginess, perfect looking skin, devoid of moles, age spots,skin tags,wrinkles, puffiness,etc?

Dolly Parton is in her eighties now. Cher is 70 yars old. Here is what Chere might/ could/probably should look like link to Old-Cher-29321.jpg ). But how does she look with all of her plastic surgeries and all the airbrush/skin perfecting/photoshop work done on every one of her publicly-released images?

Cosmetic surgery is on a steep rise, as baby boomers struggle to hold on to their youth.

See the above example I added. Obviously, there was quite a bit of artistic "skin smoothing" and "eyeball whitening" done compared to what would have been a realistic representation of a late 60 year old women.

My mother wore makeup every day of her life, I wear it maybe 4 times a year tops, and people say we are more obsessed with looks? I see the opposite trend.

I think some photographers are obsessed with a perfect image more than the models are. In the context of art, I definitely think editing has a place whether it's PS, PSP, Affinity, GIMP or any other software, but in documentary photography it is useless.

Did PJ use too much editing and effects on the elves as they wandered through the forest in his rendition of Fellowship? Maybe. Could he have used less? Yes. Did it add to the dreamlike portrayal of them? Definitely. I think it is a good thing in the right places like art, fantasy (which includes fashion and some portraiture) and a bad thing in anything claiming to be documentarian (including the other portraiture, science, forensics, reconnoitering, insurance documents, etc).

Interesting perspective! I am with you on the make up. I wear it for weddings, funerals, and portraits! Beyond that, maybe 2-3 bonus times a year when I get a whim!

I get where photographers are coming from as artists. But I guess what I am wondering is- why are photographic artists being held to a "higher moral standard" so to speak, when compared to artists of other mediums?

 

[smoke665]

I'm beginning to believe the brain has a sadistic side hereto before never discovered by science. How else can you explain the fact that it seems to be totally clueless to the fact that the body is exhausted, the feet, hurt, the back hurts and we actually look like our grandparents. Could this maybe the same little devil who in my youth whispered in my ear to tell my buddies - "here hold my beer and watch this"?

That evil side of the brain has locked on the most flattering image of how we looked at one time, so nothing else is ever going to measure up. Any photographer knows that to give a client any less than what "the customer" wants is to end up homeless and hungry. Personally, from a creative standpoint, I think wrinkles are the road maps to the person inside - their life, their struggles. Then again my subjects aren't paying me, so I can do what I want.

 

[smoke665]

Dolly Parton is in her eighties now.

Just so happens, I saw her cousin yesterday, up close (standing behind her in a checkout). Scary close resemblance. Hair, height, etc. just none of the cosmetic surgery of her more famous relation. Bless her heart she would have been a good candidate for a plastic surgeon's before and after photos.

 

[The_Traveler]

I am always amazed when someone says they think I am pretty because I just see the awkward girl I always have in the mirror.

Well, post a picture of yourself.
Don't hide.

 

[The_Traveler]

TBH, I would be happy to look like the George Clooney before picture.

 

[JustJazzie]

TBH, I would be happy to look like the George Clooney before picture.

I must have exited the slideshow before I got that far in! I didn't catch his before and after.

 

[Derrel]

But I guess what I am wondering is- why are photographic artists being held to a "higher moral standard" so to speak, when compared to artists of other mediums?

PHOTOGRAPHY has for many years been considered to have a basis in reality, in actuality, in the real,actual world that was in front of the lens for a split-second in time. For the first 150 or so years of its existence, photography was considered to be, for the most part, "reality", or "truth". An actual, real, based-on-a-physical-reality type of thing. Photographs were accepted as evidence in hundreds of thousands of court cases. Crime scenes documented by photographers, using cameras. The photographs they made were accepted as 'evidence' in courts of law. The same thing was never,ever,ever done with paintings, or sculptures, or busts; those types of artistic forms were not made "instantly", but often times over days, weeks, or even months of work. Artists working in other mediums never really were working within the consturct of an INSTANT in time, or of an actual REALITY, captured and then presented to the viewers; paintings and sculptures were always,always,always constructed within a frameworkl that today we would describe to be "idealized yet falsified (impression of) reality".

