The Stereophonics are back on their much awaited tour of the UK which kicked off two weeks ago in Glasgow, and I was fortunate to be one of the thousands of fans who crammed themselves into the National Indoor Arena in Birmingham yesterday to experience the latest handbags and gladrags of their anniversary tour.
In celebration of ten years of the band, Stereophonics have embarked on a 'Decade in the Sun' tour around the country performing to crowds from Manchester to Brighton, finishing off on December 20th at the O2 Arena in London.The Welsh rock band originated in the village of Cwmaman near Aberdare where Kelly Jones, Richard Jones and original drummer Stuart Cable began writing, playing and performing in local bars. After being spotted by John Brand in March 1996 the band were the first to be signed to Richard Branson's new label V2. In 1997 the band won a BRIT for 'Best Newcomer' and have gone from strength to strength, releasing a total of 6 albums, five reaching #1 in the UK and 25 singles, of which have all entered the top 40. Dakota became their first #1 single in 2005 after the sacking of Cable in 2003 and hiring of Javier Wayler. Another addition to the band was guitarist Adam Zindani who remains performing with the rest of the band today.
The show kicked off with a brief but entertaining performance from support band The Courteeners who came across as a mix of the Pigeon Detectives with the melodic guitar and upbeat tempo with a hint of the Kooks in the vocals. Overall a good warm up act for the Phonics (or certainly the twenty-something’s at the front seemed to think so) ending with their January single 'What took you so long?'
Kicking off with a well known hit 'A thousand trees,' Kelly's husky voice growled out to the now jumping-up-and-down-manically crowd, warmly greeted with screams, cheers and the flinging of beer from the hardcore fans as the band wallowed through 'Mr Writer' before launching into 'Superman' and 'I wouldn't believe your radio'.
The venue was decoratively lit, with a background of panels which flashed psychotic abstract images during the upbeat tracks, and atmospheric strobe lights and smoke, wafting through the band as they stumbled around through the softer songs. The two main screens screened fast cuts of the action up onstage from the two sides, including crops of Zindani's solos, bumpy crowd shots alongside extreme close ups, tight enough to see the sweat slipping down Richard Jones's face from every corner of the room.
Thank God it's the Greatest Hits is what I have to say in regards to 'Have a Nice Day' and 'Handbags and Gladrags,' two of the Phonics's most loved, most played singles from the past decade. As discussed on the outward journey with my father in the car, Jones has publically declared on numerous occasions how he will never play those songs again. However, we fans paid for the best, and that's jolly well what we got alongside old classics such as the bands first single 'Local Boy in the Photograph' and 'Traffic'. Accompanying this was an extremely gruff solo version of 'Maybe Tomorrow' in which a single red spotlight fell upon Jones as he gravelled his way through with just a couple of echoey chords (another true example of the impact of technology on our culture - sat nav just would've have allowed the creati0n of such a song).
The line-up mixed between the slow melodic rasps of 'Since I told you it's over' to the upbeat tempo set by Zindani's snare in 'My own Worst Enemy'. Despite the fact that Jones changed guitars more often than girls change clothes, the contrast worked well, alternating between fast and slow, almost in a Nirvana-esque style from 'Step on my old size nine's' to 'Devil' both evoking a cheery sing-along response from the highly engaged, energetic crowd (a perhaps significant achievement due to the average age of forty-something - probably a result of a mix of beer and chips).
The encore consisted of an array of stars filling the previously lit up background as Kelly strummed along to 'You're my star,' finishing with an eruption of shiny confetti from a streamer jet somewhere onstage before embarking on a growly version of 'Bartender and the Thief.' However, the night just wouldn't have been complete without the final bellow of 'I don't know where we are going now' from the thousands of fans who joined Jones in 'Dakota' before the band repeated their thank-yous and bade the crowd goodnight.
More than just background music, this rock band is classic proof that a pinch of welsh talent and a few guitars can go a long way. Nothing fashionable, nothing popular, but the band certainly have a spark that really does erupt live. A Decade in the Sun is just the first of many milestones for the Stereophonics, a band that will surely continue for years to come. It only takes four Welshmen to create a rock band. One match to burn a thousand trees.
Tuesday 16 December 2008
Monday 17 November 2008
Why did Barack Obama win the US Election 2008?
