Most of the photos we are constantly exposed to in everyday life are manufactured lies. Just look at a magazine cover and you'll probably see a staged photo that's gone through color corrections and editing and who knows what else to become something completely different than the moment it initially captured. Sometimes, it can be regarded as art, sometimes however, it can trick people into believing lies. I partially agree with Sontag when she calls photos "the most irresistible form of mental pollution" (Sontag, 39). The magazines everyone has seen, filled with beautiful, perfect beings are always so enticing. They represent dreams, people idolize celebrities because they look perfect, and whether we intend to or not, I think everyone subconsciously sees what people in the media look like as a standard they must live up to.
This reminds me of when earlier this year I read about how the British Actress Jameela Jamil, starting pointing out how wrong it is that people, specifically women, are literally edited to be "perfect" all the time. While it might seem harmless, everyone is a victim, especially the person being edited themselves. Incase you don't read the article linked below, here is a quote from Jamil that I think really sums it all up, and also touches on the consumerist aspect of what we perceive to be beauty: “Don't give your money to any institution that sells you the lie of 'perfection'. They are trying to break you, so you will hate yourself and go out and buy something you don't need, in order to fix something that was never broken in the first place.” (Jamil, Telegraph).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/02/airbrushing-photos-crime-against-women-jameela-jamil-says-calls/
Model Cameron Russell also has a similar message, and in the ted talk linked below she talks about how the many model photos she is in aren't really an accurate depiction of her as a person. I guess that's when the photo would normally be categorized as art, but I don't think its positive art. If it makes others feel lesser, it can't be true art, because I feel like true art is supposed to send a message, maybe inspire, but not make people feel bad about themselves.
https://www.ted.com/talks/cameron_russell_looks_aren_t_everything_believe_me_i_m_a_model?language=en
I think an example of a photo being true art would be our school magazine cover. Sure, we adjusted things like lighting, props and angle, and they definitely distorted the image. Except, by the time the photo hit the cover, it was a message, it encapsulated the theme of the main article about underage drinking. The photo had a real purpose that was clear to the readers, not a message that was hidden and destructive.
https://troychariot.org/4198/print-issue-centerspreads/buzz-kill-the-truth-about-underage-drinking/
I don't completely agree with Sontag that photos bring nothing but negativity to this world. I think it depends on what the photo is for, and the context. Photos are great in presentations, they capture attention, and provide people with visual reconstructions of ideas. When given context, photos can also be instrumental in explaining history, and simply documenting events that took place. Visuals are powerful, and just like I said we need to choose how we use our words carefully in a previous blog, we need to do the same with visuals.
This reminds me of when earlier this year I read about how the British Actress Jameela Jamil, starting pointing out how wrong it is that people, specifically women, are literally edited to be "perfect" all the time. While it might seem harmless, everyone is a victim, especially the person being edited themselves. Incase you don't read the article linked below, here is a quote from Jamil that I think really sums it all up, and also touches on the consumerist aspect of what we perceive to be beauty: “Don't give your money to any institution that sells you the lie of 'perfection'. They are trying to break you, so you will hate yourself and go out and buy something you don't need, in order to fix something that was never broken in the first place.” (Jamil, Telegraph).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/02/airbrushing-photos-crime-against-women-jameela-jamil-says-calls/
Model Cameron Russell also has a similar message, and in the ted talk linked below she talks about how the many model photos she is in aren't really an accurate depiction of her as a person. I guess that's when the photo would normally be categorized as art, but I don't think its positive art. If it makes others feel lesser, it can't be true art, because I feel like true art is supposed to send a message, maybe inspire, but not make people feel bad about themselves.
https://www.ted.com/talks/cameron_russell_looks_aren_t_everything_believe_me_i_m_a_model?language=en
I think an example of a photo being true art would be our school magazine cover. Sure, we adjusted things like lighting, props and angle, and they definitely distorted the image. Except, by the time the photo hit the cover, it was a message, it encapsulated the theme of the main article about underage drinking. The photo had a real purpose that was clear to the readers, not a message that was hidden and destructive.
https://troychariot.org/4198/print-issue-centerspreads/buzz-kill-the-truth-about-underage-drinking/
I don't completely agree with Sontag that photos bring nothing but negativity to this world. I think it depends on what the photo is for, and the context. Photos are great in presentations, they capture attention, and provide people with visual reconstructions of ideas. When given context, photos can also be instrumental in explaining history, and simply documenting events that took place. Visuals are powerful, and just like I said we need to choose how we use our words carefully in a previous blog, we need to do the same with visuals.
I agree with you - photos really can be negative sometimes, but regardless, we shouldn't let that destroy our opinion of them. Honestly, I don't really care that models get photoshopped or anything. I wonder if that's harmful of me, because I know magazine ads and commercials and the like really influence young kids growing up (I know it affected me). But isn't that how it is with everything? There are good parts, and there are bad parts, and we need to decide how willing we are to deal with the bad in consequence to wanting to keep the good. I guess I think Sontag's criticism of photos was too harsh for something that can offer so much good, and so much change. Nothing is perfect, after all.
ReplyDeleteI agree that photos can be a powerful tool but I really don't think Sontag was too harsh when she talked about the negative aspects of photos. In the article, Jameela Jamil talks about how the effects of airbrushed photos and etc. are physically dangerous. Since people try to get plastic surgery, and try different pills and diets that could be harmful to their health. I respectfully disagree when I say I think everyone should be bothered by perfection in peoples looks being normalized. The thing that really bothers me about this issue is that we are bombarded with these images constantly. I think to avoid being exposed you'd literally have to live in a cave, and so it's not right, in my opinion that (like Jamil talks about) it's even legal to have such toxicity bombarding us at all times. I agree that nothing can be perfect, so we should be aware of the imperfections of photos and at least work towards improvement.
ReplyDelete