Glamour vs GlamourOUS

Psychobiker wrote in post #8770974
Precisely, Quad. I too have a friend who owns a studio - I see your point. Not that in his case it's as drastic as that.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that many icons are naturally beautiful and require none/little alteration.
You then take normal-miss-next-door who wants to look like a Glamour (read swimsuit/nude who has been modified copiously in PP. etc) (YMMV) ... but is nowhere near ... cue the depression, plastic surgery...

Because someone said that's hot?

Well for me to decide if someone is naturally beautiful I have to see them freshly scrubbed and naked. I have not seen any of the people held up by the industry as models of beauty in that state so I remain highly doubtful as to how little needed to be done to make they as beautiful as they are portrayed.


As far as music my brother has recorded peoople who have won grammies (one of his albums was nominated for a grammy as well [great going little brother ]) and so I guess these people would be the equivalent of the natural beauties and they use the same production techniques with them. They are not making untalented people talented but a studio album is recorded in such a way as to sound dreadful so that they have an easy base to work from. The equivalent in photography would be to take the best features of a group of people and build our new ideal beauty. This may have already been done, it would not surprise me one bit.


Personally I think the fashion/movie industry does not create such great beauty but it often catches my eye the way a train wreck does and really that is all they need to do to be sucessful is catch they eye.

http://guanabee.com …kardashian-unphotoshopped

Followed by http://4.media.tumblr.​com …r0lxtwvflTRpJGd​o1_500.jpg

Who said that there's something wrong before?!

Singers who don't sound good unless multitracked and gimmicked so that they have to always lip sync 'live' performances.

Actresses and models and entertainers who need their faces and bodies fixed so much in Photoshop, that you'd never recognize them on the street or you'd cringe in revulsion.

What does this all say about the values of today's society when we idealize this standard?!

Thankyou Wilt! A voice from the heavens!!!

If your brother, congrats to him, alters stuff in the studio...shame on the artist.
I know of someone who hired in Abbey Road's acoustics consultant to capture the best from scratch. And pretty much refuses to alter.
That is recorded art. Very, very easy to hear when people lack talent.

Psychobiker wrote in post #8770036
Hey,

Was discussing this the other night : Glamour vs GlamourOUS
(NB NOT 'or' vs 'our')

Audrey Hepburn = Glamourous

Katie Price (Jordan) = Glamour.

Now, please - what precisely is the point of Glamour photography in the grand scheme of things? It skirts within microns of pornography, yet is still deemed as largely 'OK' by (barely) covering the necessary, leaving nothing for imagination. And the point of all this glamour/lingerie advertisement? If garments are designed for support, why must they be 'sexy'? Who said that that's what sexy is? I think you'll find it's the media.
Nude art (centuries old) has its place, hell even pornographic material has been around for millenia...but this new half-way-clothed-look-but-don't-touch-I'm-so-cute-omg!! ....what'sa goin' on?

As society views it, there are a plethora of young and influenceable people (male and female) growing up at the moment, bombarded with the media's portrayal of 'beautiful'...and it's not Audrey Hepburn.

My point being that the younger generation will see this as normal and (believe me, I've met many) believe that large-busted & size 6-8 is what they need to aspire to, with perfect (read Photoshop-altered) skin...otherwise they can forget being 'accepted'. This, in reality is all but impossible for 90% of young people to achieve without alteration/self esteem issues.

This is, by no means whatsoever an attack on Glamour as a genre - it has its place...but what happened to 'actual', naturally beautiful icons (Lauren Bacall, Audrey, Marilyn etc etc) - unaltered, un-Photoshop-poked beautiful people?

Your views?

L

And I'm 21! :P

The argument has strayed from the OP. In fact, the point isn't a matter of what technology (ancient or modern) has done to create the standard of beauty, the point is the standard of beauty itself.

There really are women and men in the world who look like the Photoshopped models--just a heck of a lot fewer than Hollywood portrays and they don't stay that way for very long.

The duplicity is that such people are so common that perfection is considered "normal" and slightly less than perfect is considered "subnormal." This is a different mindset from the circumstances of thirty years ago or more, despite the work of photo-retouchers. A girl in the 50s didn't have to look like Marilyn Monroe to consider herself pretty.

My daughter, now 22, has only barely recovered from the problem--regardless of the fact that I've always shown her the truth of Photoshop and photo retouching. That intellectual knowledge could not sway media bombardment and the wholesale acceptance of her peers that perfection is normalcy. They believe this even to the extent of not "seeing" the truth before their own eyes. Young girls today will swear that what they see in magazines typifies even the women in their own schools and cities.