November 4th 2008 - a day surely to go down in history. Barack Obama has made it into the history books, becoming the first ever black candidate to win a Presidential Election. Over 120 million Americans cast their votes; some flying back from across the world, others using park benches as their home addresses, queuing for hours to vote for Barack Obama. Never before has any candidate received so many votes, rivalling the Democratic victory of Lyndon Johnson almost 50 years ago. But why is it that he has made it this far, and will become the first ever black President of the USA when he is inaugurated in January?
I remember standing bleary eyed in the bathroom at about eight am on the morning of November 5th when my Mum came in and asked 'Have you heard?' When I told her I hadn't she merely responded with 'he did it!' along with a big grin on her face. Half asleep due to staying up the previous night watching the election show (I only saw the first electoral college results come in) I still remember smiling to myself and feeling glad that this man had achieved his hopes and dreams, and would soon be the most important and influential man in the world.
Obama's victory speech ran headlines of every newspaper the next morning, reports flying everywhere of the momentous event that had occurred. His speech, which has since been named and declared as one of the best speeches made to date, in which he clearly addresses everyone in America. "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible," declared the President-elect, "who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."
But what is it about Obama that makes him so desirable as a president? I hadn't heard his speeches. I hadn't been greeted at the door by one of his supporters encouraging me to vote. I hadn't heard about what he was going to do. Yet I, like so many others liked the look of Obama. Search him on google images and you'll see that 80% of the pictures, he is smiling in. The other 20% he is making a speech in, and can be forgiven. He looks like a nice guy. He acts like one too, as throughout his campaign he has reminded us that he is a true family man. His wife, and the next first lady Michelle Obama has remained by his side for support throughout the twenty-one strenuous months of his campaign, as well as his two young daughters who he promised a puppy if he made it to the White House. Does the fact that we see him as an all-rounded man make us like him? I think so. It shouts out to the audience he is loving, caring and generally a kind man, which does support his case.
One main issue that surely picked up hundreds of thousands of voters was his policies and how he is going to run America next year. To kick start the economy, Obama plans to pump $50 billion dollars into it, alongside introducing major tax cuts to all working Americans and fighting for fair trade using new agreements. He also plans to come to an agreement to end the war in Iraq, make healthcare more affordable, and invest in more, better childhood education. Of course this all seems very rosy, especially when you regard it alongside http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ which highlights all that is wrong with the other candidate John McCain's policies. Even scanning through what he aims to do does give a positive impression that he has thought through what he wants for America carefully, giving him a professional air, that makes the public want to trust him.
Despite being one of his weaknesses too, one of Obama's strengths has been his youth. At just 47 years of age he would be one of the youngest ever presidents. As a middle aged 'family man' many more people find it easier to relate to him, and what he wants to do. The other candidate John McCain had been criticized for being too old to be president, and this is something that Obama definitely had on his side - youth. In addition, for all those who claimed he did not have enough experience (he only became senator in 2004) it can be argued that Joe Biden, his running partner will make up for this - he is 65 years of age and has decades of politics on his side. The youth that he put across in his campaigns not only encouraged more people to vote for him, but introduced a higher proportion of younger voters, ones that can closely relate to him, and look up to him as someone with a fresh face, and a fresh view for change in America.
The incredible journey to the White House has been an amazing victory for blacks everywhere. It could be partly due to the colour of his skin that Obama was voted in, in an attempt to prove to the USA that equality has truly been achieved. Looking back in history, it is forty years since the defined 'end' to the Civil Rights Movement, marked by the death of Martin Luther King being shot on a hotel balcony. Little over fifty years ago, blacks couldn't vote, were segregated in schools, restaurants and other public facilities and faced fatal discrimination from vigilante groups such as the KKK. This continued well into the 50s and 60s, after the CR movement was sparked off, despite rulings declaring segregation unconstiutional, and giving blacks political freedoms including the right to vote. A few decades later and America has come so far in terms of racial equality. No one could ever have predicted that this would happen fifty years ago when white and blacks couldn't even sit in the same restaurant, but since then the USA has drastically changed. It could be argued that many people wanted to change history by ensuring that a black candidate was elected into the white house, and his colour played a big part in his victory.
