[MUSIC]. Let's start and think about advertising,
and the first image is one for an anti-wrinkling cream.
This is an advert that was put out in Britain and, featured Rachel Weiss, the
British actress. Its suggested that the image that was
used, in this particular instance was unrepresentative of the effects that the
wrinkle cream had. Now, this is advertising.
Let's just be practical about this. yes it contravenes some standards.
they have selected a particularly photogenic image.
The fact they've had to doctor it slightly, does suggest that they're over
exaggerating the potential effects of the product.
But no one is going to be too shocked to learn that this periodically happens, and
gets picked up by the appropriate authorities.
When it come to advertising there's also what is acceptable, what's not acceptable
as times change. there is fairly heavy regulation in the
21st century about tobacco advertising. But when you have an instance of an
advertising company in America who is licensed the use of the Abbey Road cover
by the Beatles. Airbrushing out to the cigarette held by
Paul McCartney as they cross the zebra crossing.
You get an idea of how the concerns of society have changed.
That something that was a common place in the late 60s in the first decade of the
Twenty-first Century, can't be viewed without some alteration.
Now if we're worrying about photographs of cigarette smoking, in the modern age.
Here is an instance which four and six have from 2005.
It seems very innocuous Clemet Herd the illustrator of a revised edition of the
children's classic book Good Night Moon. Had in the previous couple of decades,
been pictured on the back cover holding a cigarette.
When it came to the new edition, the publishers felt it was appropriate to
have the cigarette removed, and with the reluctant agreement of Mr.
Herd's family, that was done. So, for something that was unacceptable
for two what's unacceptable now, had been let passed for two decades.
Times changed. So did the requirement of the airbrushing
of the photograph. When it comes to advertising, you
shouldn't necessarily be surprised that cigarettes are in or out of the
photograph of the time. Or that a photograph may have been
altered to enhance the effects of the, quote, wrinkle cream, unquotes on the
image. But when it comes to the cover of Time,
Time magazine, you're expecting something a little bit different.
And in 2007 Time magazine ran an article, How The Right Went Wrong.
And it displays fairly clearly Ronald Reagan but, digitally added was a tear
across his right cheek. As if Reagan was lamenting after the
event, How The Right Went Wrong, so to speak.
Now, Time argued that, they'd made it clear at one point or other that this was
a montage. But having a photograph of Ronald Reagan,
as opposed to a photograph of Ronald Reagan with a tear given the head, the
headline to the article, does change the way that you are going to interpret it.
So, again, this is a piece of advertising which is augmented a photograph and
augmented a photograph for the effect of promoting sales.
Now when it comes to magazine covers there seems to be a very high proportion
of them especially if they're appealing to men with young women on them.
It could be women of any age, but, you know, lets be practical about this.
In 2003 GQ magazine perpetrated something of a controversy.
they had Kate Winslet on their cover. Kate Winslet one of the finest actresses
of her generation was digitally altered to narrow her hips.
To effectively elongate her, for what was perceived to be the image requirements of
the clientele. so there we have someone who is known for
her abilities, her integrity as an actress, yes, her looks, she's a
Hollywood star as much as anything else. But the need to change it, to sell more
magazines? As opposed to representing her as she is.
That does seem taking things a little bit far, and did cause a controversy at the time. [BLANK_AUDIO]