Blog post 5: Picture Perfect

Thoughts on the social impact of photo manipulation software.

By Yves Wienecke
February 10, 2019

Role models and social expectations

All societies have a recognizable, defined image of what an ideal citizen looks like. Throughout history, these ideals have been shaped by gender roles and ideas of femininity versus masculinity in various societal facets. Often, gender roles define what the business sphere and domestic corner of life ought to look like. While these standards have and still exist, they are incarnated differently through technology.

Celebrities - actors, musicians, and models - set the standard for what is deemed desirable by society. American women of the 1950s strove to look like Marilyn Monroe, and Elvis Presley was (and still is) an icon of the ideal American man since the mid 1900s. The gender roles of the time denied many women of a career other than house wife - part of the ‘American dream’ with the nuclear family with two kids +1 dog, a white picket fence and beautiful green grass that perfectly frame an impeccible two-story house.

Newspapers, magazines, and television served as the primary methods for spreading and popularizing (normalizing?) these societal ideals. While the American dream proved to be difficult to achieve for a majority of Americans, it was still a life that was theoretically attainable. However, the advent of the Internet and personal computers changed the way that societal ideals were presented and created.

Magazines

The first decade of the 21st century saw an increase in usage of a certain type of software that pushed societal expectations to a level that is literally impossible to achieve. This software, in particular Photoshop, allowed marketers to manipulate images of celebrities. Slowly, perfect, symmetrical ‘aliens’ began to appear on all the magazines that lined the check-out aisles in every store. Long slender arms and legs, ripped abs, flawless skin texture and tone - these are all chracteristics that appeared in every American magazine, which defied the reality of what the celebrity actually looks like! How can the general public be expected to look like these flawless specimens when the models themselves don’t even resemble the images? [5]

1. Impossible body standards on magazine covers, surrounded by loaded language of gender expectations
(Muscle on the left versus shrinking the belly, butt & thighs on the right) [5].

In the second decade, the smartphone rose to popularity and made magazines as well as newspapers obsolete. However, social expectations and photo manipulation did not become subject to the same fate. In all actuality, the popularity of the smartphone lead to the complete opposite result! Whereas Photoshop and previous methods of photo manipulation were too costly for most people, smart phones offered a plethora of free and simple apps that were widely accessible to the general public. Snapchat, instagram, and facetune are the crowning apps responsible for this in the American context.

Facetune and filters

In Asia, apps like Meitu, Line, and Kakao talk popularized instant photo manipulation via filters [5]. Characteristics held valuable to Asian society, such as fair porcelain skin, large doll eyes, and a thin nose and chin, could be applied to any picture with the swipe of a finger. In the American context, snapchat gives users access to the very same functionality, but with more American features like brighter eyes, a thinner jaw line, and longer eye lashes. All apps also allow users to play around with their presentation, such as appearing to be a demon or dog - the ‘pretty’ filter isn’t the limit. Regardless, pretty filters are the most popular and widely used due to the ability to instantly enhance (not destroy) the appearance of a user.

2. The Mona Lisa as an ideal asian image [5].

3. A comedic video showing some snapchat filters [3].

As Denis points out in his video, these filters are so popular because they make people feel good about themselves. The filters present a slightly different, but improved version of the user without any blemishes or imperfections. Supporters of mobile photo manipulation tools stress this point: the picture that is being edited really is the user, but with just the ever most slightest amount of improvement. Surely, hiding imperfections and filtering out imperfections won’t lead to any problems with body image, right?

It is widely accepted that this assertion is wrong. A huge issue with this technology and its application in today’s society is seen in bridging the gap between society and its expectations. With magazines and television, only celebrities were able to get even close to appearing as ideals - the software for photo manipulation was too expensive, difficult to use, and didn’t create a result that was always realistic. Smartphone apps in conjunction with social media (especially Instagram) allows any person to appear as an ideal.

Social media influencers

The term “social media influencer” has become more used as social media celebrities become a part of the lives and social ideals of youth. As is revealed by a large number of social media stars who buckle under the pressure of keeing up their image of a perfect and beautiful life, the social impact of widespread, easily accessible photo manipulation software becomes apparent. As social media influencer Gloom states, she leaves her boyfriend to do all the photo editing for her brand, as she is very prone to making very not-so-slight edits to hide her imperfections [4].

4. A social influencer with half a million reveals her addiction to maintaining a fake online life for the sake of followers [2].

Little edits here are there, a diet or two - these seemingly miniscule actions have severly negative impacts on not only the social media celebrities themselves, but also on the hundreds of thousands of followers viewing the pictures every day and being lead to believe that the photo manipulation is actually real, attainable life. As was seen with photoshop and the models, these celebrities do not even resemble the life they are putting out on the web, yet they continue to display their picture perfect life due to social expectation and pressures. It doesn’t lead to happiness, but rather self hate and an addiction to the numbers game that is gaining likes and follows.

Is tranparent app usage acceptible?