Furthermore, the amount of money and publicity that Obama pumped into his election process can be seen as a major factor in his victory. Taking a look at barackobama.com it is clear to see there is no extent to the publicity that can be gained through merchandise. From t-shirts to mugs, badges to flags, Obama hasn't skimped on this area of his campaign. This is just one sector that he has spent money on in order to gain the maximum amount of publicity possible for his case. This is not counting various interviews, billboards, TV appearances and visits throughout his campaign to ensure he was the next president of the USA. It is unclear exactly how much money Obama and the democrats have spent on the campaign overall, but latest figures show it as around 470 billion dollars. Debates have highlighted that this is an obscene amount of money that could and should have been spent elsewhere, especially in the current economic downturn. The high cost of Obama's presidential campaign can be seen as a pivotal factor in his victory.
Overall, there are many factors that determined why Barack Obama won this election. After all, it was very close, indicating that John McCain did have a substantial amount of support also. But at the end of the day history has somehow been made as a result of time, effort, money and various other reasons. On the other hand, maybe America just wanted George Bush out of the white house, and were determined to vote for the complete opposite of everything he stood for. Enter Obama.
I remember standing bleary eyed in the bathroom at about eight am on the morning of November 5th when my Mum came in and asked 'Have you heard?' When I told her I hadn't she merely responded with 'he did it!' along with a big grin on her face. Half asleep due to staying up the previous night watching the election show (I only saw the first electoral college results come in) I still remember smiling to myself and feeling glad that this man had achieved his hopes and dreams, and would soon be the most important and influential man in the world.
Obama's victory speech ran headlines of every newspaper the next morning, reports flying everywhere of the momentous event that had occurred. His speech, which has since been named and declared as one of the best speeches made to date, in which he clearly addresses everyone in America. "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible," declared the President-elect, "who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."
But what is it about Obama that makes him so desirable as a president? I hadn't heard his speeches. I hadn't been greeted at the door by one of his supporters encouraging me to vote. I hadn't heard about what he was going to do. Yet I, like so many others liked the look of Obama. Search him on google images and you'll see that 80% of the pictures, he is smiling in. The other 20% he is making a speech in, and can be forgiven. He looks like a nice guy. He acts like one too, as throughout his campaign he has reminded us that he is a true family man. His wife, and the next first lady Michelle Obama has remained by his side for support throughout the twenty-one strenuous months of his campaign, as well as his two young daughters who he promised a puppy if he made it to the White House. Does the fact that we see him as an all-rounded man make us like him? I think so. It shouts out to the audience he is loving, caring and generally a kind man, which does support his case.
One main issue that surely picked up hundreds of thousands of voters was his policies and how he is going to run America next year. To kick start the economy, Obama plans to pump $50 billion dollars into it, alongside introducing major tax cuts to all working Americans and fighting for fair trade using new agreements. He also plans to come to an agreement to end the war in Iraq, make healthcare more affordable, and invest in more, better childhood education. Of course this all seems very rosy, especially when you regard it alongside http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ which highlights all that is wrong with the other candidate John McCain's policies. Even scanning through what he aims to do does give a positive impression that he has thought through what he wants for America carefully, giving him a professional air, that makes the public want to trust him.
Despite being one of his weaknesses too, one of Obama's strengths has been his youth. At just 47 years of age he would be one of the youngest ever presidents. As a middle aged 'family man' many more people find it easier to relate to him, and what he wants to do. The other candidate John McCain had been criticized for being too old to be president, and this is something that Obama definitely had on his side - youth. In addition, for all those who claimed he did not have enough experience (he only became senator in 2004) it can be argued that Joe Biden, his running partner will make up for this - he is 65 years of age and has decades of politics on his side. The youth that he put across in his campaigns not only encouraged more people to vote for him, but introduced a higher proportion of younger voters, ones that can closely relate to him, and look up to him as someone with a fresh face, and a fresh view for change in America.
The incredible journey to the White House has been an amazing victory for blacks everywhere. It could be partly due to the colour of his skin that Obama was voted in, in an attempt to prove to the USA that equality has truly been achieved. Looking back in history, it is forty years since the defined 'end' to the Civil Rights Movement, marked by the death of Martin Luther King being shot on a hotel balcony. Little over fifty years ago, blacks couldn't vote, were segregated in schools, restaurants and other public facilities and faced fatal discrimination from vigilante groups such as the KKK. This continued well into the 50s and 60s, after the CR movement was sparked off, despite rulings declaring segregation unconstiutional, and giving blacks political freedoms including the right to vote. A few decades later and America has come so far in terms of racial equality. No one could ever have predicted that this would happen fifty years ago when white and blacks couldn't even sit in the same restaurant, but since then the USA has drastically changed. It could be argued that many people wanted to change history by ensuring that a black candidate was elected into the white house, and his colour played a big part in his victory.
