I posted this in response to Kelly's "Sex, Lies and Photoshop" and "Don't Forget" posts. It is part of doves real beauty campaign.
It seems like they are advocating against image manipulation. I think in reality the people at Dove have actually exploited a void in the marketplace. Instead of being real advocates against image manipulation they are trying to distinguished themselves from their competitors using a clever transfer technique. What do you think real advocates or just trying to sell more beauty products?
5 comments:
w00t. i like this.
my brother actually showed me this a couple of years ago, pretty fascinating clip.
now, with that being said, my analysis. :o)
originally, seeing this movie (as in during our sophomore year), i was pretty taken aback. i, as everyone, was completely aware of the behind the scenes photoshopping that goes on in these sorts of industries, after all- they need to sell their products. however, i was not aware of HOW much "retouching" --- or more accurately, construction went into these sorts of shots.
this is the thing, however: if dove is really trying to advocate against this sort of production, i believe that they are doing a poor job. in terms of having a side on this, they seem to not be stating their claim very clearly.
for example, if they were really trying to put out the idea that the beauties seen everyday in cosmo-like campaigns are not real--- and that companies, excluding dove, need to put out this facade in order for women (or men) to buy their products, then there should be some other clues. >>> a simple addition of "this is their brand" and "this is ours" comparison would really clear that up.
however, on the other hand, this is what i find a little more prominent of a message in this clip: even though we see this woman, obviously completely un-laquered initially, the transformation says a lot. the evolution as they refer to it, illustrates some key things that society tells us is beautiful: the elongation of the neck, the narrowing of the shoulders, enlarging the eyes, etc.
Now, if i were an impressionable teenager, and saw this, that is what would be the call out for me-- against all other messages in this video. i need to have big eyes, a long neck - - - and that is not even going into any sort of product promotion. that is completely about genetic makeup. so therefore, no matter how much i buy or how much i plaster my face, if i do not possess those qualities, i am not to be considered 'beautiful'. what an image.
although, to further analyze this, obviously every person is not going to perceive this in the same way. those with weaker self esteem in the first place are vulnerable to pulling out the negatives in themselves over a possible message that is trying to advocate the opposite.
all of the above gibberish leads me to this final conclusion: that these sorts of messages need to have the utmost clear intent of message. this is where communicating to multiple audiences really needs to be considered -- or really targeting one audience for clarification. . . . .
hrm.
plastic surgery anyone?
So this caught my attention and I decided to take a look at Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty and found some interesting articles in the process.
So Dove started this campaign making the statement that they were using real "beautiful" people without touch ups for their ads. They claim that if a strand of hair was out of place that was corrected but really nothing else. Then they call out their advertising industry with this video and some other pieces of work showing that everything isn't real and is manipulated and using this as a way of expressing that they are real.
So here is the thing I found some articles on how Dove is actually lying. All the campaign ads that Dove was doing for this real beauty were manipulated just like this video. The touch up artist claims that yes there were lots of touch ups and manipulating the image but they did leave the faces somewhat natural looking but somewhat raw. So yes to Joshs question I believe this is just another way to manipulate the public through advertising to buy more products that will "improve" our looks and make us beautiful. Is there any advertisements that we can trust?
i love dove's graphic design campaigns. although i do agree with josh and know that dove is creating these campaigns for the sake of dove, i still think that they do a beautiful job of doing this. i think they clearly reach their target audience, young girls and boys and their parents. In high-school, you are drastically affected by the media and i think that it is great that dove is bringing that up to young girls and boys. i would have lovvved this commercial when i was in high-school and would have started buying dove products after seeing it. which is what makes a successful ad, reaching the target audience in a way that speaks to them and makes them want to buy the product or brand being advertised.
It is a little weird to me that a company that usually associates themselves with the beauty industry is making a film about distortions in the media. However, I agree with Jessica in that they do a really good job at communicating their message. Even though they sometimes are guilty of what they are claiming to be against in this short film.
That is generally a problem that I have with the advertising and television worlds. They give shows to people like Tyra Banks just because of her looks and then have a bunch of discussions body image societies view of beauty.
I think that the only way to stop this is to stop altering images so much in photoshop. Those girls never look the same in real life. Their photos go through hours of photoshop just to make them appear taller, skinnier and more tan. Instead they should show them as is, they may have makeup but the images would not be altered.
I remember a PSA from like 1992 that had a similar effect. It was a little girl admiring a model on a poster she had and then this very plain looking woman comes in and claims to be the same person. They procede to show how the photo was taken, of course this was before computer manipulation, but the same effect none the less. I think things like this have a nice eye opening effect, but at the same time you wonder how much is done to celebrity photos and other people you seen on a more regular basis. I know their is still airbrushing and such but I mean I don't know about some of you guys but a giraffe necked woman isnt really my cup of tea. Just kidding, but seriously I find it interesting that a company who has probably done such things to their own ads would make such a claim.
Post a Comment