In this article,several authors make great points about digital airbrushing use in photography and advertisements that depend on creating the ultimate fantasy for their consumers. How much is too much alteration?
According to the article, Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority banned two L’Oreal ads because the amount of airbrushing mislead the product’s capability.
Deputy leader of Scottish Liberal Democrats and author Jo Swinson discusses that advertisements that create impossible human characteristics can cause an unreal perception to consumers buying the product. These idealistic creations of fantasy may cause harm to one’s superego from the inability to reach such a “unnatural” goal. Swinson suggests that diversifying and openly discussing the ideal image of what is “real” would encourage healthier lifestyles for men and women.
I agree that use of airbrushing has gotten out of hand in some aspects of visual media. Though, I understand that advertisements can be used to sell a fantasy to the consumer, but I also believe that their ads may be more harm than help. Over simulating an environment for the consumer may leave them disappointed and in need of satisfaction somewhere else. That or left insecure about their image which, sadly, drives them to continue use of the product. This seems to be a social commonality in much of the world that can be to blame for eating disorders. Or so I thought…
According to Professor Catharine Lumby, Director of UNSW Journalism and Media Research Centre, research on young women recovering from eating disorders suggests, “Many of them said they were more interested in celebrity cooking shows than fashion magazines with thin supermodels. They enjoyed watching people cook while not eating because it gave them a sense of control. And they weren’t interested in being attractive.”
So, how much blame can we really put on advertisers for causing people to be unhappy about their appearance? In my opinion, the answer may lie in consumer responsibility along with upbringing and peer relations within an individual’s environment.
Daniel Leesong, Chief Executive of the Communications Council, reminds us that, “Choosing a product is as much about its features as its promise. Marketers sell things, and to do so they will work to make the product look as attractive as possible. But they also respond to what consumers want, and if they demand non-airbrushed pictures, you will find they will respond.”
Advertisers are not ignoring the problem to say the least. First, business suffers. Second, people suffer. The order of importance of these problems can be argued either way. Companies understand the importance of advertising ethically within industry code. It is also important that advertisers meet standards of the community. If industry regulators don’t get to advertisers first, the people will.
