5 ms·

The implication of this article is that agencies would be obligated to use what the article calls "more obtainable" bodies. Is this actually the case? I think i

The implication of this article is that agencies would be obligated to use what the article calls "more obtainable" bodies. Is this actually the case? I think it's vastly more likely that this will do little more than sharply increase the demand for people that actually have the bodies that other individuals were being photoshopped to have. It'd be like if a country banned all voice processing software when singing (which has become ubiquitous today). It's not like studios would simply begin accepting people with less than ideal singing voices. Instead they would actually have to seek out talent that can sing without having their voice filtered through digital signal processing software. And in the end, I think this would (and will) be a good thing. Authenticity should be encouraged and incentivized.

coldtea 9y ago
>The implication of this article is that agencies would be obligated to use what the article calls "more obtainable" bodies. Is this actually the case? I think it's vastly more likely that this will do little more than sharply increase the demand for people that actually have the bodies that other individuals were being photoshopped to have. You could always insist that the distribution of bodies shown in a magazine follows the distribution of weights/heights in the general population (with some margin of error). And heavily fine them out of business when it does not. Problem solved. (The voice processing ban example doesn't capture the problem with body photos, because people don't go out of their way to sound like their favorite singers -- auto-tuned or not--, nor does it have many adverse psychological or health effects to have singers voices be unattainable to most people. Whereas body image from ad/fashion/etc models influences the self-perception of billions of people, and leads a multiple-100s billion dollars industry).
- paulddraper 9y ago
  "Problem solved." I don't think you've predicted this correctly. Does the prominence matter? Size? Adjacent material?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Does the prominence matter? Size? Adjacent material? No, no and no.
    - paulddraper 9y ago
      Okay. The last page of each issue with be the names and headshots of the 100 top staff at the magazine. "Problem solved."
      - coldtea 9y ago
        "Nice try of subverting the spirit of the law -- here's your 100K fine" -- see how easy it is? (Also I'm not sure how pics of the "top 100" staff of the magazine will fix an already skewed distribution in the models shown. Assuming the top 100 staff follow the regular population distribution, the skew will still be there after adding them).
        paulddraper 9y ago
        (1) The point is to dilute the distribution to within the tolerance that the law establishes. (2) Most senior staff will be, well senior, and will counterbalance the tendency toward youth and fitness.
- jogjayr 9y ago
  > You could always insist that the distribution of bodies shown in a magazine follows the distribution of weights/heights in the general population (with some margin of error). And heavily fine them out of business when it does not. Problem solved. That sounds like an infringement on the freedom of speech, in countries where it applies. It also seems ridiculously difficult to judge and enforce. The government would need to do periodic surveys of height/weight in the country (or get the data from doctors), prove data is correct, set up an office that reads magazines all day, tries to judge the heights and weights of the people in the pictures by looking at them...the more I think about it the worse it sounds. EDIT: Or mandate that every magazine files the height/weight details of every person pictured in every issue with the government. It's like the premise of some dystopian black comedy or satire. EDIT 2: No seriously that would be quite funny. "Sorry Bill we can't do that feature on the Indian women's volleyball team, we got Shaq on the cover this month. We're over our height budget"
  - briholt 9y ago
    But is it really fair that surgeons or NFL players don't match societal distributions for their respective traits? Think about how this makes all of the low-dexterity, low-coordination little boys and girls feel. For the sake of feelings, I demand mandatory mediocrity for every profession. Anyone trying to be exceptional should be hampered accordingly.
    - zdkl 9y ago
      You're comparing advertisement to skill based jobs...
      - briholt 9y ago
        TIL being a 6'5" athletic model is not a skill, being a 6'5" athlete is a skill.
        zdkl 9y ago
