论文部分内容阅读
Considering the 1)egregiously 2)heavy-handed state of 3)retouching these days, it would be hard to imagine a Photoshop-free magazine cover. Remember the big 4)Faith Hill before and after Redbook cover? The weird gold 5)Gwyneth Paltrow cover of W? The “Is that really 6)Drew Barrymore” Vogue cover? And the Marie Claire cover of 7)Tina Fey, where she looks great, but not quite like herself...
Speaking of Photoshop in fashion area, the new 8)Jennifer Hudson album cover has been released for her upcoming debut album. We think JHud looks good on the album cover but it does seem that there is some Photoshop involved. Jennifer is a 9)curvaceous woman and we love the fact that she is a natural beauty. But this pic shows her with a size 2 waist that even the strongest 10)corset would not be able to create.When Jennifer Hudson was on the red carpet in London for the “Keep A Child Alive Benefit Ball”, her waist didn’t look as slim. It makes perfect sense to us that the magic of Photoshop was possibly involved.
Here is another case. The ladies in Sex and the City (2008) look like no time has passed since they first began sipping cosmos together on-screen a decade ago. Ah, Hollywood magic. Still, some news outlets are expressing surprise that the actresses may have been digitally enhanced in the 11)promo pictures. U.K. newspapers the Telegraph and Daily Mail both had pieces “exposing” the 12)airbrushed shots. Brits, help me out: Do people not use Photoshop 13)across the pond? Or have we Americans been so conditioned to expect extreme reality 14)makeovers that we no longer notice a digital 15)nip here or computerized tuck there? 16)Heck, even the women’s original Sex and the City photo shoot for the TV show 10 years ago was retouched.
Jezebel.com released an un-retouched Redbook cover image that caused a bit of a 17)stir. It was meant to. But more than 18)courting publicity and 19)traffic, the image they obtained and displayed was meant to show just how far the cover lie extends; that even in and on a women’s magazine meant for a more mature female audience (working moms, etc.) and featuring a more mature female celebrity (career-woman and mother-of-three Faith Hill), the lies and half-truths continue to be 20)perpetuated. Honestly, it’s sort of heartbreaking that it was Redbook; the magazine has been criticized before for some questionable covers (such as Jennifer Aniston and Julia Roberts) and, after all, readers of magazines like Redbook worry that they can’t have it all as it is (the great career, the loving husband, the healthy kids, the perfect body). Plus, at this point in the evolution of the 21)celebrity-sartorial complex, who or what exactly is Redbook—or any number of other women’s magazines—kidding with such a female22)forgery? Go to any name-brand, pop culture website and you can see galleries upon galleries of images of celebrities (female and male alike) in their normal, un-retouched, unlit and still-sickeningly-hot states. Why do women’s magazines continue to insist on providing readers just the opposite? Is it stubbornness? The selling of fantasy? Or the selling of other things, i.e. advertising revenue? And if so, is it really necessary to shave 10-15 pounds off a woman and erase exactly what it is (the 23)freckles, the 24)moles, the laugh lines) about her that makes her human and accessible and interesting in order to sell a bit of soap?
Some would say “yes, the half-truths of women’s magazine covers and cover-lines are necessary” (these people usually work on the business sides of such magazines). Others would say “yes” because they know no other way, or are too afraid to say “no” (these people often 25)toil on the editorial sides of such magazines). But as necessary as retouching may seem in order to fill the 26)coffers of corporate 27)behemoths like Procter & Gamble, 28)Revlon or Warner Brothers Records, it is not okay for the rest of us—the readers, that is—that this goes on. In a world where lying, deception, and the 29)fudging of facts has become 30)endemic in everything, all the way up to the highest levels of government, this is yet another example of a fraud being 31)perpetrated on the public... and the public, for the most part, is not yet in on the joke. Magazine-retouching may not be a lie 32)on par with, you know, “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,” but in a world where girls as young as eight are going on the 33)South Beach Diet, teenagers are getting breast 34)implants as graduation gifts, professional women are almost required to 35)fetishize handbags, and everyone is spending way too much time figuring out how to pose in a way that will look as good as that friend with the really popular MySpace profile, it’s wrong.
Yet some people still insist that retouching magazine covers presents no problems. “Faith is beautiful in both shots. But who wouldn’t love 36)sleek arms and a tight waist like in the ‘After’ shot?” one Jezbel.com reader said. The question remains: When you have to make these women look “better” to sell your product, what standard of beauty do you have?
