On page 612 of Jeffrey Bardzell’s article, Interaction Criticism: An Introduction to the Practice, he quotes Lev Manovich and theory of transcoding in New Media. Transcoding means “the principle that computer files have both a computer layer and a cultural layer” (612).
When I read this quote (and I believe I read some of Manovich’s work when I was in Christians Briggs’s class, cause I know the theory of transcoding from somewhere), it reminded me of the video posted above from BuzzFeed. Photoshop is used as an example in Jeff’s article, so I will not repeat what he said here. What I want to focus on is the cultural layer of this video.
We often see models on the covers of magazines and automatically think, that is not the way he or she looks in real life, they have been Photoshopped. It is said these magazines and the practice of retouching photos to make people appear perfect has lead to increased instances of body dysmorphic disorder. What makes this video so different is that it shows the reactions of women after they have been put in the model’s situation and have photos of them altered, in order to meet what is called perfect. The reactions show they do no like what they look like, stating it does not look like them — going against everything these magazine covers are trying to show. Maybe the cultural layer of Photoshop should be seen more as making things unreal rather than improving photographs.
Interaction Culture: The Class Blog 
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 13, 2014 at 1:56 am
dgfergus
The first thing that tends to come to my mind whenever I look through fashion magazines and the like is boredom. I don’t really remember that these images have been significantly edited, although I know it. It’s rather like listening to a lot of pop music, it’s formulaic, abstracted out. What I have found though, is that I’m distracted with concern when the model so super skinny — if the camera adds ten pounds and I can still count ribs, I fret about health.
I like the way these beauty standards encourage ill-health in women, though: unforgiving corsets restricting lung function in Victorian Europe, stilettos that do injustices to ankles, spines and wombs, and the aestheticization of ribs that necessitate starvation. I’m yet to count ribs on male models, even the runway ones, despite the argument that “they’re really meant to be walking hangers.”
What’s interesting too, is the counter movements you get with this kind of aestheticization — much like Warhol’s art emerging against the abstract expressionists. On the other hand, what’s interesting is what aestheticization follows. For example, the porcelain skins and embonpoint of classical paintings coincided with these traits being associated with wealth, for wealth meant you didn’t have to toil in the sun, and you were well-fed. Contrast this with the modern bent towards the tanned and lean. It’s the wealthy of today that can afford to lie about in the sun on tropical vacations, and afford healthy, lean food.
Photoshop may not be improving this images, but it certainly is reflecting real values.
March 20, 2014 at 12:14 am
Amantha
Another view can also be taken here…this is art. This is beautiful, expensive, glamourous art in several ways.
The several long, tiring hours that people work to set up meetings, interviews, photoshoots, and even that magical photoshop retouching we saw in the video. That stuff is meticulous and tiring work. I do event flyers in my spare time and have spent upwards of 10 hours on a lame small-time flyer because it becomes something quite personal. This work represents you and all of your hard work. It should be first-rate, right?
Everyone has a “vision” whether that’s the clothing designer or photographer or event coordinator, etc. Creating that vision, even it’s only for the Grammy red carpet that someone somewhere may think is silly or dumb and it was only for 10 minutes. That likely took people months and months, perhaps even years, to plan for those 10 minutes. Because there are several things that rely on this 10 minutes: the individual on the red carpet (i.e. how tall are they?, what size are they? do they have long or short hair? are they naturally sexy or have a “persona” in the public eye such as Rihanna?), the designer who will likely hand-craft this specific piece and will likely not ever make another, the specific event (even though we’re saying Grammy’s). Another example is Super Bowl half-time shows. Just incredible the lavish time, money, and effort to set up something that will be done in just a matter of minutes.
Additionally, I feel there are usually two types of people reading magazines (at least how I see it): 1) those who want to relate and 2) those who want to idolize.
1. Those who want to relate have the most issues with the skin bleaching and size alterations because they can’t see themselves as a “perfect” individual. They will find the health reasons in why that model should never be that skinny or how disrepectful to ethnic cultures it is to bleach skin (although most every culture values fair skin while darker skin is not glorified).