        Athlete, yes. 6'5, no. Come on man, do you hear what you're saying?
- notyourday 9y ago
  > You could always insist that the distribution of bodies shown in a magazine follows the distribution of weights/heights in the general population (with some margin of error). And heavily fine them out of business when it does not. Problem solved. That magazine will go out of business. No one remembers how much of a flop Dove's products endured when it tried to advertise them with real bodies?
  - tln 9y ago
    Huh, I thought that Dove campaign was effective... seems like it was: http://adage.com/article/news/ten-years-dove-s-real-beauty-aging/291216/ http://adage.com/article/news/ten-years-dove-s-real-beauty-a...
    - notyourday 9y ago
      They significant changed it.
hegojuko 9y ago
Who decides authenticity, some government official? Humans mold their environment and themselves, does tool use somehow destroy authenticity? Authenticity is a nebulous and largely subjective concept, and trying to guide any public policy towards such a concept is foolish.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The implication of this article is that agencies would be obligated to use what the article calls "more obtainable" bodies. Is this actually the case? Obligated overstates the case, but certainly economically encouraged to compared to the status quo ante, as the benefit (where manipulation is required) is lower and/or cost (of finding models and constructing shoots where it is not required) for not using obtainable body images.
wruza 9y ago
>It'd be like if a country banned all voice processing software when singing (which has become ubiquitous today). I actually don't get it and don't give and fcuk if voice was tuned or real. I like [subjectively] good music, and find bans on some techniques of sound production as weirdo club decisions. Let's ban electric guitars, synthesizers and much more just because one can't play the same tunes on a violin. Of course there are contests where bare voice is evaluated, but these are not the only way to sing a song or make the music. If people don't like tuning anyway, then why ban? If they do, then what the hell?
- rifung 9y ago
  I don't think there was any implication that the example is what should be done but rather it was just meant for illustrative purposes.
sliverstorm 9y ago
Bogdanovich retells the story in his spot on Cary Grant impression, explaining that when they approached the ticket taker Grant said, "I'm terribly sorry, I forgot my ticket. May I get in please?" As the ticket taker was looking for his name, Grant says, "It's Cary Grant." "You don't look like Cary Grant," said the ticket taker. And Bogdanovich remembers that Grant, "as quick as wink" said, "I know, nobody does." Nobody meets the bar, it's been raised so high.
freyir 9y ago
> Is this actually the case? I think it's vastly more likely that this will do little more than sharply increase the demand for people that actually have the bodies that other individuals were being photoshopped to have. It's true, companies could no longer photograph some schlub and transform him into an adonis with power of photoshop. But then again, nobody actually attains the a Platonic ideal of flawless skin and impossible proportions that we see in today's ads. The closest we get have are a handful of elite supermodels, and even they get photoshopped. At the end of the day, advertisement models will look more like people.
a3_nm 9y ago
I do not think that agencies will stop retouching photos. I suspect that they will just indicate "Photographie retouchée" on each picture and that's it. Indeed, while the article talks about a "cigarette-packet style warning", I don't think there is any requirement for the warning to be especially prominent. Here is the relevant decree (in French): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=15021BB425BFE0E2BEFE43A7D44BC750.tpdila09v_1?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000034580217&dateTexte=&oldAction=rechJO&categorieLien=id&idJO=JORFCONT000034579357 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=150.... The relevant part is Art. R. 2133-5. It just says that the warning should be "easily readable". I think in practice it will just end up as part of the small print that you already find on many ads.
viraptor 9y ago
> I think it's vastly more likely that this will do little more than sharply increase the demand for people that actually have the bodies that other individuals were being photoshopped to have. And that's good. There's only a limited number of them. Either they'll get paid so high only few will afford them, or they'll just run out of time to do the photo shots for everyone. Then the studios will have to use "less ideal" people. That's encouragement and incentives.

