Reading ads, again

[daphnep]

lxbean made a point in my last "Visual Literacy" post, in a comment she said "maybe we're getting to a point where we can be liberated from the tyranny of these photos as ideal. ...Maybe if we got there, we could just say "ooh, pretty [if unrealistic] picture!" Kind of like we might say about a picture of a unicorn: pretty -- not real, but pretty."

She was referencing another blog entry (over here: http://twobodysolution.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/the-emaciation-proclamation/#more-370)...and I think she and Professor Bean are both right. In fact, it's exactly how I read fashion magazines: as cool illustrations, having little to do with my life or the reality I live in. It's also why I advocate blogs like "Photoshop Disasters" and why I think everyone should know the boundaries of what photo editing software can do--so that everybody can appreciate the pretty unicorns, and stop looking around for horned ponies, or even wasting their time saving up hard-earned money for one of their own.

To me, most photos I see in fashion mags look rather like the old Steve Madden ads:



Remember those? They're creepy, because you know they're stretched and distorted but they're still humanoid, and even cute. But you'd never, ever say "Oh, I think I'll diet until my legs look like that!" Would you? It'd be preposterous.

But these ads are different from others only because Madden's ad company was cheeky in the extreme. They didn't use any special tools or techniques, just the same ones we've been looking at for decades, now. But they stretched it far enough that we didn't have to be visually savvy to see through it.



Here's another good Steve Madden ad:

They're like Bratz dolls, made out of humans. They're also distinctly related to that stick insect that Ralph Lauren tried to pass off as a photograph of an actual model.

So Steve Madden stretched out people and made them freaky, and so does everyone else.
But once you've looked at a couple of those, doesn't it change the way you see something like this?

I mean, it started with some actual photos of actual girls. The photos got "cleaned up", and then stretched, and then dropped onto a silly blue background and green grass...and nobody should think for a second that those girls were photographed frolicking in a field, should they? And we also shouldn't think that their bodies are so stretched and distorted, in the lives the models live off the magazine page. No teenage girl should look at photos like this and see this as something to aspire to. It's just a cartoon.

I saw a movie poster I like, too, recently...here, I'll show you:

I doubt, for this one, that they even started with a photograph at all. I might be wrong, but to me it looks like a videogame animation, like Lara Croft Tomb Raider before they added Angelina Jolie's head. I'd be stunned to discover Sandra Bullock, the living actress, came anywhere near the production of this image. Couldn't these characters be from "The Sims"? It's cool, if you can see them as a digital construction. It's kind of dreadful...and awesome, all at the same time.

Halls cough drops has an ad campaign right now with images posted on my train, and I love them, because they're edited, too, but edited in exactly the opposite direction from the images we've become accustomed to seeing.

They're the work of photographer and illustrator Matt Hoyle, and his work is pretty awesome. See the glassy eyes? The poreless, painted skin? The high-contrast forehead wrinkles, and the sharp lighting in the hair? It's a terrific illustration. It's also not how the portrait subject looks, if she's standing in front of you.

Matt Hoyle's work is awesome, actually, so I think I will detour from my soap-box for one second and link his website, here: http://www.matthoyle.com. Go through his portfolios at your leisure and revel in the digitally edited goodness.

He's a master at them, but the techniques Matt Hoyle uses are the same as any graphics person. Here's a picture from a cheap clothing catalogue, one that hardly has a big budget for extreme work:

The editing is standard. This is the cheap version, the artless form, but it's the same: same poreless painted skin. Same brightly highlighted whites of the eyes, blown-out teeth, and bizarrely contoured hair and arms, with highlights all along and shadows carefully shaped to indicate a three-dimensional form. They probably stretched her neck up, changed the eyes, the lips, the hand, everything. This photo looks all kinds of weird and dysmorphic, but it's the subtle version we've grown accustomed to, by now. (Refer to that "Dove" video if you want to see that stretching and elongating over again, in action.)

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the images. They're morally neutral. There's nothing wrong, even, with using them to sell stuff. Full disclosure, I found that last picture while clothing shopping online. I even bought those pearls, illustrated. (I can never have too many big, cheap faux pearls). But when I saw the photo, I laughed. I guarantee you, that necklace is not going to make me look like a creepy zomboid catalogue lady. The advertised product is not going to change my life, and not going to make me look like that illustration (thank dog!). Nor would it if she was advertising hair products, or a miracle diet, or wrinkle reducer, or lipstick, or anything. What we've got there is simply a good example of digital photo illustration.

It's fascinating, really.
Here, have another Steve Madden if you don't believe me:

Comments

[lawbabeak.livejournal.com]

I find the butts in the movie ad greatly amusing. Sandy's got some serious pants-up-the-rear, and it's rare to see created images that don't de-emphasize the butt-crack-cover on football pants. (I'm sure you've heard me giggling about jock-strap lines - most noticeable with dark-skinned athlete, white undies, and medium pants. Think Steeler's yellow/gold)

[daphnep.livejournal.com]

Oh, NOW I see why some people watch football....it's about the asses. Silly me.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

shadows carefully shaped to indicate a three-dimensional form.

Ha ha, yeah. Because skinny girls are appealing. And because a little definition and muscle tone is appealing too. So now we can have both. Just add some shadows to the stick arms.

[daphnep.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's this weird thing: in the real world, we all have these things called bones. And when we're really skinny, we get to see those bones!

Sims and Second-life and advertising characters never have bones.

[haleyluna.livejournal.com]

CHICKENCHICKENCHICKENOMG

[daphnep.livejournal.com]

On a leash, no less, with a punk collar. I had a whole file of those, and I was like "which to use? Oh, it's before the cut, so it'll be on my lj for a while, so which one do I want to look at for a few days?"

The chicken one, obviously. Glad you approve!

[parasitegirl.livejournal.com]

After seeing all this I had to refresh my brain over at http://www.youngfatandfabulous.com/

Amelia, featured, is the sis of a bellydancer I know...that's how I found it. Seems like she's got a lovely LJ as well.

[daphnep.livejournal.com]

Oh, my--thank you for that link!

[parasitegirl.livejournal.com]

and many good blog links there as well...and temptations I can't wear.

http://www.hipsandcurves.com/plus-size-lingerie/p-255-plus-size-parisian-style-floor-length-skirt-default.aspx

[parasitegirl.livejournal.com]

http://bvikkivintage.blogspot.com/