Furthermore, the amount of money and publicity that Obama pumped into his election process can be seen as a major factor in his victory. Taking a look at barackobama.com it is clear to see there is no extent to the publicity that can be gained through merchandise. From t-shirts to mugs, badges to flags, Obama hasn't skimped on this area of his campaign. This is just one sector that he has spent money on in order to gain the maximum amount of publicity possible for his case. This is not counting various interviews, billboards, TV appearances and visits throughout his campaign to ensure he was the next president of the USA. It is unclear exactly how much money Obama and the democrats have spent on the campaign overall, but latest figures show it as around 470 billion dollars. Debates have highlighted that this is an obscene amount of money that could and should have been spent elsewhere, especially in the current economic downturn. The high cost of Obama's presidential campaign can be seen as a pivotal factor in his victory.
Overall, there are many factors that determined why Barack Obama won this election. After all, it was very close, indicating that John McCain did have a substantial amount of support also. But at the end of the day history has somehow been made as a result of time, effort, money and various other reasons. On the other hand, maybe America just wanted George Bush out of the white house, and were determined to vote for the complete opposite of everything he stood for. Enter Obama.
Wednesday 12 November 2008
Is sending news correspondants around the world a waste?
Newswatch has recently brought to the attention of the general public alongside numerous broadcasts from the BBC, that newsreaders are being increasingly sent abroad to report on current affairs around the world today. However, the argument that has been generated among this hype has sparked off numerous debates.
According to Newswatch, in 2005, to date, an average of 35 million people watched some BBC Television News each week, making it the BBC's most popular broadcast. This would therefore make it hardly surprising that they received thousands of complaints every years about the content of their show. Recently, these complaints have been flooding in regarding the amount of correspondents the BBC seems to be collecting - Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Wales, plus multiple for Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the recent US election where presenters such as Bill Turnbull and Justin Webb were among many sent out.
First the question must be explored as to the purpose of their visit. Journalists do not simply appear in front of a blue screen for ten minutes with a projected image behind them for ten minutes at 6pm in time for the news, after a lie in and a late lunch, which is what many have been arguing. During the day journalists conduct much research into the current up to date situation regarding their news story, amongst filming snippets for the broadcasts, conducting interviews and writing blogs and newspaper articles.It is unfair to say, perhaps, that BBC corespondents are a waste of money in this sense, as they fail to engage in a satisfactory role, as it often clear to see with a little research, that they serve their purpose throughout their visit, giving a unique, personalised report from the epicentre of the breaking news.
On the other hand, the current environmental situation disagrees that this is a satisfactory was to help the world. Global warming debates that we should be cutting down on our air miles to not only reduce carbon emissions, but to also conserve a rapidly declining supply of fossil fuels such as oil. Surely the issuing of countless correspondents challenges the recommendations of the government and energy companies, and sets a poor example to the British Public and the rest of the world?
Despite this, the argument still stands that 35 million Brits watch The BBC news a week, which is almost half of the population. This brings into the argument the point that, although it may be a costly and time consuming sending presenters to other countries, not to mention paying a price to the environment, it is a show that is seen by many people, and could be seen as 'worth it'. The British public pay a licensing fee to watch the BBC channels which go towards shows like the news, but isn't it a small price to pay to make an interesting, unique broadcast to add interest and liveliness to a show that is so widely watched throughout the country?
Furthermore, the clips that are shown to the public simply presents reporting in front of pictures which could have been done at home, fuelling the evidence that the BBC reports gain nothing from sending correspondents out. A recent example of this is during the US presidential election last week. On Tuesday evening, a presenter from London pointed out to Bill Turnbull in Washington; 'if it's 2am in Washington, why is the sun out?' This points out the simplicity of the task of getting a background onto a broadcast, which could be done anywhere else. Why could this not be done in a studio in London and save some money?
However, the BBC does seem to value sending out these correspondents. Behind them, must be a valid reason, to add considerable input to the show. Clearly there is increased interest generated from listening to someone who is speaking from the country of which the story generated from, and provides a sufficient change of scenery for viewers, to keep them entertained, and regularly tuned in. This could also be used in later shows, interviews sold to other news channels and documentaries, which in the long run would save money for those, as they wouldn't need to send another person out to carry out more filming.
