Photoshop: A Political Problem?

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons 

Teenagers are influenced by the examples around them. We learn to adapt to how we are expected to look or act. We don�t learn to adapt by having someone teach us, it�s a biological instinct. We feel better about ourselves when we are like everyone else. We can�t help it if we see an extremely skinny and impossibly beautiful model in a magazine and want to be like him or her. Photoshopping creates a false and unrealistic body image that raises physical expectations. Younger generations, being immature and persuadable, do not always understand that not everything online or in magazines is true. Seth Matlins, creator of Feel More Better, a site that encourages women to be happier and healthier with their bodies, writes that 53 percent of 13-year-old girls are unhappy with their bodies and by the time they�re 17 it rises to 78 percent (Weissman). This problem has become so severe that countries are creating laws that prevent or discourage the use of photoshop. Countries like Israel and the United States are starting to pay attention. Because photoshopping in the media is still very new, with the recent major advancements in technology, not many countries have worried about it. As a young teenager, I can see the way photoshopping has affected the way boys and girls define beauty. Photoshopping has erased imperfect human flaws in order to sell products that may not even give you what was promised in its ad, pushing teenagers to feel like they are not what society wants. Countries need to do more because the industry won�t act on its own against photoshop and its misuse in advertisements in order to spare their younger generations.

In Israel, the government has created a photoshop law that bans any model under a certain body weight from being included in magazines. The models must have a doctor�s note saying they meet a certain body mass index (BMI) (Rubin). The photoshop issue was addressed by the Israeli government in 2007 after Adi Barkan, fashion photographer and models� agent, had his client, Hila Elmalich, who had anorexia, die in his arms after having a heart attack from smoking a cigarette (Rubin). Barkan was inspired by Hila�s death to work against being too thin for the media so younger generations don�t feel the need to starve themselves to please society. Barkan worked with Rachel Adato, a member of Knesset, the legislative branch of the Israeli government, to raise awareness of anorexia (Rubin). The former lawyer and gynecologist says, �Beautiful is not underweight, beautiful is not anorexic� (Rubin). According to Sigal Gooldin, a Hebrew University Medical Sociologist, 3 percent of girls ages 11 through 18 suffer from eating disorders in Israel (Rubin). Because of photoshop and its effect on younger generations, the message of being thin is even stronger. To begin with, our society encourages being thin but photoshop shows a drastic idealized image of it. Hila and many other models felt the need to be impossibly thin in order to become what society wants. The United States has also decided to address photoshopping and its effects on younger generations.

In the United States, the Truth in Advertising Act of 2014 was proposed by two congresswomen, Republican Representative, Ileana Ros-Lethinen and Democratic Representative, Lois Capps (Congresswoman). The bill restricts the overuse of photoshop in the media. Organizations like Eating Disorders Coalition support the bill because they are tired of the �bold-faced lies� that the media is sending to younger generations (Waldman). Capps feels that �just as with cigarette ads in the past, fashion ads portray a twisted, ideal image for young women. And they�re vulnerable. As sales go up, body image and confidence drops� (Congresswoman). Capps explains that as women feel more and more insecure about themselves, they will feel the need to buy more and more products in order to reach a photoshopped model�s �beauty�. On average, a woman spends about $15,000 dollars in her lifetime on makeup and other beauty products (Women).

Contrary to my argument, photoshop is art. It�s a way for photographers and artists to express themselves. Jeff Schewe, of Photoshop News, feels that �we have wonderful tools to create images, new digital cameras and photographic digital printers and powerful tools such as Photoshop and we are expected to do what -- nothing? I don't think so" (Diller). Particularly, photographers and artists feel that the world has judged photoshop too quickly. Michael Graupman, author of the article �Photoshopping on the Chopping Block� thinks that "perhaps it is time for a refresher course for the media and Americans of what Photoshop was created for originally: bringing a subject more into focus, not creating works of fiction" (Diller).

With the improvement of technology, photoshopping has come to a point where the difference between realism and idealism cannot be determined. We are trying to achieve the unachievable. Of course we have our hopes and dreams, but this is an illusion. Photoshop tricks you into thinking that the perfect face or the perfect skin can be reached with a certain cream or makeup brand. It dehumanizes regular everyday people. If the extremeness of photoshop ends altogether, no one will expect false characteristics. With the end of high physical expectations, governments won�t feel the need to worry about the influence it has on their younger generations. We could be happy with who we are, not what the media want us to be.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion, updated May 25, 2014

The recent comments have helped me learn that banning photoshop is not as easy as it may seem. Countries like Britain and Israel do not have a Constitution that prohibits the the Freedom of Speech. Completely banning photoshop would go against the Freedom of Speech in the United States's Constitution. Although the complete ban of photoshop may not be achievable because of the Constitution, the the limitation of it may be. This has helped me realize that all factors need to be taken into consideration when the government passes a law. Another important factor that the government has to realize is the effect that the limitation of photoshop will have on companies. Companies typically use photoshop in their advertisements to make their products look good. The problem is, without photoshop to enhance the product, the amount of sales that the companies typically make will plummet. This would concern the government. I have not overly considered the finical point of view companies have on banning photoshop or at least limiting it. I can imagine that it would cause some job losses and a plummet in sails, but should those companies have relied on photoshop in the first place? If those companies need photoshop to sell their products then aren't they falsely advertising them? The commenters have helped clarify this this valid point. They have change my mind about how much the government can really do in a situation like this where many things can be majorly influenced. I've learned that listening to other people's thoughts and opinions help make good arguments.


Bibliography

Untuk pemesanan, hubungi kami melalui kontak yang tersedia berikut:

Chat WhatsApp Send SMS Call