Photography and painting have always been two, disparate things. Portraits of royalty were made for posterity, and to represent mythical personalities to the underclasses. Four- and five-hundred year old portraits of kings and queens were originally meant to elevate and to differentiate the royals from the dirty commoners. Retouching and skin smoothing one's weekend snapshots at the beach is a far cry from a professionally done queen's oil painting that was six feet tall and four feet wide and which cost what would be the modern equivalent of $20,000 or more. I think these are a few of the reasons that photography and now-historic paintings are very different things.

 

[JustJazzie]

But I guess what I am wondering is- why are photographic artists being held to a "higher moral standard" so to speak, when compared to artists of other mediums?

PHOTOGRAPHY has for many years been considered to have a basis in reality, in actuality, in the real,actual world that was in front of the lens for a split-second in time. For the first 150 or so years of its existence, photography was considered to be, for the most part, "reality", or "truth". An actual, real, based-on-a-physical-reality type of thing. Photographs were accepted as evidence in hundreds of thousands of court cases. Crime scenes documented by photographers, using cameras. The photographs they made were accepted as 'evidence' in courts of law. The same thing was never,ever,ever done with paintings, or sculptures, or busts; those types of artistic forms were not made "instantly", but often times over days, weeks, or even months of work. Artists working in other mediums never really were working within the consturct of an INSTANT in time, or of an actual REALITY, captured and then presented to the viewers; paintings and sculptures were always,always,always constructed within a frameworkl that today we would descreibe to be "idealized yet falsified (impression of) reality".

Photography and painting have always been two, disparate things. Portraits of royalty were made for posterity, and to represent mythical pesonalities to the underclasses.Four- and five-hundred year old porteais of kings and queens were meant to elevate and to differentiate the royals from the dirty commoners. Retouching and skin smoothing one's weekend snapshots at the beach is a far cry from a professionally done queen's oil painting that was six feet tall and four feet wide and which cost what would be the modern equivalent of $20,000 or more.I think these are a few of the reasons that photography and now-historic paintings are very different things.

You make valid points here! But in this case, we've used "modern royalty" (IE celebrities) as an example. "Royalty" who have had their "portraits made" vs "snapshot at the beach" taken.

Has technology made it EASIER to make an artistic representation of a portrait? Sure! But the idea that any portrait should have to be realistic, I feel is ludicrous. The idea that its photo shops FAULT our idea of beauty is unrealistic, is also.

Corsets? Japanese feet binding? 18th century wigs?

I just don't understand how we can blame the idea of what we perceive as beautiful on a program, or on a specific artistic medium. When clearly, it is completely and simply, a means to an end that would be met one way or another.

 

[JustJazzie]

What if we put our memory of the beach example into another form? Into writing. We all KNOW that with every wave that crashes up, you get a swim-suit full of sand! Is it wrong to artistically edit that bit about the sand in my swimsuit, when "painting" my journal entry? What if all I want to remember is the warm sun against my skin, and the waves crashing upon the beach?

 

[Derrel]

The idea that a woman of 35, or 40, or 45 years of age must look like a woman of 22 years of age in order to be considered beautiful is patently FALSE.

And yet, the idea many hacks are pushing these days is this: That every woman of 35, or 40, or 45 years of age must be Photoshopped to look like she is a much younger person, in order to be considered beautiful. I call bullsH!+ on that way of (not) thinking.

All apples must be turned into seedlings, for only the seedling is beautiful.

 

[tirediron]

...I just don't understand how we can blame the idea of what we perceive as beautiful on a program, or on a specific artistic medium. When clearly, it is completely and simply, a means to an end that would be met one way or another.

Because it's easy. You don't have to know anything about photography, advertising, marketing or the fashion/beauty industry. You just have to know the name of one tool and say its name with authority when blaming an entire industry for a current fashion trend. This is the same as blaming Leonardo's pallet knife for the quality of the Mona Lisa's skin. True, it may be the tool that caused the rendering, but it didn't do it autonomously.