Overall, the reactions of increasing numbers of BBC correspondents have been mixed. On one hand, there is increased interest, variety and uniqueness added to the shows being presented to a large audience, but on the other, it is seen as a waste of time, effort and money. In my opinion, the job of a journalist is to travel, to investigate, to report and broadcast, and what comes as part of the job, is being a correspondent in foreign countries from time to time
According to Newswatch, in 2005, to date, an average of 35 million people watched some BBC Television News each week, making it the BBC's most popular broadcast. This would therefore make it hardly surprising that they received thousands of complaints every years about the content of their show. Recently, these complaints have been flooding in regarding the amount of correspondents the BBC seems to be collecting - Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Wales, plus multiple for Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the recent US election where presenters such as Bill Turnbull and Justin Webb were among many sent out.
First the question must be explored as to the purpose of their visit. Journalists do not simply appear in front of a blue screen for ten minutes with a projected image behind them for ten minutes at 6pm in time for the news, after a lie in and a late lunch, which is what many have been arguing. During the day journalists conduct much research into the current up to date situation regarding their news story, amongst filming snippets for the broadcasts, conducting interviews and writing blogs and newspaper articles.It is unfair to say, perhaps, that BBC corespondents are a waste of money in this sense, as they fail to engage in a satisfactory role, as it often clear to see with a little research, that they serve their purpose throughout their visit, giving a unique, personalised report from the epicentre of the breaking news.
On the other hand, the current environmental situation disagrees that this is a satisfactory was to help the world. Global warming debates that we should be cutting down on our air miles to not only reduce carbon emissions, but to also conserve a rapidly declining supply of fossil fuels such as oil. Surely the issuing of countless correspondents challenges the recommendations of the government and energy companies, and sets a poor example to the British Public and the rest of the world?
Despite this, the argument still stands that 35 million Brits watch The BBC news a week, which is almost half of the population. This brings into the argument the point that, although it may be a costly and time consuming sending presenters to other countries, not to mention paying a price to the environment, it is a show that is seen by many people, and could be seen as 'worth it'. The British public pay a licensing fee to watch the BBC channels which go towards shows like the news, but isn't it a small price to pay to make an interesting, unique broadcast to add interest and liveliness to a show that is so widely watched throughout the country?
Furthermore, the clips that are shown to the public simply presents reporting in front of pictures which could have been done at home, fuelling the evidence that the BBC reports gain nothing from sending correspondents out. A recent example of this is during the US presidential election last week. On Tuesday evening, a presenter from London pointed out to Bill Turnbull in Washington; 'if it's 2am in Washington, why is the sun out?' This points out the simplicity of the task of getting a background onto a broadcast, which could be done anywhere else. Why could this not be done in a studio in London and save some money?
However, the BBC does seem to value sending out these correspondents. Behind them, must be a valid reason, to add considerable input to the show. Clearly there is increased interest generated from listening to someone who is speaking from the country of which the story generated from, and provides a sufficient change of scenery for viewers, to keep them entertained, and regularly tuned in. This could also be used in later shows, interviews sold to other news channels and documentaries, which in the long run would save money for those, as they wouldn't need to send another person out to carry out more filming.
Overall, the reactions of increasing numbers of BBC correspondents have been mixed. On one hand, there is increased interest, variety and uniqueness added to the shows being presented to a large audience, but on the other, it is seen as a waste of time, effort and money. In my opinion, the job of a journalist is to travel, to investigate, to report and broadcast, and what comes as part of the job, is being a correspondent in foreign countries from time to time
Saturday 4 October 2008
Airbrushing.
Yesterday I read a really interesting article in 'Marie Claire' (don't judge me, I'm trying to find a fashion magazine I LIKE) about whether we should ban airbrushing on models. It got me thinking about whether we should or not, and what the implications of it might be.
On the positive side, it would stop giving ordinary people the impression that the celebrities we see in magazines are perfect. Too many people these days, in particular the younger generation grow up with the media pressuring them from all angles - the Internet, newspapers, magazines and the television. They are pressured into what they wear, what they say, the things they buy and even who they choose to be friends with. Airbrushing means that it is these teenagers who are easily influenced by such, get the wrong impression of what normality really is. It shows them that they have to be like this in order to be liked, to be wealthy, to have friends; no wonder the number of cases of eating disorders among under 16s has dramatically increased in the last decade.