这个年头，大刀阔斧修描图片的风气大行其道，你已经很难想像有哪个杂志封面是没有经过图像处理的了。还记得轰动一时，登上时尚杂志Redbook封面的“大变身”菲丝·希尔照片吗？时装杂志W封面上一头金发但看上去怪怪的格温妮丝·帕特洛呢？时装杂志Vogue一期让人不禁发问“那真的是德鲁·巴里摩尔吗”的封面，记得吧？还有时尚杂志Marie Claire封面上的蒂娜·费，封面上的她看起来棒极了，可就是不太像她本人……
说到时尚界的PS风气，不能不提的是詹妮弗·哈德森将要发行的专辑封面照已经发布出来，我们觉得专辑封面上的詹妮弗·哈德森看起来不错，但的确像有PS加工的痕迹。詹妮弗·哈德森天生体态丰腴，我们喜欢那种她未经人工雕琢的美。但专辑封面所见，她那2号小蛮腰就是再厉害的紧身束胸衣也没办法做到的。在伦敦“拯救一个孩子的生命”慈善舞会的红地毯入场礼上，詹妮弗·哈德森的腰看上去可没这么细。在我们看来，PS的魔棒的确有可能起了作用。
还有另一个例子，从我们第一次在屏幕上看着电视《欲望都市》中的几个都市女性啜饮cosmos（编者注：一种鸡尾酒）至今已经十年了，可看看2008年电影版的《欲望都市》，时光似乎定格在了十年前。啊，那是好莱坞的魔法。然而，一些新闻媒体对这几位演员的宣传照片有经加工美化之嫌表示惊诧。英国报纸《每日电讯报》和《每日邮报》都刊登了文章，“揭露”了这些被润色过的照片。亲爱的英国人啊，请告诉我：难道大洋彼岸的你们就不用电脑图像处理软件吗？或者我们美国人早已看习惯了那些“麻雀变凤凰”的真人秀，所以我们对现在用电脑这里修修那里补补都不以为意了？见鬼，即使是十年前，电视《欲望都市》中女演员的宣传照片也是处理过的。
网络女性杂志Jezebel.com公布了一张时尚杂志Redbook未被润色的封面照片，引起了一番轰动。他们是故意这样做的。但他们不是旨在哗众取宠，提高网站点击率，他们公开得到的照片是为了向众人显示封面潜规则到底有多泛滥，让大家明白，即使是一份面向成熟女性群体（上班妈妈等）和展示成熟女明星（身为职业妇女和三个孩子母亲的菲丝·希尔）的女性杂志，一直笼罩在谎言和“半真半假”的迷雾中。说实话，这种事发生在Redbook上确实令人痛心，之前该杂志就曾因一些可疑封面照（如詹妮弗·安妮斯顿和朱莉亚·罗伯茨）而备受批评，毕竟，像Redbook这类杂志的读者本来就已经担心自己能否面面俱到（拥有好的职业、相亲相爱的丈夫、健康的孩子、完美的身材）。此外，在“名人时尚至上情结”发展到当下的今天，Redbook——或者说所有其他女性杂志——用这种女性的虚假形象究竟是想糊弄谁，或者想达到什么目的？随便登上任何一个名牌产品或流行文化网站，你都可以看到大量明星（男女明星都有）的图片，相中的他们就是平时的样子，没有润色美化，也不需特效打光，依然可以艳光四射。那为什么女性杂志一直反其道而行呢？是固执？在兜售不现实的幻想？或者说在兜售其它什么东西，比如说为了广告收入？如果真是这样的话，那么，为了推销几块香皂，真的有必要给一个女人先去掉10至15磅，然后再抹去她脸上那些充满人性、亲切有趣的真实一面（如雀斑、痣、笑纹）吗？
有些人会说：“是的，女性杂志封面上不完全真实的女性形象和文字是有必要的”。（这些人常常是在此类杂志的营销部门工作的）；其他一些人也会说“是的”，那是因为他们不知道除了这样还可以怎样，或者他们很怕说“不”（这些人一般是在杂志的编辑部门辛勤苦干的）。对如宝洁、露华浓、华纳兄弟唱片这些巨企来说，要金库进账不断，“润色”之举看似必要；但对我们——读者——来说，这种状况继续下去，并不是什么好事。在谎言、瞒骗、弄虚作假大行其道，歪风甚至蔓延到政府最高层的这样一个世界里，这只不过是欺骗公众的又一个事例……公众对此基本上不知情。杂志“润色”明星照片可能无法与，比如说，“伊拉克拥有大规模杀伤性武器”这种谎言相提并论，但在当今这个世界，八岁的女孩子就开始遵从迈阿密饮食瘦身法，少女们把去接受隆胸视为毕业礼物，职业女性如果不迷恋手袋就好像显得不正常，几乎所有人都花过多的时间想着该如何摆姿势，让自己可以看起来与在MySpace（编者注：全球最大的社交网站）上大受欢迎的朋友一样好看等等，这是错的。
仍然有些人认为拿经过润色的图片做杂志封面是没有问题的。“菲丝在两张照片上都很美，可谁不喜欢‘变身后’那光滑的胳膊和纤细的腰肢呢？” Jezbel.com的一名读者如是道。看来问题仍旧存在：如果你一定要把这些女性变“好看些”来推销你的产品，那你对于美的标准是什么？
Speaking of Photoshop in fashion area, the new 8)Jennifer Hudson album cover has been released for her upcoming debut album. We think JHud looks good on the album cover but it does seem that there is some Photoshop involved. Jennifer is a 9)curvaceous woman and we love the fact that she is a natural beauty. But this pic shows her with a size 2 waist that even the strongest 10)corset would not be able to create.When Jennifer Hudson was on the red carpet in London for the “Keep A Child Alive Benefit Ball”, her waist didn’t look as slim. It makes perfect sense to us that the magic of Photoshop was possibly involved.
