What do we really want?

Response to Pixel Perfect:

The World of Fashion: Pixel Perfect: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

I suppose I can appreciate Dangin’s artistry in photographic retouching; it seems that he is the type of person who really contemplates the changes he makes, the reasons behind them, and what looks natural. He even has his assistants take figure drawing and anatomy classes to understand how the human body actual works, how far you can go without departing from reality. Still though, after actual observation there remains the idea of the ideal that much be reached. Presentations of “ideal” body types, digitally enhanced or not, can create unhealthy references for viewers, both women and men. So then how much of this retouching is based on public demand? Sadly, I think we perpetuate the unrealistic and negative body images ourselves. We as a culture covet perfected, smooth and sleek images and demand that our celebrities and models look good. We want to look at them because they’re beautiful. If they were not we could not obtain a vicarious sensation of elation from what we imagine their lifestyles to be. And so, people have to be perfected to meet our standards.

I find that interest in the human body and face can lie in their individuality and uniqueness, but when these images are presented by something such as the fashion world, we want to forget the irregular and the gritty. Often in these photographs perfect faces become less about the human within and more of an abstract sculptural interpretation. I think this is where the power Dangin holds originates – he can dictate how we relate to the image, how we judge it. I think it is one thing to change the surface appearance of something, such as blemishes; those are impermanent qualities of our bodies. But changing the shape and structure is something different – it belies the everyday truth. Our bodies are shaped in their own ways, our wrinkles and scars tell a history.

 Of course, as Collins points out, retouching is hardly anything new, and as Dangin says, proportions can be the fault of the camera. So where is the line between translating an artistic vision through enhancement, and lying to the viewer? Do we want the truth? I think often we don’t. These photos are meant for consumption and therefore should be perfect. As much power Dangin has in altering images, he still answers to us, the consumer.