Today we live in a society where consumerism (consumption of goods) runs rampant. In this economy, companies are vying for the attention for American consumers to purchase their product. With all the competition in advertising and promoting of products, people are constantly exposed to this.
Digital manipulation is perfect for companies to be able to convey exactly what they want consumers to see and hoping that they elicit the response they wish ie. consumers purchasing product and promoting to others they know. Although digital manipulation is argued to be used as a "polish" for works (in journalism for example) or for artistic purposes, there are obvious lines crossed where it can be considered misleading.
The obvious questions that arise when discussing digital manipulation includes when we consider if something is unethical, insensitive, inaccurate and misleading or rather just a following of the first amendment concerning expression. However, since we are in a class that discusses computers and society, the question I pose is how much does digital manipulation reflect the society we live in? How many people are aware of how much is manipulated in the advertising of products? Even if people are aware, as a society, it sometimes seems we live in a society that is somewhat superficial (ie. diets, flashy clothing, popular music) and too conformist. With our busy lives, we sometimes seem to just accept that even some things are not what they seem, we continue to partake in the consumerist society. Is this a phase that we have always been in or will it change - especially due to the circumstances of economy?
In addition, this also in fault to the technology developed. Although this is generalizing, seeing how digital manipulation has developed into various issues, how do we maintain controls on what we develop and how it is used? Although we see the positive possibilities that a technology implicates, how do we handle the negatives of it?
In response to the last question - If it was possible, and I don't think it'd be that difficult to develop, I think there needs to be a way to see if and how an image was manipulated. Maybe not in the image itself, but in the file it's saved in. It might not help with advertising, etc but it could help in photojournalism and historical records, possibly?
ReplyDeleteI think that the new technology, in particular those that assist in digital manipulation is becoming a problem. Consumers should be the ones who hold companies responsible for such manipulations and any false information that they try o get away with. Since this is such a fast paced consumer world, most people dont take the tme to check to see if advertisements are factional, r manipulated. People need to take the time when choosing a product instead of buying the first one that looks good on tv. I think that since our economy is in the state that it is people are starting to watch how they spend their money and which products they invest in. Those companies that have been manipulating their products or just showing the positives are now being held accountable and people aren't buying there products. It is the consumers that are responsible for holding corporations in check and they are starting to do so.
ReplyDeleteI think Rachel’s question “How much does digital manipulation reflect the society we live in?” is really interesting and worth considering. While I do think that the manipulation (particularly of the image of women) used in advertising can be dangerous to our society, on the whole, I think digital manipulation technology is an invaluable tool.
ReplyDeleteIt’s difficult to imagine anyone maintaining control on the development of this technology and even more so on how it is used. As more and more people become more and more computer savvy, it’s inevitable that digital manipulation will become increasingly prevalent. Anyone with a computer and a modem can download an image/video/sound clip and upload their modified version again. But what would life be like without youTube mashups? I think the industries who abuse digital manipulation technology to mislead consumers should be regulated and punished by the federal and state agencies that govern them.
I agree with what Emily said about digital manipulation being an invaluable tool in advertising. Anything that an ad company can do to make their products look more appealing to entice consumers to buy, I feel, should be allowed because that is capitalism. However, if this information is incorrect or misleading then action should be taken against these people or companies. I think that as the economy has deteriorated, more companies are encouraged to make their products appear even more appealing. Though this may be seen as unethical by some, companies who do not do this may lose serious sales volumes. The fine line that is walked in this scenario is how good a company can make a product appear before it becomes unrealistic. Once this occurs, legal action should be taken.
ReplyDeleteAh matt, always taking the business/financial perspective... Ha. Well, you are in fact, very right. I agree with the "that is capitalism" comment whole-heartedly. While people may raise questions about getting fooled or jipped because of digital manipulation, I look at it this way: TOUGH LUCK! Everyone else is exposed to the same guises and has to make nearly the same decisions. Our economy thrives on these decisions.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to our society, it DOES reflect this because we have been concerned about our image forever. The ancient Greeks made statues, Elizabethans gorged to display their wealth, and fashion, in today's world, covers more magazine covers than any other subject I can think of. We are a society consumed by our image which is why companies play to our tastes. We want what looks good - healthy, unhealthy, whatever it is, we are ensnared by the look.
As for the economy... it's a dog eat dog world, so you better make your paper before someone else does. And if you don't like it, then you might as well pull a Gilligan and find an island where leaf dresses and coconut boob covers are the only thing you have to worry about.
So am I for digital manipulation? Yes. But I guess that's only when I'm not on the "fool" end of it.
