amd_lauren

If French politician Valérie Boyer has her way, advertisements that feature air-brushed photographs of models may soon come with the same sort of disclaimers regularly seen in food ads—enlarged (or reduced, as the case may be) to create unrealistic expectations:

Valérie Boyer is 47, a member of the French parliament and a divorced mother of three. She is tall, fashionable and, dare we say it, slim.

But she has also created a small furor here and abroad with her latest proposal: a draft law that would require all digitally altered photographs of people used in advertising be labeled as retouched.

Some think such a law would destroy photographic art; some think it might help reduce anorexia; some say the idea is aimed at the wrong target, given that nearly every advertising photograph is retouched. Others believe such a label might sensitize people to the fakery involved in most of the advertising images with which they’re bludgeoned.

To those who fear such a law would “destroy photographic art”: really? What do you think “photographic art” is, exactly? Digitally shaving pounds off Kelly Clarkson to sell a magazine promising “total body confidence”? Or shrinking a 120-pound model’s waist down to the width of her head to sell blue jeans? If that’s the sort of thing the word would be deprived of if people were alerted to an ads’ airbrushing, well, I say good riddance.

Comments (6)

6 Comments

Buck
December 3rd, 2009 | 2:23 pm

I don’t think advertising has ever been art in the classical sense of the word so there is nothing to destroy.

Why not just show us what a real woman looks like in the jeans instead of foisting an arbitrary feminine ideal on the world?

buttercup67k
December 4th, 2009 | 11:35 am

Maybe it is just me, but the ad looks like a parody, which is what I first thought it was. I wonder if anyone looked at it and thought this is represenative of any living person?

Bibbit
December 4th, 2009 | 2:09 pm

I’m guessing that’s not a real ad, she looks too freaky. I’m all for truth in advertising, no why not extend it to pictures? Most people see a picture and think it must be real, certainly older folks do. But they are not real, so say so in the ads. I’m all for this. It may even save parents a few bucks on toys and other things as well. Of course, advertising folks will figure out ways around this. Just look at the way they photograph cars. The ads are generally real, but the lighting and conditions are completely unreal.

Joe Carter
December 4th, 2009 | 2:13 pm

Bibbit I’m guessing that’s not a real ad, she looks too freaky.

It was a real ad. It’s just that the fashion industry’s views of how women should look are so skewed that they’ve reached the realm of absurdity.

STEVEN
December 8th, 2009 | 7:04 am

In Australia we are very close to passing such laws, if we haven’t already.
I think you miss the point too often, such govt control is a good thing. One example might be neither Aust nor France banned nor “went ape” on their communist parties and our democracies are robust for it.
The US however is a basket case and the rest of the world views you as lacking democracy (or as a basket case)…vote commie I say, just for democracies sake!!!

STEVEN
December 8th, 2009 | 7:09 am

oh and stay slim , it’s good for your health!!