That guy...

You know that expression, "That Guy." He's the one, that does that thing - you know it when you see it. Every group has that guy. Every college, office, school, class, every group has that guy who can be obnoxious. Well, I think I just found the one in our office.

He's always miserable, to the point where it is a joke - but really kinda sad. And I'm thinking this particular point of view is what makes the terrible comments flow from his mouth. Now, I may not be one to judge (as I've said lots of terrible crap) and guys say tons of gross shit all the time, but when you hear really abhorrent stuff, you gotta say something. I also think the guy who says the grosser stuff, probably has more pent up shit inside him that you don't want to know about.

So no, I'm not going to tell what he said because it is grotesque. However, my response was this, "You are a repellent human being." I was serious and killed the conversation for about 30 seconds. I may not be Rex Harrison, but I do consider myself the gentleman from time to time, and a gentleman lets the lesser of us know what isn't acceptable.

Am I so out of touch?

No. No, it's the children who are wrong.

That is the first thing I thought of when i read this article by George Will. I agree people should be able to dress up without everyone saying, "Why are you so dressed up?" I went through a period in high school and college where I never wore jeans, very "preppy." People always asked me in college, "Why are you so dressed up?" I replied haughtily, "This isn't dressed up." I still don't think anything without a tie is dressed up, but I digress...

In this article Will goes after jeans as if it is some betrayal of the worker roots of jeans. Well, isn't it a little late for that? Fashion has owned denim for 30 years, so brace for craziness. And to further my point, aren't pants themselves a workers garment that has now be perverted into "dress" pants? I mean when people where toiling away in the fields of the 1700s all the dandies in Vienna were wearing powdered wigs and silk stockings, not pants! So take that George. Shit changes, you get older, more shit changes . That is the way the world works for everyone.

And another thing, leave gamers alone! I love my video games - especially the violent ones!

No Photoshop!

NP!

That is what I say about the current state of magazines and photography! No to Photoshopping! In fact, I'd really like to start a standard that magazines, photographers, advertisers, web content creators, and regular people can adhere to and display a little NP! logo in the corner of each photograph the indicate to the public that no Photoshopping was done to this picture. Here is why in no specific order:

1) Photoshopping has become so ubiquitous in magazines that all the random Maxim girls et al have started to look alike. Their faces and bodies are manipulated so much where their differences and imperfections (which is what makes them special) are completely gone. This and the editing being based on some undefined ideal makes them all trend towards one look. So in this respect it hurts the model.

2) In respect to the customer I think the effect on men and women is different. For both it creates an unrealistic view of women. This isn't unrealistic just because they are particularly beautiful, but unrealistic because their bodies have been digitally altered. So not only are the women (and men) already exceptional, we've gone ahead to make them surpass reality. What does this do to the customer? Well, men start to have an unrealistic expectation of what a beautiful woman is. If a woman ever has a blemish compared to the eerily flawless skin on a Photoshopped model, that is a strike against her. And the man will never find anyone who measures up to this standard. The other side is with women. They already have enough pressure to be beautiful and skinny, more than men can understand, but with the advent of Photoshopping now they are held to an impossibly high standard. So men want something that doesn't exist and women want to be something that doesn't exist = no one is happy with themselves!

- note - This could certainly be switched for men and women as well - women unhappy with the looks of men and men unhappy with their looks, but generally this isn't the case in society.

3) Photographer - A great photographer can transform someone using light, settings, background, and motivation. With no tweaking, anyone can see why photographers are considered artists (at least good ones) rather than just picture-takers. Once that photo is sent for editing, however, it compromises the work of the artist. The creation of the artist is then pinched and pulled to look a certain way - one that isn't what the artist created. The next step is why take a picture at all - or to go back to #1 - why use a model at all? You could just create a woman in Photoshop to start - like Jessica Rabbit here.

4) Hair & Makeup - I happen to believe that hair and makeup people are artists too, however they are probably the weakest argument against Photoshopping I have. Since they can drastically change the looks of people - to the point where they don't look like the same person w/o makeup - similarities can be drawn between them and the Photoshoppers. However, since they are working with an actual person and can create a particular look using the personal features of a particular human, I think they have merit. Their work can make a model come to life or a photo shoot/scene great and they are creators that are perhaps overlooked. When photos are edited by Photoshop, they can easily overshadow the work of the hair and makeup people. Photoshop is powerful enough when makeup and hair can be completely changed within the program, obviating the need for hair and makeup all together.

So the next questions is who benefits from this? Why has Photoshopping risen to be so ubiquitous? Well, first off - people like pretty things. You can see what people like and have a preference for, and edit pictures so they'll really like them. In turn, this will make everyone else compete for the same limited audience, and Photoshop images as well. Also, since most of these images are sold to or commissioned by someone who is selling the image in a large format, that is what really drives this phenomena.

The buyer of the picture who puts the photo on the cover of Vogue wants a perfect picture. Everyone competing for that slot knows that, so the photo is perfected by any means necessary. Now the effects of such work are detailed above, but I don't think Anna Wintour cares or perhaps she has a fractured view of what really is beautiful.
So what to do? Make a standard - the NP! Standard. There will have to be collaboration between the entire photography supply chain, but it can be done. Personally, I think models to consumers will be happier with the product. People will react when they see a logo knowing that the woman/man on the cover of Maxim/Vanity Fair actually looks like that - and I think the reaction will be good. We may realize that an odd freckle, the stretch mark, or a blemish is something people can relate to and is a proof that, they too, are human.