However, as this article explains, the negative effects of airbrushing also are apparent in the media. Simply stroll into your local newsagent and take a glance at the weekly gossip magazines. If they aren't using their front cover to show pictures of celebrities looking too thin, too fat or without makeup, or otherwise, these magazines just wouldn't sell. So, in theory aren't we being hypocritical when we cringe at a picture of a celebrity not looking their best - just popping out to get the milk? Aren't we arranging standards by which to measure beauty, then completely going against them?
In addition, it also puts pressure on relationships; both for the older and younger generations. Many men are used to seeing un-natural looking women who have been airbrushed to look 'beautiful' in magazines and on television, when in reality, women just aren't like that. It's not just men that are fooled by the media - women too are bombarded with images of tanned, muscly men with toned arms and six-packs, when back here in the real world, not many men have the time, effort or desire to look like that putting relationships under pressure to match up to what they've seen in the media.
On the other hand, it can be argued that airbrushing gives women something to look up to and aspire to become. If all the people we see in magazines had blemished skin and wrinkles, would we still bother with our beauty regimes at all? If celebrities had 'problem areas' to point at, it may well be the case that no-one would care about their appearance, because the media doesn't either.
Apart from the countless jobs that would be lost if airbrushing were to ever be banned, there is also the point of how it would change our society and the way we live today. Living in the digital age where we now can edit photos far beyond the dodging and burning tools used previously in the darkroom, people are used to seeing edited photos. The fact remains that people look up to what we see and read about in magazines despite the fact that they KNOW they are edited. Removing these techniques would disrupt the balance of fashion and celebrity life as we know it today - whatever it may be that the world is coming to.
It is of course impossible to accurately predict the effects that this ban could have on the industry and the public, yet the true moral of the issue of airbrushing runs psychologically deeper. Why do we feel compelled to become 'perfect'? How much of the editing techniques used in the media today really affect us, and to what extent? And why does the media feel a responsibility to airbrush in the first place? Alternatively, we could just blame the creators of photo shop.
On the positive side, it would stop giving ordinary people the impression that the celebrities we see in magazines are perfect. Too many people these days, in particular the younger generation grow up with the media pressuring them from all angles - the Internet, newspapers, magazines and the television. They are pressured into what they wear, what they say, the things they buy and even who they choose to be friends with. Airbrushing means that it is these teenagers who are easily influenced by such, get the wrong impression of what normality really is. It shows them that they have to be like this in order to be liked, to be wealthy, to have friends; no wonder the number of cases of eating disorders among under 16s has dramatically increased in the last decade.
However, as this article explains, the negative effects of airbrushing also are apparent in the media. Simply stroll into your local newsagent and take a glance at the weekly gossip magazines. If they aren't using their front cover to show pictures of celebrities looking too thin, too fat or without makeup, or otherwise, these magazines just wouldn't sell. So, in theory aren't we being hypocritical when we cringe at a picture of a celebrity not looking their best - just popping out to get the milk? Aren't we arranging standards by which to measure beauty, then completely going against them?
In addition, it also puts pressure on relationships; both for the older and younger generations. Many men are used to seeing un-natural looking women who have been airbrushed to look 'beautiful' in magazines and on television, when in reality, women just aren't like that. It's not just men that are fooled by the media - women too are bombarded with images of tanned, muscly men with toned arms and six-packs, when back here in the real world, not many men have the time, effort or desire to look like that putting relationships under pressure to match up to what they've seen in the media.
On the other hand, it can be argued that airbrushing gives women something to look up to and aspire to become. If all the people we see in magazines had blemished skin and wrinkles, would we still bother with our beauty regimes at all? If celebrities had 'problem areas' to point at, it may well be the case that no-one would care about their appearance, because the media doesn't either.
Apart from the countless jobs that would be lost if airbrushing were to ever be banned, there is also the point of how it would change our society and the way we live today. Living in the digital age where we now can edit photos far beyond the dodging and burning tools used previously in the darkroom, people are used to seeing edited photos. The fact remains that people look up to what we see and read about in magazines despite the fact that they KNOW they are edited. Removing these techniques would disrupt the balance of fashion and celebrity life as we know it today - whatever it may be that the world is coming to.
It is of course impossible to accurately predict the effects that this ban could have on the industry and the public, yet the true moral of the issue of airbrushing runs psychologically deeper. Why do we feel compelled to become 'perfect'? How much of the editing techniques used in the media today really affect us, and to what extent? And why does the media feel a responsibility to airbrush in the first place? Alternatively, we could just blame the creators of photo shop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)