This is what I had to do with my daughter: I had to literally sit her down on a bench in a shopping mall with a sheet of paper and we both tallied each female walking by as "hot or not" before she could realize how distorted her perception of the ubiquity of perfection really was--less than 1000 to 1.

What floored me was that I've seen a boy dash across six lanes of traffic to get my daughter's telephone number. She's attracted the attention of every race, gender, and age group--yet, she barely considers herself acceptibly attractive.

In case there are any who haven't seen this:

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

I tend to find women who are very comfortable with themselves, and it shows in their eyes and demeanor, more attractive than the "Barbie Doll' types. Size and physical appearance play only a small part. Outer beauty is fleeting while inner beauty is forever.

Dave....

dave sparks wrote in post #8772249
I tend to find women who are very comfortable with themselves, and it shows in their eyes and demeanor, more attractive than the "Barbie Doll' types. Size and physical appearance play only a small part. Outer beauty is fleeting while inner beauty is forever.

Dave....

The truly beautiful ones are often head cases. Gimme a reasonable attractive normal and emotionally balanced woman anytime, over the head case!

Wilt wrote in post #8771674
What does this all say about the values of today's society when we idealize this standard?!

nothing. life as we know it is always a matter of striving for perfection, whatever form it may take. some people buy into magazine cover models as a form of aesthetic perfection, some people buy into other forms of socially-decided forms of perfection.

what are we as photographers? why are we always striving to better ourselves and our skills? you say that people should be happy with their bodies and focus on nurturing their inner beauty. i've been told once that i should stop trying to document and capture moments because it was more important to experience life than record it.

there's some truth to everything, but it's really up to who you're talking to and what they value. if someone's passion is to cosmetically change themselves until they reach a level of aesthetic perfection, i think that's their own business. we all have our own vices and virtues, and i don't think it's necessarily something to be considered vile and distasteful until it starts to negatively affect your quality of life.

i've come to terms with the fact that i won't be the pinnacle of photographic talent. is it humbling? yes. realistically, trying to strive to become as good as or to transcend the true masters of the craft is as unattainable as trying to look like a photoshopped model, but i still strive to be the best i can be and it brings me quite a bit of satisfaction along the way. it's not great for my ego, but that isn't the purpose of humankind's inherant drive to improve. if you can embrace yourself for who you are, i don't see a problem with striving for unattainable heights. life's about the journey, not the destination, right?

Psychobiker wrote in post #8771683
Thankyou Wilt! A voice from the heavens!!!

If your brother, congrats to him, alters stuff in the studio...shame on the artist.
I know of someone who hired in Abbey Road's acoustics consultant to capture the best from scratch. And pretty much refuses to alter.
That is recorded art. Very, very easy to hear when people lack talent.

the purpose of the art is to create something pleasing. it isn't to pile accolades on yourself. when an artist is able to create something inspiring or beautiful through artificial means, i don't think it detracts from what the end product is. when i listen to music, i'm not thinking about the artist and how talented they are, i'm thinking about the music itself, the lyrics, the sounds, and how it's all tied in together. when you look at a painting, it should draw you in, engage you, change you. if you're going into art galleries only to appreciate the technical skills of the artist instead of the finished piece for what it is, i think you might miss out on the purpose of expression and art as a whole.

just my two cents.

alt4852 wrote in post #8772661
nothing. life as we know it is always a matter of striving for perfection, whatever form it may take. some people buy into magazine cover models as a form of aesthetic perfection, some people buy into other forms of socially-decided forms of perfection.

what are we as photographers? why are we always striving to better ourselves and our skills? you say that people should be happy with their bodies and focus on nurturing their inner beauty. i've been told once that i should stop trying to document and capture moments because it was more important to experience life than record it..

When the 'ideal' as depicted in the altered media is unachievable by the normal human, that is a false standard to be set, pure and simple.

The average woman has B cups, but breast enhancement is NOT to that standard. (Breast reduction is for health reasons. Augmentation from AA to B might be for self confidence to match the norm.) Bigger than the norm, what's that about...Pole dancing?

What did I read, that the average bachelorette TV contestant was Size 2?! Yeah, find that walking down the street on the average block! is your wife or SO that size? Maybe if she's 15 or 16. Our youngest daughter was caught purging in an attempt to be skinnier than her natural tendency...that's healthy Fortunately we caught her, and now she is a contented and normal body proportioned attractive woman, not unnaturally scarecrow in weight.