I personally was shocked to find out that all of these pictures of models and actresses have been digitally manipulated to such extreme measures! I could understand if they airbrushed blemishes or edited out a stray hair, but to make ten pounds disappear is misleading and wrong. Girls in our society have been shown to be more prone to psychological disorders like anorexia or bulimia and the media has shown to play a role in this phenomenon. If it is not possible for the actress herself to look like she does in the magazine, then how do young girls who think these pictures are a true representation of the actress's body supposed to strive to look that way themselves? I think that digital manipulation crosses an ethical line when others are deceived and never told otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThere's no doubt that consumers are tricked by pictures of models and other products such as food, but I argue that the average individual has no clue how far this deception goes. Most young teens haven't taken college level classes yet, and also don't engage in many conversations about topics like digital manipulation. They are, however, leaps and bounds more wary of their image than most other age groups. This presents a very dangerous situation, because those that are most vulnerable and impressionable are the same people that are least informed about the actual truth behind our consumerist society. There is a difference between touching up on the lighting of a photo and spending hours digitally trimming a woman's face and body like in the Dove ad. Also, to make matters worse, did you know that the people responsible for the Dove campaign for "Real Beauty" are working under the same company responsible for Axe ads? I think it's fair to say that most individuals (especially those young impressionable teenagers) are unaware of this fact. Having this knowledge, it's difficult to take Dove's rationale for their campaign too seriously: "to celebrate the diverse, the healthy, the real, the truly beautiful," when Axe ads show us that their product will attract only the most classically gorgeous women. I stand behind the fundamentals of a capitalistic society as well, but there are certainly crossed barriers to be addressed when presenting "truthful and non-deceptive" advertisements to American youths who struggle (sometimes to the point of death) with identity issues.
ReplyDeleteI think that digital manipulation crosses an ethical line as well. As Autumn mentioned in her response, girls see these actresses and supermodels in magazines that are unnaturally thin. Girls strive to look like this and it ends up being detrimental to their health. When digital manipulation, or anything like this, starts to mess with the minds of the general public, I think it is unethical and wrong. If we are trying to tell girls to live a healthy lifestyle (i.e. not anorexic or bulimic), why are we shoving these digitally enhanced, and therefore unrealistic, pictures in their faces. We need to start showing the public real pictures (at least when it comes to body weight) of public figures to encourage healthy lifestyle habits.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt and Emily in the sense that digital manipulation is a part of advertising. However, on the other hand, how far is advertising going to and allowed to go when it comes to manipulating the looks and other aspects of their product? When are they considered to be crossing the line and unethical? Just like Ellison said, messing with the customer's head's is unethical and wrong, but who is supposed to stop this phenomenon? How can it end? This is just like photo manipulation because it is unfair to our society especially once it causes unhealthy views on beauty for instance. If only we could have more positive campaigns like the Dove campaign for instance to help spread the word of positive advertising. However, even though we know it is occurring do you think that actually helps in the way we think? I feel it must be a gradual change because obviously it was gradual for us to get this materialistic and shallow from the get-go!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with c.j. The average individual would be deceived by most acts of digital manipulation. Even college students like us who have learned about the topic are likely fooled everyday by technology's capabilities. I looked at the University of Wisconsin picture shown in the class presentation on this topic and thought to myself that I never would have guessed that it was digitally altered. If you are like me, I look at most things as it is without much skepticism.
ReplyDeleteA quick search on google shows many examples of digitally altered photos that could have tremendous implications. Some of these photos can alter how future generations learn history.
Types of digital manipulation can vary over a large spectrum of instances- making McDonald’s food look gourmet, airbrushing every fine detail of a model’s body, super imposing objects in pictures, and even the shocking instances of making someone like Barack Obama’s skin color look darker or lighter. While I do not mind instances in which technology is used to create a “Rock Band” commercial with different celebrity coaches- it is realistic that people are on different schedules and getting everyone to collaborate and be somewhere at the same time is very difficult. However, it is shocking to me that the media will go as far as using digital manipulation to modify someone’s skin color for political and selfish reasons. The recent scenario of Barack Obama’s skin tone manipulation reminded me of the 1994 TIME Magazine cover of OJ Simpson where the editors digitally changed the color of his skin in his mug shot to be much darker than normal under a headline “An American Tragedy.” This cover was compared to a Newsweek cover with the same photograph, but looked starkly different as Newsweek portrayed his skin color to its true identity. The TIME magazine cover had a political agenda to incriminate OJ Simpson to the American public. Such a statement had racist implications and reactions that forced TIME to do a re-print. Digital Manipulation should never be used in such a way because it proved that modern technology and advances can yield negative social scenarios- where is the logic in that?
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with the previous posts regarding digital manipulations essential place in advertising; however, many companies approach the fine line of false advertising. Airbrushing certain details, slightly altering a musical piece or slight adjustments to a photo may be aesthetically pleasing and not harmful to the overall display or projected concept. Unfortunately, the competitive push amongst society for perfection (as well as profit) often tempts companies to significantly alter published material through digital manipulation. This is no different than making a completely false claim about a product. Airbrushing all of the wrinkles out of a woman's face for a photo used in a wrinkle-erasing product is unethical. If the product does not actually produce such results, consumers should not be lead to think so. While digital manipulation is often beneficial and detectable by most, deceiving and false uses creates serious ethical problems.
ReplyDeleteI think it is really hard to stop digital manipulation from creating superficial things. They create perfect things so that people strive to be as perfect as they can. Granted this perception is highly distorted and highly subjective, a lot of the bad can be look at in a good way. My own opinion sides with the negative aspect of digital manipulation. There will obviously never be a point where a magazine will never use digital manipulation to create the perfect body or whatever, therefore, only advocacy groups can really make a change. There really is no physical damage that can be presented as a result of digital manipulation.
ReplyDeleteDigital Manipulation has become part of our society today. I think it is our duty as citizens to realize that most everything seen in the public eye has been altered. Technology has grown so fast that it is tough to tell if something has been altered. In my opinion, we as humans have ourselves to blame for the society that we live in today. We have created the "perfect appearance" so to speak. This has translanted into what we see every day on magazine covers, tv, movies, newspapers....We have to take this manipulation as is.
ReplyDelete