Here is another case. The ladies in Sex and the City (2008) look like no time has passed since they first began sipping cosmos together on-screen a decade ago. Ah, Hollywood magic. Still, some news outlets are expressing surprise that the actresses may have been digitally enhanced in the 11)promo pictures. U.K. newspapers the Telegraph and Daily Mail both had pieces “exposing” the 12)airbrushed shots. Brits, help me out: Do people not use Photoshop 13)across the pond? Or have we Americans been so conditioned to expect extreme reality 14)makeovers that we no longer notice a digital 15)nip here or computerized tuck there? 16)Heck, even the women’s original Sex and the City photo shoot for the TV show 10 years ago was retouched.
Jezebel.com released an un-retouched Redbook cover image that caused a bit of a 17)stir. It was meant to. But more than 18)courting publicity and 19)traffic, the image they obtained and displayed was meant to show just how far the cover lie extends; that even in and on a women’s magazine meant for a more mature female audience (working moms, etc.) and featuring a more mature female celebrity (career-woman and mother-of-three Faith Hill), the lies and half-truths continue to be 20)perpetuated. Honestly, it’s sort of heartbreaking that it was Redbook; the magazine has been criticized before for some questionable covers (such as Jennifer Aniston and Julia Roberts) and, after all, readers of magazines like Redbook worry that they can’t have it all as it is (the great career, the loving husband, the healthy kids, the perfect body). Plus, at this point in the evolution of the 21)celebrity-sartorial complex, who or what exactly is Redbook—or any number of other women’s magazines—kidding with such a female22)forgery? Go to any name-brand, pop culture website and you can see galleries upon galleries of images of celebrities (female and male alike) in their normal, un-retouched, unlit and still-sickeningly-hot states. Why do women’s magazines continue to insist on providing readers just the opposite? Is it stubbornness? The selling of fantasy? Or the selling of other things, i.e. advertising revenue? And if so, is it really necessary to shave 10-15 pounds off a woman and erase exactly what it is (the 23)freckles, the 24)moles, the laugh lines) about her that makes her human and accessible and interesting in order to sell a bit of soap?
Some would say “yes, the half-truths of women’s magazine covers and cover-lines are necessary” (these people usually work on the business sides of such magazines). Others would say “yes” because they know no other way, or are too afraid to say “no” (these people often 25)toil on the editorial sides of such magazines). But as necessary as retouching may seem in order to fill the 26)coffers of corporate 27)behemoths like Procter & Gamble, 28)Revlon or Warner Brothers Records, it is not okay for the rest of us—the readers, that is—that this goes on. In a world where lying, deception, and the 29)fudging of facts has become 30)endemic in everything, all the way up to the highest levels of government, this is yet another example of a fraud being 31)perpetrated on the public... and the public, for the most part, is not yet in on the joke. Magazine-retouching may not be a lie 32)on par with, you know, “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,” but in a world where girls as young as eight are going on the 33)South Beach Diet, teenagers are getting breast 34)implants as graduation gifts, professional women are almost required to 35)fetishize handbags, and everyone is spending way too much time figuring out how to pose in a way that will look as good as that friend with the really popular MySpace profile, it’s wrong.
Yet some people still insist that retouching magazine covers presents no problems. “Faith is beautiful in both shots. But who wouldn’t love 36)sleek arms and a tight waist like in the ‘After’ shot?” one Jezbel.com reader said. The question remains: When you have to make these women look “better” to sell your product, what standard of beauty do you have?
