Distorted Beauty

click on the link for details: http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/retouch/retouch/

Manipulation of photographs is certainly not something new. Actually, it is interrelated with the medium of photography since its advent. There are many examples to certify this fact throughout history and in almost all cultural spheres where photography is being used, from fashion, paparazzi, advertising, photojournalism, documentary, and political campaigns; Stalin erased those he  considered as his opponents, Musolini airbrushed his horse handler, National Geographic moved the pyramid of Giza, Time Magazine darkened the skin of OJ Simpson, Paris Match removed Sarkozy's body fat while he was canoeing, Microsoft replaced the black man in their Polish campaign...the list is endless...

It seems that we have reached the point where photography is neither a window nor a mirror of our societies. Photography at large (yes, there are exceptions of course) is used to create a parallel universe of the real. It enforces a beautification not towards a perfect world, but rather an unreal dimension. Digital manipulation has certainly undermined photography's indexicality and as Fred Ritchin put it: '...much of the photographic process will occur after the shutter is released. The photograph becomes the initial research, an image draft, as vulnerable to modification as it has always been to recontextualisation' (Ritchin, 2009: p.34).

The picture above is 14 year old Lynn. She was used as part of a 2005 campaign in Sweden (the initiative was taken by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs) to raise awareness about how magazines tend to create a socially constructed beautification. The campaign shows Lynn in twelve 'before' and 'after', gradual stages, where in each one something looking or being 'imperfect' has been altered to look not only 'faultless', but also seductive. But are women with big round breasts, fuller lips, diamond blue eyes and chalk white teeth more desirable? The answer goes beyond a quick 'yes' or 'no' and has rather to do with an ideological, psychological and physical oppression mediated by the be-holders of an unreal female Image which eventually has liquified itself and has become the social Real.

The ongoing effort of the fashion industry (photographers, designers, stylists, beauty product companies) to construct, homogenise and globalise photoshoped beauty (see relative debates about Asian and African discourses on looking 'European') apart from being repulsive, at the same time is sexist, racist and socially dangerous. Recently, my flatmate's sister went for an interview at an airline company that was recruiting air hostesses. She was not taken for the job, not because of any lack of qualifications, but rather because she 'should first lose weight on her behind' as the lady-employer told her. This example portrays the qualities, ethics and values that we hold in our modern societies; the employees capitalist evaluation of a candidate has not only to do with labour per se, but it will include a surplus product, which is the candidates image, something which will also be visually consumed by the customers.

Moreover and to conclude, it is worth mentioning that there are many websites offering digital retouching services, such as http://www.nyphotographics.com/retouching/index2.htm and http://www.professionalretouch.com/.  The later, states on its homepage that you can 'specify the changes you want' 'Change the background, improve lighting, remove skin imperfections and blemishes, whiten teeth, make eyes shine, and repair of damaged images. Or - just make me pretty!' In any case it seems that from Kodak's slogan 'You press the button, we do the rest' (i.e we  process and develop your film) we have shifted to a 'You press the button, we make you pretty'. But what does 'pretty' mean anyway? The comments are yours...