Most people know Photoshop, and some of us even have this
software in our laptops or computers. For those who do not know what Photoshop
is, it is a software developed by Adobe Systems, an American computer software company, which major use is in editing images.
Many artists (and by artists I mean
singers, dancers, actors, etc.) are fond of Photoshop and they find it a good
opportunity to look attractive for their fans. At the same time, they supply their
need of looking as young and nice as in the moment they became famous, and project
an image of immortality and everlasting beauty and fame, although the image
they show is an idealistic version of them.
 |
| Photoshop at its best: Madonna, singer |
But when is it too much? Some artists
have overused this useful tool turning it into an enemy that reveals their
necessity of others’ recognition, not only in the artistic field (the one that
really matters), but also in the physical and superficial field. Singers and
actors tend to use Photoshop as if it was the only mechanism to attract the
masses, sometimes with unsatisfactory results.
 |
| Another example of Photoshop: Tyra Banks, model |
From bigger breasts and smaller waist to different skin color, artists have used this now worldwide famous software
to make fans and public in general feel attracted to first impressions, and in
this case Photoshop is the right weapon to draw our attention to them. But what
would happen if there was not any software to edit one’s appearance? Would beloved
celebrities be as popular as they are now?
P.S. If you want to watch Ellen DeGeneres talking about Photoshop (hilarious!), click here.
ReplyDeleteI think that Photoshop is a very useful tool, as you already said, especially for artists that sell their image. However, I believe that if there wasn’t this kind of software, celebrities would be as popular as they are now. We only need to think about how the things were in the past, when there was not so much technology. Singers, actors, dancers, artists in general didn’t need these editors because nobody knew them. People loved them just because of their real image, and the talent they got.
Today, the things are a little bit more different. We can’t even think about a world without computers, Internet, or any kind of software that we have because we are get used to them. It is not our or the artist’s fault. It is just that the media has sold us something that is not real, something that has been edited to seem better. Nowadays, artists without “Photoshop” are nothing. As their audience, we have been taught to only consider the appearance, and we are forgetting the most important thing: that they should be appreciated because of their talent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paulina in almost every word she said, but I think it's not the media's fault. I think it is our fault (And by our fault I mean all people’s fault) because if we were not buying all these “factory products” they wouldn’t exist anymore.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, we have the artists: nothing more than puppets managed by a company. Most of the times they don’t make their own decisions at all. On the other hand, companies: they will always produce what they are sure we will buy.
So, what we have left is us. It is common to see on the news reports about celebrities going out without makeup and the first thing we do is to gossip about it. It’s always fun to laugh at Britney Spears’s bald head, for example. The media knows we prefer a beautiful long blonde hair Britney walking through the red carpet. In my opinion, that’s why photoshop is that important nowadays.
Photoshop has become a vital as water in the celebrities’ world. However, it is amazing to find famous people that are against its use. For me, the most known is British Actress Kate Winslet. In 2003, she appeared on the cover of a GQ edition, totally airbrushed. Believe it or not, she felt embarrassed and angry; in fact, she sued the magazine for that. Winslet, currently 36, has expressed that she feels comfortable with her body, and even with her wrinkles. Because of this, she has declared to the media to be “anti-surgery” and “anti-Photoshop”, an initiative that she shares with other actresses like Cate Blanchett, Rachel Weisz and Emma Thompson.
ReplyDeleteI think that a more “natural Hollywood” may be a better image of the spectacles universe. Less vanity and more natural views may also have an impact on social views, decreasing, for example, the obsession of teenagers to be “perfect as their idol”.