这个年头，大刀阔斧修描图片的风气大行其道，你已经很难想像有哪个杂志封面是没有经过图像处理的了。还记得轰动一时，登上时尚杂志Redbook封面的“大变身”菲丝·希尔照片吗？时装杂志W封面上一头金发但看上去怪怪的格温妮丝·帕特洛呢？时装杂志Vogue一期让人不禁发问“那真的是德鲁·巴里摩尔吗”的封面，记得吧？还有时尚杂志Marie Claire封面上的蒂娜·费，封面上的她看起来棒极了，可就是不太像她本人……
说到时尚界的PS风气，不能不提的是詹妮弗·哈德森将要发行的专辑封面照已经发布出来，我们觉得专辑封面上的詹妮弗·哈德森看起来不错，但的确像有PS加工的痕迹。詹妮弗·哈德森天生体态丰腴，我们喜欢那种她未经人工雕琢的美。但专辑封面所见，她那2号小蛮腰就是再厉害的紧身束胸衣也没办法做到的。在伦敦“拯救一个孩子的生命”慈善舞会的红地毯入场礼上，詹妮弗·哈德森的腰看上去可没这么细。在我们看来，PS的魔棒的确有可能起了作用。
还有另一个例子，从我们第一次在屏幕上看着电视《欲望都市》中的几个都市女性啜饮cosmos（编者注：一种鸡尾酒）至今已经十年了，可看看2008年电影版的《欲望都市》，时光似乎定格在了十年前。啊，那是好莱坞的魔法。然而，一些新闻媒体对这几位演员的宣传照片有经加工美化之嫌表示惊诧。英国报纸《每日电讯报》和《每日邮报》都刊登了文章，“揭露”了这些被润色过的照片。亲爱的英国人啊，请告诉我：难道大洋彼岸的你们就不用电脑图像处理软件吗？或者我们美国人早已看习惯了那些“麻雀变凤凰”的真人秀，所以我们对现在用电脑这里修修那里补补都不以为意了？见鬼，即使是十年前，电视《欲望都市》中女演员的宣传照片也是处理过的。
网络女性杂志Jezebel.com公布了一张时尚杂志Redbook未被润色的封面照片，引起了一番轰动。他们是故意这样做的。但他们不是旨在哗众取宠，提高网站点击率，他们公开得到的照片是为了向众人显示封面潜规则到底有多泛滥，让大家明白，即使是一份面向成熟女性群体（上班妈妈等）和展示成熟女明星（身为职业妇女和三个孩子母亲的菲丝·希尔）的女性杂志，一直笼罩在谎言和“半真半假”的迷雾中。说实话，这种事发生在Redbook上确实令人痛心，之前该杂志就曾因一些可疑封面照（如詹妮弗·安妮斯顿和朱莉亚·罗伯茨）而备受批评，毕竟，像Redbook这类杂志的读者本来就已经担心自己能否面面俱到（拥有好的职业、相亲相爱的丈夫、健康的孩子、完美的身材）。此外，在“名人时尚至上情结”发展到当下的今天，Redbook——或者说所有其他女性杂志——用这种女性的虚假形象究竟是想糊弄谁，或者想达到什么目的？随便登上任何一个名牌产品或流行文化网站，你都可以看到大量明星（男女明星都有）的图片，相中的他们就是平时的样子，没有润色美化，也不需特效打光，依然可以艳光四射。那为什么女性杂志一直反其道而行呢？是固执？在兜售不现实的幻想？或者说在兜售其它什么东西，比如说为了广告收入？如果真是这样的话，那么，为了推销几块香皂，真的有必要给一个女人先去掉10至15磅，然后再抹去她脸上那些充满人性、亲切有趣的真实一面（如雀斑、痣、笑纹）吗？
有些人会说：“是的，女性杂志封面上不完全真实的女性形象和文字是有必要的”。（这些人常常是在此类杂志的营销部门工作的）；其他一些人也会说“是的”，那是因为他们不知道除了这样还可以怎样，或者他们很怕说“不”（这些人一般是在杂志的编辑部门辛勤苦干的）。对如宝洁、露华浓、华纳兄弟唱片这些巨企来说，要金库进账不断，“润色”之举看似必要；但对我们——读者——来说，这种状况继续下去，并不是什么好事。在谎言、瞒骗、弄虚作假大行其道，歪风甚至蔓延到政府最高层的这样一个世界里，这只不过是欺骗公众的又一个事例……公众对此基本上不知情。杂志“润色”明星照片可能无法与，比如说，“伊拉克拥有大规模杀伤性武器”这种谎言相提并论，但在当今这个世界，八岁的女孩子就开始遵从迈阿密饮食瘦身法，少女们把去接受隆胸视为毕业礼物，职业女性如果不迷恋手袋就好像显得不正常，几乎所有人都花过多的时间想着该如何摆姿势，让自己可以看起来与在MySpace（编者注：全球最大的社交网站）上大受欢迎的朋友一样好看等等，这是错的。
仍然有些人认为拿经过润色的图片做杂志封面是没有问题的。“菲丝在两张照片上都很美，可谁不喜欢‘变身后’那光滑的胳膊和纤细的腰肢呢？” Jezbel.com的一名读者如是道。看来问题仍旧存在：如果你一定要把这些女性变“好看些”来推销你的产品，那你对于美的标准是什么？