coldtea 9y ago

>The implication of this article is that agencies would be obligated to use what the article calls "more obtainable" bodies. Is this actually the case? I think it's vastly more likely that this will do little more than sharply increase the demand for people that actually have the bodies that other individuals were being photoshopped to have. You could always insist that the distribution of bodies shown in a magazine follows the distribution of weights/heights in the general population (with some margin of error). And heavily fine them out of business when it does not. Problem solved. (The voice processing ban example doesn't capture the problem with body photos, because people don't go out of their way to sound like their favorite singers -- auto-tuned or not--, nor does it have many adverse psychological or health effects to have singers voices be unattainable to most people. Whereas body image from ad/fashion/etc models influences the self-perception of billions of people, and leads a multiple-100s billion dollars industry).

paulddraper 9y ago
"Problem solved." I don't think you've predicted this correctly. Does the prominence matter? Size? Adjacent material?
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Does the prominence matter? Size? Adjacent material? No, no and no.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    Okay. The last page of each issue with be the names and headshots of the 100 top staff at the magazine. "Problem solved."
    - coldtea 9y ago
      "Nice try of subverting the spirit of the law -- here's your 100K fine" -- see how easy it is? (Also I'm not sure how pics of the "top 100" staff of the magazine will fix an already skewed distribution in the models shown. Assuming the top 100 staff follow the regular population distribution, the skew will still be there after adding them).
      - paulddraper 9y ago
        (1) The point is to dilute the distribution to within the tolerance that the law establishes. (2) Most senior staff will be, well senior, and will counterbalance the tendency toward youth and fitness.
jogjayr 9y ago
> You could always insist that the distribution of bodies shown in a magazine follows the distribution of weights/heights in the general population (with some margin of error). And heavily fine them out of business when it does not. Problem solved. That sounds like an infringement on the freedom of speech, in countries where it applies. It also seems ridiculously difficult to judge and enforce. The government would need to do periodic surveys of height/weight in the country (or get the data from doctors), prove data is correct, set up an office that reads magazines all day, tries to judge the heights and weights of the people in the pictures by looking at them...the more I think about it the worse it sounds. EDIT: Or mandate that every magazine files the height/weight details of every person pictured in every issue with the government. It's like the premise of some dystopian black comedy or satire. EDIT 2: No seriously that would be quite funny. "Sorry Bill we can't do that feature on the Indian women's volleyball team, we got Shaq on the cover this month. We're over our height budget"
- briholt 9y ago
  But is it really fair that surgeons or NFL players don't match societal distributions for their respective traits? Think about how this makes all of the low-dexterity, low-coordination little boys and girls feel. For the sake of feelings, I demand mandatory mediocrity for every profession. Anyone trying to be exceptional should be hampered accordingly.
  - zdkl 9y ago
    You're comparing advertisement to skill based jobs...
    - briholt 9y ago
      TIL being a 6'5" athletic model is not a skill, being a 6'5" athlete is a skill.
      - zdkl 9y ago
        Athlete, yes. 6'5, no. Come on man, do you hear what you're saying?
notyourday 9y ago
> You could always insist that the distribution of bodies shown in a magazine follows the distribution of weights/heights in the general population (with some margin of error). And heavily fine them out of business when it does not. Problem solved. That magazine will go out of business. No one remembers how much of a flop Dove's products endured when it tried to advertise them with real bodies?
- tln 9y ago
  Huh, I thought that Dove campaign was effective... seems like it was: http://adage.com/article/news/ten-years-dove-s-real-beauty-aging/291216/ http://adage.com/article/news/ten-years-dove-s-real-beauty-a...
  - notyourday 9y ago
    They significant changed it.

hegojuko 9y ago

Who decides authenticity, some government official? Humans mold their environment and themselves, does tool use somehow destroy authenticity? Authenticity is a nebulous and largely subjective concept, and trying to guide any public policy towards such a concept is foolish.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The implication of this article is that agencies would be obligated to use what the article calls "more obtainable" bodies. Is this actually the case? Obligated overstates the case, but certainly economically encouraged to compared to the status quo ante, as the benefit (where manipulation is required) is lower and/or cost (of finding models and constructing shoots where it is not required) for not using obtainable body images.

wruza 9y ago

>It'd be like if a country banned all voice processing software when singing (which has become ubiquitous today). I actually don't get it and don't give and fcuk if voice was tuned or real. I like [subjectively] good music, and find bans on some techniques of sound production as weirdo club decisions. Let's ban electric guitars, synthesizers and much more just because one can't play the same tunes on a violin. Of course there are contests where bare voice is evaluated, but these are not the only way to sing a song or make the music. If people don't like tuning anyway, then why ban? If they do, then what the hell?

rifung 9y ago
I don't think there was any implication that the example is what should be done but rather it was just meant for illustrative purposes.

sliverstorm 9y ago

Bogdanovich retells the story in his spot on Cary Grant impression, explaining that when they approached the ticket taker Grant said, "I'm terribly sorry, I forgot my ticket. May I get in please?" As the ticket taker was looking for his name, Grant says, "It's Cary Grant." "You don't look like Cary Grant," said the ticket taker. And Bogdanovich remembers that Grant, "as quick as wink" said, "I know, nobody does." Nobody meets the bar, it's been raised so high.

freyir 9y ago

> Is this actually the case? I think it's vastly more likely that this will do little more than sharply increase the demand for people that actually have the bodies that other individuals were being photoshopped to have. It's true, companies could no longer photograph some schlub and transform him into an adonis with power of photoshop. But then again, nobody actually attains the a Platonic ideal of flawless skin and impossible proportions that we see in today's ads. The closest we get have are a handful of elite supermodels, and even they get photoshopped. At the end of the day, advertisement models will look more like people.

a3_nm 9y ago

I do not think that agencies will stop retouching photos. I suspect that they will just indicate "Photographie retouchée" on each picture and that's it. Indeed, while the article talks about a "cigarette-packet style warning", I don't think there is any requirement for the warning to be especially prominent. Here is the relevant decree (in French): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=15021BB425BFE0E2BEFE43A7D44BC750.tpdila09v_1?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000034580217&dateTexte=&oldAction=rechJO&categorieLien=id&idJO=JORFCONT000034579357 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=150.... The relevant part is Art. R. 2133-5. It just says that the warning should be "easily readable". I think in practice it will just end up as part of the small print that you already find on many ads.

viraptor 9y ago

> I think it's vastly more likely that this will do little more than sharply increase the demand for people that actually have the bodies that other individuals were being photoshopped to have. And that's good. There's only a limited number of them. Either they'll get paid so high only few will afford them, or they'll just run out of time to do the photo shots for everyone. Then the studios will have to use "less ideal" people. That's encouragement and incentives.