2. Those who want to idolize are those who see absolutely no major issues with 00 models and 7 inch heels. They see perfection and they’re striving to be on that level (however healthy or unhealthy this may be). These individuals are the ones cutting these images out of magazines and putting them on their walls at home or immediately searching the web for “tips and tricks” to either be that thin, get that outfit, tan, lighten up, extend their hair length, etc.
Which leaves me to my last point…if these magazines were full of “every day people” would you still spend $4.99 every month? If it wasn’t the skin-tight, body-hugging outfit or the extra-low rise jeans would you still want it? Would people *seriously* want to see a “full-figured” girl rolling around on the beach or a “full-figured” man in the gym ad? Let’s be honest.
I feel like the magical, mystical feeling of sex-appeal and wonder keeps buyers occupied and enthralled. Even the “haters” and trash-talkers are still buying the magazines and even if they aren’t buying them they’re still watching the Grammy’s of which every tip and trick from those magazines originated from the same designers who’s clothes you’re seeing walk down the red carpet…so what have you avoided?
Just some thoughts.
March 22, 2014 at 1:11 pm
dgfergus
I appreciate the effort and professionalism and artistry that goes into these images, I really do. And I’m not saying that these magazines should be “full of ‘every day people’ either”, although we’re probably overlooking just how interesting and aesthetic every day people can be. I do think however that their image-making is formulaic and narrow, as are the beauty ideals they push — hence the comparison to pop music.
Whether you want to relate or idolize, I still think it’s a reasonable observation that beauty ideals tend to be most uncomfortable if not downright unhealthy for women in particular — whether it’s tight-lacing, stilettos, tanning or thinness.
P.S: Full-figured people on the beach? Uh yes, it can work. Don’t forget a lot of still iconic beauties and sex symbols in the US were full-figured, e.g. Marilyn Munroe. In Jamaica, I’ve often heard comments that imply that men “will work with” slim girls since that’s the fashion now, but that’s not their preference. One traditional cat call goes “Gyal (girl) you round like an English pound!”
March 24, 2014 at 1:24 am
Amantha
Culture is so huge too! You’re absolutely right! I guess I should have elaborated more. When I said “full-figured” I didn’t mean simply curvaceous. According to Jezebel who sites from Marilyn Monroe’s dress maker these were her measurements (http://jezebel.com/5299793/for-the-last-time-what-size-was-marilyn-monroe):
Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
Weight: 118-140 pounds
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D
Not only are these almost *identical* to my own and I wear a size 6-8 depending on brand and fit. I’m curvy, sure, but not plus-size or “full-figured” which is more acceptable. I was simply meaning that beyond the average size which is around a size 12 would the general population want to see both men and women rolling around with sexual poses like they would the Victoria Secret models. Women are easy targets because there is more imagery and sexualized press, but the same goes for men.
March 13, 2014 at 2:00 am
spiceram
I really like the last sentence of your third paragraph. It reminds me a lot of Guy de Maupassant’s short story The Necklace. The irony between what the woman felt made her wealthy and the stark contrast from the necklace show how our values sometimes fog our vision of truth.
March 13, 2014 at 2:22 am
dgfergus
Just read the story, man that’s a tough lesson to learn…! I feel it more than the ribs.
March 13, 2014 at 2:27 am
spiceram
It is a very tough lesson, but really, what was Mathilde’s value of wealth? She wouldn’t wear her jacket because it was not a fur, would not take flowers because they were the poor man’s jewelry. She had a maid for crying out loud. What she thought made her worth millions was actually costume jewelry. I still remember my English teacher asking us? Do you really think Madame Forestier still had the necklace ten years later or did she give it to her granddaughter to play with? It was only worth 500 Francs to her.
March 20, 2014 at 12:14 am
Amantha
I think I remember this story from high school! Must read again now lol