Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means more money for them

In article ,
Rich A wrote:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/09/tech...hotoshop-woman

For all you morons who still labour under the belief they are a "rebel"
corporation and not the usual sleazeballs.

THAT is all it takes to get people's panties in a bunch?! Get a life,
guys - go worry about world hunger or something. Note to CNN: It's not
a 'lot of heat" because you say it is. No one takes anything on Twitter
seriously.

Personally, I think the original model in the ad sold out her entire
gender by allowing herself to be used in this way. She set back women's
rights at least a decade! She should be hunted down and... given a
stern talking to, or something.

(Rich A, who dwells in the deepest pit of my kill file, blathered about
the Adobe presentation at yesterday's Apple Event.)

Scott Schuckert:
THAT is all it takes to get people's panties in a bunch?! Get a life,
guys - go worry about world hunger or something. Note to CNN: It's not
a 'lot of heat" because you say it is. No one takes anything on Twitter
seriously.

Personally, I think the original model in the ad sold out her entire
gender by allowing herself to be used in this way. She set back women's
rights at least a decade! She should be hunted down and... given a
stern talking to, or something.

DOLTS! Retouching photographs is as old as photography. Drawing and
painting idealized faces is as old as art. Who thinks that da Vinci
recreated exactly what he saw when he painted the Mona Lisa?

The present instance was a fashion photograph (simulated ad for
lipstick, apparently). When you're selling fashion, whether to men or
to women, you're selling an ideal. That ideal does not include
blemishes and other defects. It doesn't include wrinkled old men or
women, the infirm, or the deformed--it's not charity-poster art. The
client gets what s/he demands and a photographer who has a problem with
that needs to find a new profession.

I had better not learn that any of the complainers wear anything but
ragged sackcloth or that any of them use makeup or wear jewelry.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

| DOLTS! Retouching photographs is as old as photography. Drawing and
| painting idealized faces is as old as art. Who thinks that da Vinci
| recreated exactly what he saw when he painted the Mona Lisa?
|

?? I'm surprised that people are calling this sexism.
Smiles are generally more attractive, but not
necessarily sexually attractive. (The typical come
hither look is more likely to be one of focused
lust. Intense, smoldering stare.) If people want to
complain it should be about the assumption that
all images are, or should be, selling something.

But Da Vinci? Do you really think he was trying to
make the woman beautiful? First of all, he didn't.
Second, that would be a trite motive. Third, the
woman was a model. There's no reason he should
necessarily be trying to reproduce her face as he
sees it. (Though, frankly, I've never seen anything
profound in the smile of Mona Lisa. It looks to me
like garden variety, self-conscious vanity: She's
smiling with subtle satisfaction at being looked at.
The feminine mystique, maybe? That seems like a
generous interpretation.)

| The present instance was a fashion photograph (simulated ad for
| lipstick, apparently). When you're selling fashion, whether to men or
| to women, you're selling an ideal.

I'm not sure your logic holds up. Have you looked at
fashion photos lately? Many are hollow-cheeked, with
desolate expressions, as though they just escaped a
war zone and haven't eaten for a week... but they hardly
care because their humanity has been traumatized out of
them. That might represent a teenage wish to not
care what other people think. Maybe that's an ideal of
sorts. But it's a long way from smiling. (And fashion photos
of women are meant to appeal to women, not men.)

The young women of high fashion are notably not
attractive. They usually have very angular jaws and cheeks,
but often to an absurd degree -- not necessarily attractive.
Their bodies are usually anorectic and the clothes they're
draped in are usually calculatedly ugly. When I look at those
photos I don't want to have sex with them. I want to say s
omething to cheer them up, then feed them. (Even Victorias
Secret models have child-like bodies. Which is why they
get away with being nearly naked: They're not very sexy.)

Fashion photography is modern art at it's worst:
Reactionary provocation masquerading as original
creativity. "I'm an artist. Therefore if I display a moldy
piece of bread and call it art then it is art."

Anyone who doubts that fashion models are unattractive
need only look at a "men's magazine". The models will all
be curvey, not anorectic. So personally I like the idea
of someone putting a little smile on one of those high
fashion, sullen stares. Who wouldn't want to try to cheer
up such a wet towel?

On 9/10/2015 10:42 AM, Mayayana wrote:

snip


Anyone who doubts that fashion models are unattractive
need only look at a "men's magazine". The models will all
be curvey, not anorectic. So personally I like the idea
of someone putting a little smile on one of those high
fashion, sullen stares. Who wouldn't want to try to cheer
up such a wet towel?


I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.)


--
PeterN

| I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.)
|
Well, I guess if you thought they were women
then it's not for me to tell you otherwise.

On 9/11/2015 6:31 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.)
|
Well, I guess if you thought they were women
then it's not for me to tell you otherwise.



Autoerotic would have been a better word.


--
PeterN

On 2015-09-11 18:17, PeterN wrote:
On 9/10/2015 10:42 AM, Mayayana wrote:

snip


Anyone who doubts that fashion models are unattractive
need only look at a "men's magazine". The models will all
be curvey, not anorectic. So personally I like the idea
of someone putting a little smile on one of those high
fashion, sullen stares. Who wouldn't want to try to cheer
up such a wet towel?


I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.)

Inflatible sex dolls?

On 9/14/15 3:39 PM, in article
, "Alan Browne"
wrote:

On 2015-09-11 18:17, PeterN wrote:
On 9/10/2015 10:42 AM, Mayayana wrote:

snip


Anyone who doubts that fashion models are unattractive
need only look at a "men's magazine". The models will all
be curvey, not anorectic. So personally I like the idea
of someone putting a little smile on one of those high
fashion, sullen stares. Who wouldn't want to try to cheer
up such a wet towel?


I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.)

Inflatible sex dolls?


Mostly named "Patches", I would surmise...

On 9/14/2015 4:39 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-11 18:17, PeterN wrote:
On 9/10/2015 10:42 AM, Mayayana wrote:

snip


Anyone who doubts that fashion models are unattractive
need only look at a "men's magazine". The models will all
be curvey, not anorectic. So personally I like the idea
of someone putting a little smile on one of those high
fashion, sullen stares. Who wouldn't want to try to cheer
up such a wet towel?


I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.)

Inflatible sex dolls?

Somehow I'm thinking "Airplane!" autopilot...

==
Later...
Ron C
--