In the previous example, the model displayed her edited life as if it were her real life. In that case, would the social impact of photo manipulation software change if she were to be completely transparent about her usage of such apps? From the opinion of social media influencer James Charles, photo editting and touchups are socially acceptable so long as the result has the user still recognizable and without any new features (adding makeup, enlarging body features, etc.). As he explains, the action of putting on makeup, clothing, and taking the picture itself has just as much impact on a photo and is as much of an art as facetuning is. He adds that such a software is acceptable to use so long as one is transparent about using the software and does not ‘cross any lines.’ Unfortunately for James, these lines are not so obvious or widely agreed upon.

5. Social influencer and Youtuber James Charles explains his point of view on facetuning.

Really, facetune and filters is like having the ability to get plastic surgery on your phone. The changes are so slight but add up to create a noticably different depiction of the user. And when these tools become used so often and the manipulated images are shown through social media so widely, users begin to feel a stronger pull towards getting actual plastic surgey to have their physical body match their online persona [1]. Whether plastic surgery is moral and socially acceptable or not is relevant to the topic of photo editing, but is a different discussion for a different time. When facetune breeds shame for unique personal features and lead to plastic surgery, many concerns are brought up regarding exactly why the personal features are seen with such disdain.

Erasure of cultural features

Often times, this shame is based upon conflicting ideas of beauty in a country that many Americans describe as a “mixing pot” of cultures. In one case, a prominent nose that is held with pride in one country is seen as disgusting and witch-like in America, where the beauty standard is a long, thin nose with a prominent nose-bridge. While this may not seem like such a large problem, another more concerning trend is being seen in modified pictures: skin tone modification.

Beyonce, Adriana Grande, and many other artists have come under fire for making their skin darker or lighter to fit a certain race ideal. In one case, its a sign of discrimination against darker skin tones, which is widely known as colorism. In the other case, its a sign of cultural appropriation. This refers to taking certain foreign cultural habits or characteristics that are seen as ‘ghetto’ or ‘dirty’ on citizens who naturally have said features. Snapchat filters have been suspected of skin lightening with filters, which has an impact of further separating citizens based on darkness of skin tone. In South Africa, colorism leads to a preference for lighter skin and promotes the usage of illegal skin whitening products that result in serious health problems like sensitivity to the sun and skin cancer [5].

6. Nigerian celebrity Dencia before and after using a skin bleaching product that contains illegal, harmful substances [5].

Conclusion

Photo manipulation software not only allows one to slightly edit their body, but also allows them to hide away from certain problems such as lack of fitness or bad diet, and can hide or worsen mental problems surrounding body image and social expectations. However, this software is integral for members of the trans community who praise a software that allows them to view their own bodies in a way that is more consistent to their expectations. In this instance, photo editing combats feelings of gender dysphoria and body dysmorphic disorder, which is an obviously positive result.

In lieu of surgery or hormone treatements, which take a long time and a lot of money before producing any signiticant results, photo manipulation can create a persona or image that a trans person may identify with better than their actual, physical self. This is different from social influences who edit their photos and post a false ‘perfect’ life on the internet and feel disconnected from their online presence.

I think that there are many positive impact that widespread, easily accessible photo manipulation technology has for society. Although it makes it much easier for any person to create a false version of themself and fosters negative feelings about one’s body image, it certainly opens up the question of how social expectations and beauty standards are defined and who defines them in the first place. Rather than having companies push magazines with fit and beautiful celebrities to sell a profit, social media influences are speaking out and challenging these standards that tend to limit the opportunities and potential of minorities.

Nevertheless, in an interconnected society where image is held at high regard, perhaps this technology will just become a mandatory part of everyday and business life, rather than a tool for insecure youth and celebrities.

---

Sources

[1] Broadly. “I Got Surgery to Look Like My Snapchat and Facetune Selfies.” 6 Dec. 2018, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZOpLpSNW6c.

[2] BuzzFeed Multiplayer. “Instagram Star Reveals The Trush Behind Her Photos.” Youtube, 4 Nov. 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsxSMdFC20E

[3] Dennis. “PLAYING WITH SNAP CHAT FILTERS!!” Youtube, 15 Sept. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V365wtHEck.

[4] Gloom. “Boyfriend Called Me Out For Photoshop.” Youtube 5, Aug. 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BvpxJwH3PY.

[5] Jiayang, Fan. “China’s Selfie Obsession.” The New Yorker, 25, Dec. 2018, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/18/chinas-selfie-obsession.

[5] Liadi, Ladun. “Photos Of Dencia Before & After Bleaching.” 24 Jan. 2014, https://www.ladunliadinews.com/2014/01/photos-dencia-before-after-bleaching.html

[5] Rosenbrock, Katie. “Photoshop, Body Shaming and 6 More Ways the Mainstream Media is Destroying Your Body Image.” The Active Times, 24 Sept. 2014, https://www.theactivetimes.com/photoshop-body-shaming-and-6-more-ways-mainstream-media-destroying-your-body-image.

[5] Unreported World. “Skin bleaching scandal in South Africa|Unreported World.” Youtube, 17 Jan. 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWHCwXZpH6E.