Butt lifts, fat transferred from the butt to the lips, faces stretched taut by plastic surgery, botox injections, all unnecessary attempts to achieve the false standard set for us in the media.

Wilt wrote in post #8772712
When the 'ideal' as depicted in the altered media is unachievable by the normal human, that is a false standard to be set, pure and simple.

how about corrective eye surgery or braces/teeth whitening? it is statistically impossible for everyone to have perfect vision, yet it's not frowned upon when someone opts to have the procedure done, even if it's for cosmetic reasons. the same can be said about straight, white teeth.

i think this topic can only be argued right now because the amount of altering has hit some sort of breaking point for many people. self-manipulation to conform to societal ideals of beauty are as old as time. it seems that intrusive operations and digital editing seems like the limit for your acceptance of it all. if not for the modern normalcy of skimpy clothing, is a breast enhancement surgery not the same as a woman padding her bra with tissues or a man using shoulder pads in his business suit?

but that's what i'm trying to say. aside from the person having modifications done, who are we to say that anything is necessary or unnecessary? i don't think it's fair for any of us to project our beliefs onto what other people choose to do with their bodies. if an unnatural breast enlargement makes a woman happy, how is that a bad thing?

Oh boy. I'm glad this came back OT! I'll post more when I have enough battery power (my charger is upstairs and SG:U is on). But I think we have kicked something off. I am really proud that there are people out there admitting that there is a serious, serious problem in society today. I came from the 'other side' - believing everything must be perfect...only in retrospect do I realise what a fallacy it all is, and how many people are being drawn unbeknownst into this spiral of destruction, delusion and eventually, depression.

Psychobiker wrote in post #8772799
people are being drawn unbeknownst into this spiral of destruction, delusion and eventually, depression.

that's an extreme though.. ironically, you're describing something that is not an accurate representation of the general public.

most people don't become destructive, delusional, and depressive. it's as bad as the people who decry that alcohol is the bane of our existence because a portion of our population abuses it and it becomes destructive. as with everything, moderation is key, and i think manipulated images are no exception to that rule.

RDKirk wrote in post #8772005
The duplicity is that such people are so common that perfection is considered "normal" and slightly less than perfect is considered "subnormal." This is a different mindset from the circumstances of thirty years ago or more, despite the work of photo-retouchers. A girl in the 50s didn't have to look like Marilyn Monroe to consider herself pretty.

My daughter, now 22, has only barely recovered from the problem--regardless of the fact that I've always shown her the truth of Photoshop and photo retouching. That intellectual knowledge could not sway media bombardment and the wholesale acceptance of her peers that perfection is normalcy. They believe this even to the extent of not "seeing" the truth before their own eyes. Young girls today will swear that what they see in magazines typifies even the women in their own schools and cities.

This is the epitome of what I was trying to get at.
It is scary, with mass-media, what is typified so as to be 'normal' is so far into the stratosphere of natural beauty (read Kim Kardashian etc etc) - that most girls should just stop bothering. But that's the point - beauty is so unified that as the rats following the Pied-Piper, modern and influenceable young (and some even not so young) people are subjecting themselves to unnatural pressure to 'match up'. Genetic imperfection is the bottom line. If you don't look like XYZ, don't try to. Accept your lot.

But in comes the Photoshop Generation and fills the heads of our generation with belief that you can emulate genetic perfection...all you need to do is eat less, eat even less, vomit some, prostitute yourself, liquify your Bs into a DD, dye your hair blonde, up the saturation on your eyes and gaussian blur your pores. And if you don't...you're not worth the dust on my shoe. Yeah...that's just great.

My mother, who has daily contact with teenagers, reckons it's a matter of time before girls of 6 want to grow up to be 'glamour models'.
It's easy, you make money, you get adored by masses of men...you can see the allure. But I think you'll find the majority have psychological issues stemming from the duality they need to lead daily - "I'm a worthwhile person, yet I strip off and show my intimacies to complete strangers in a seductive manner so men can ____". Right. OK. That's healthy too.

/cynic off.

alt4852 wrote in post #8772843
that's an extreme though.. ironically, you're describing something that is not an accurate representation of the general public.

most people don't become destructive, delusional, and depressive. it's as bad as the people who decry that alcohol is the bane of our existence because a portion of our population abuses it and it becomes destructive. as with everything, moderation is key, and i think manipulated images are no exception to that rule.

Valid point. But - alcohol makes you drunk, something you can perceive physically.
Bombardment, brainwashing and peer pressure are a whole lot more subversive.

Thankfully, I need no shoulder pads