Even better than the real thing
Item 1: While waiting for a table at a restaurant this morning, my wife, sister-in-law and brother-in-law were looking at a series of photographs by Sue Norris, whom I know little about. Nice work, though – very pretty landscapes. We were noting the vividness of the colors and I made an offhand comment about how they’d certainly been Photoshopped. We found the “About the Artist” piece on one of the walls, and she talks in some detail about her technique, which does in fact involve the use of Photoshop for color and contrast balancing, filtering, etc. All straightforward enough.
But I noted a particularly intriguing bit in her description of the process. She noted that she used Photoshop to correct for the actual color and contrast (can’t remember the precise words she used, but this is the essence of it). So the implication is that the photo itself didn’t reflect the truth of the scene, and that only through technological manipulation can we reproduce reality. Of course, what caused my Photoshop comment in the first place was the unreal vividness of the colors in the scene. They weren’t radically artificial, but they were quite clearly enhanced.
Item 2: A few days ago I caught a commercial for one of the many hair restoration products out there. Sorry, can’t remember which one. The copy was absolutely fascinating, though. The female narrator (because this obvious play on male insecurity is going to respond to a voice of female approval, especially if that voice is sexy, right?) noted that (again, paraphrasing) losing your hair means you aren’t you anymore. She then explains that their product can help you become you again.
Pay close attention here: you are not you, due to natural processes, and only through the intervention of the patently artificial can reality be restored.
lullaby pit 
I’m not sure what that picture looked like, but it IS true that camera’s don’t always catch the real light of an image. Particularly now that most everyone has gone digital. Lenses can also distort images, like making tall buildings curved, etc.
I’m not sure what that picture looked like, but it IS true that camera’s don’t always catch the real light of an image. Particularly now that most everyone has gone digital. Lenses can also distort images, like making tall buildings curved, etc.
Read what I said. The issue isn’t that the photo is retouched. It’s that an idealistic end product is presented as naturalistic.
Read what I said. The issue isn’t that the photo is retouched. It’s that an idealistic end product is presented as naturalistic.
I know. And I agree with you. I was just sayin’ an untouched photograph isn’t always “real”.
Another angle to what you’re saying is obesity. I bet, if you looked at the numbers, the time our “obesity epidemic” started was right about the same time people started saying it’s OK to be fat. In this case, shooting for the “ideal” probably isn’t all that bad…
I can’t remember which religion says this…buddhist, maybe?…but it’s something like “We all three selves. What others see. What we see. And what really is.”
I know. And I agree with you. I was just sayin’ an untouched photograph isn’t always “real”.
Another angle to what you’re saying is obesity. I bet, if you looked at the numbers, the time our “obesity epidemic” started was right about the same time people started saying it’s OK to be fat. In this case, shooting for the “ideal” probably isn’t all that bad…
I can’t remember which religion says this…buddhist, maybe?…but it’s something like “We all three selves. What others see. What we see. And what really is.”
I don’t think the obesity angle is even remotely applicable, although it’s true that we should pursue the ideal. The problem is when you aren’t pursuing the ideal, you’re pretending that the real and ideal are the same thing.
I don’t think the obesity angle is even remotely applicable, although it’s true that we should pursue the ideal. The problem is when you aren’t pursuing the ideal, you’re pretending that the real and ideal are the same thing.
Isn’t it about lying in both cases? The only differences is who’s doing the lying and who’s being lied to.
Isn’t it about lying in both cases? The only differences is who’s doing the lying and who’s being lied to.
What?
What?
The title of a Dali painting from 1938 leads me to think it’s only going to get worse:
“The Transparent Simulacrum of the Feigned Image.”
Last I knew it was owned by the Albright-Knox gallery in Buffalo.
The title of a Dali painting from 1938 leads me to think it’s only going to get worse:
“The Transparent Simulacrum of the Feigned Image.”
Last I knew it was owned by the Albright-Knox gallery in Buffalo.
Dali was ahead of his time, apparently. The title alone hurts my head, and 1938 was way before postmodernism.
Dali was ahead of his time, apparently. The title alone hurts my head, and 1938 was way before postmodernism.