Now, I know covering the subject of fashion in terms of its use of contemporary media is far to broad to cover in a singular blogpost. So, I will focus on the advertising side of fashion, specifically, print ads.
In terms of media, print ads are not a new venue. Not even close. In today's world we see print ads everywhere (and they are usually starring a beautiful woman). However, when I was reading the excerpt from Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin’s book Remediation on digital photography, I could not help but think about the use of “air-brushing” in my favorite magazines. On page 107, the authors are disguising the Mexican photographer Pedro Myer. He exhibited his photos on CD-ROM. “As their labels indicate, most of the photographs have been digitally altered,” and the result is a variety of different styles. Some of the photographs are explicit digital collage. Others are realistic except for the appearance of a fantastic, presumably digital, element, such as an angel.” This is when I really started thinking about fashion (in all media) and its special relationship to reality.
I would claim to be an avid reader of Vogue and W magazines. In my eyes, these publications are true works of art. Flipping through pages of glamorous photo shoots and breathtaking ads for Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Chanel give me so much pleasure; they have raw aesthetic appeal. Although reading these magazines is somewhat masochistic, for I could never afford to adorn myself in these designs (nor would it be realistic to dress in haute couture), I can not help but indulge myself in my fantasy world.
These magazine and their advertisers employ much more than air-brushing. For example, in Louis Vuitton’s recent campaign, featuring Madonna, one can see how parts of the photo are over-exposed and blended. The colors are muted in certain places and exaggerated in others. Without the help of digital photography and therefore digital manipulation, we would not have this beautiful photograph.
“Looking at some photographs, we cannot be sure what the computer has changed, for nothing in the picture is unambiguously impossible in the world of light” (107).
In this exquisite shot from Dolce & Gabbana the result of digital manipulation or is simply strategically placed tinted lights? We do not know; it could easily be both. What I find so intriguing about these particular examples are their ability to combine transparency and surrealism. “Digital photography appears to complicate and even mock the desire for immediacy that traditional photography promises” (111). There’s the immediacy that’s inherent to photography yet an other-worldliness to the message. As Bolter and Grusin noted, “digital technology may succeed in shaking our culture’s faith in the transparency of the photograph.” Also, their book was from 9 years ago; think how differently photographs are processed now in 2009. I would expect nearly all photos in magazines, newspapers, on television, and on websites to have been doctored in some way. Whether they’ve been cropped or the color has been enhanced, with our current media altering technologies, it’s almost to be expected that what we see on-air, in print or online, is not the true “original.” We can no longer expect a photograph to be an “immediate contact with reality.”
What is interesting, however, is the notion that just because we digitally alter photographs now, does not mean we didn’t alter them in analog form. “The process of digitizing the light that comes through the lens is no more or less artificial than the chemical process of traditional photography. It is a purely cultural decision to claim that darkening the color values of a digitized image by algorithm is an alteration of the truth of the image, whereas keeping an analog negative linger in the developing bath is not” (110).
Photography is an art form and as the technology progress, the media becomes a greater tool. Painting rolled in to analog photography, which has rolled in digital. The newer form is no lesser an art, it is an expansion of its former self.
Fashion magazines seem a perfect example of remediation. Though I refuse to spend money on them because of how most choose to portray women, they do take photography to a level previously unseen in a commercial setting.
ReplyDeleteGreat examples of the use of remediation in digital photography. One of the arguments I made in my post was this sort of "fashion photography" to me falls in the realm of art, where I feel its okay, and even expected, that the images will be altered to create a certain illusion or fantasy. Where I take issue with the digital manipulation is in journalistic settings, where you have an expectation of the truth and these altered photos cannot be seen as an unbiased representation of that truth. But even in some cases, like the one I sited on Gisele Bundchen and her belly being air-brushed because she's pregnant or even the controversey from a while back about Beyonce's skin being lightened in an ad... I wonder what these examples say about our society and where we are in terms of how we view women or even race?
ReplyDeleteI've always liked how Fashion magazines often use their pictorial pieces to refer to other works of art like famous paintings, or other famous portraits. I think the fact that its referring to some other media, makes it easier to see it as fantasy. And I guess that's why it is a form of remediation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I worked at a magazine, I always marveled at the ability of professional photographers of all kinds, and notably fashion photographers, to wield lights and cameras just as a painter uses canvas and brush. Different media, different tools, same artistic eye. I can understand your captivation with still photography. Not only is it an art medium unto its own, but I don't believe that adding motion to still pictures -- i.e., film -- is a remediation of the art form. It is a change, but not an improvement per se. The still photograph captures one exact moment in time. And print as a medium will always be around in some form because of that.
ReplyDeleteWorking on set for a long time I've seen the artistic license we take with reality many times. It is interesting however to see this all in a new light. In the film world from what I've seen and experienced it is done on two levels one on a conscious level where we do take care in how the story develops on the screen.
ReplyDeleteThe more interesting one though is the one that happens unconsciously. We often don't realize that we are creating scenarios the way we are and still creating a new world or how we are in the art form creating something to draw in the viewer as it does. Even a documentary where the truth and more journalistic integrity is taken on the story we are still manipulating the frame and the shot to evoke emotions and still creating a different feeling than that of something else that could have been shot.