WEBVTT

00:00:12.757 --> 00:00:16.222
[MUSIC]. 
Let's start and think about advertising,

00:00:16.222 --> 00:00:22.752
and the first image is one for an 
anti-wrinkling cream.

00:00:22.752 --> 00:00:28.893
This is an advert that was put out in 
Britain and, featured Rachel Weiss, the

00:00:28.893 --> 00:00:36.380
British actress. 
Its suggested that the image that was

00:00:36.380 --> 00:00:44.590
used, in this particular instance was 
unrepresentative of the effects that the

00:00:44.590 --> 00:00:48.420
wrinkle cream had. 
Now, this is advertising.

00:00:48.420 --> 00:00:54.322
Let's just be practical about this. 
yes it contravenes some standards.

00:00:54.322 --> 00:00:57.450
they have selected a particularly 
photogenic image.

00:00:57.450 --> 00:01:02.900
The fact they've had to doctor it 
slightly, does suggest that they're over

00:01:02.900 --> 00:01:06.330
exaggerating the potential effects of the 
product.

00:01:06.330 --> 00:01:11.570
But no one is going to be too shocked to 
learn that this periodically happens, and

00:01:11.570 --> 00:01:14.700
gets picked up by the appropriate 
authorities.

00:01:14.700 --> 00:01:19.030
When it come to advertising there's also 
what is acceptable, what's not acceptable

00:01:19.030 --> 00:01:24.205
as times change. 
there is fairly heavy regulation in the

00:01:24.205 --> 00:01:30.670
21st century about tobacco advertising. 
But when you have an instance of an

00:01:30.670 --> 00:01:36.509
advertising company in America who is 
licensed the use of the Abbey Road cover

00:01:36.509 --> 00:01:40.880
by the Beatles. 
Airbrushing out to the cigarette held by

00:01:40.880 --> 00:01:44.550
Paul McCartney as they cross the zebra 
crossing.

00:01:44.550 --> 00:01:49.550
You get an idea of how the concerns of 
society have changed.

00:01:49.550 --> 00:01:53.484
That something that was a common place in 
the late 60s in the first decade of the

00:01:53.484 --> 00:01:58.770
Twenty-first Century, can't be viewed 
without some alteration.

00:01:58.770 --> 00:02:03.900
Now if we're worrying about photographs 
of cigarette smoking, in the modern age.

00:02:03.900 --> 00:02:08.120
Here is an instance which four and six 
have from 2005.

00:02:08.120 --> 00:02:17.000
It seems very innocuous Clemet Herd the 
illustrator of a revised edition of the

00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:24.000
children's classic book Good Night Moon. 
Had in the previous couple of decades,

00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:28.240
been pictured on the back cover holding a 
cigarette.

00:02:28.240 --> 00:02:32.580
When it came to the new edition, the 
publishers felt it was appropriate to

00:02:32.580 --> 00:02:37.555
have the cigarette removed, and with the 
reluctant agreement of Mr.

00:02:37.555 --> 00:02:42.118
Herd's family, that was done. 
So, for something that was unacceptable

00:02:42.118 --> 00:02:47.510
for two what's unacceptable now, had been 
let passed for two decades.

00:02:47.510 --> 00:02:52.266
Times changed. 
So did the requirement of the airbrushing

00:02:52.266 --> 00:02:55.920
of the photograph. 
When it comes to advertising, you

00:02:55.920 --> 00:03:00.200
shouldn't necessarily be surprised that 
cigarettes are in or out of the

00:03:00.200 --> 00:03:05.010
photograph of the time. 
Or that a photograph may have been

00:03:05.010 --> 00:03:10.385
altered to enhance the effects of the, 
quote, wrinkle cream, unquotes on the

00:03:10.385 --> 00:03:14.200
image. 
But when it comes to the cover of Time,

00:03:14.200 --> 00:03:16.548
Time magazine, you're expecting something 
a little bit different.

00:03:16.548 --> 00:03:24.542
And in 2007 Time magazine ran an article, 
How The Right Went Wrong.

00:03:24.542 --> 00:03:28.230
And it displays fairly clearly Ronald 
Reagan but, digitally added was a tear

00:03:28.230 --> 00:03:42.110
across his right cheek. 
As if Reagan was lamenting after the

00:03:42.110 --> 00:03:45.710
event, How The Right Went Wrong, so to 
speak.

00:03:45.710 --> 00:03:51.320
Now, Time argued that, they'd made it 
clear at one point or other that this was

00:03:51.320 --> 00:03:55.350
a montage. 
But having a photograph of Ronald Reagan,

00:03:55.350 --> 00:03:58.930
as opposed to a photograph of Ronald 
Reagan with a tear given the head, the

00:03:58.930 --> 00:04:03.120
headline to the article, does change the 
way that you are going to interpret it.

00:04:03.120 --> 00:04:08.910
So, again, this is a piece of advertising 
which is augmented a photograph and

00:04:08.910 --> 00:04:12.800
augmented a photograph for the effect of 
promoting sales.

00:04:12.800 --> 00:04:17.430
Now when it comes to magazine covers 
there seems to be a very high proportion

00:04:17.430 --> 00:04:21.470
of them especially if they're appealing 
to men with young women on them.

00:04:21.470 --> 00:04:25.166
It could be women of any age, but, you 
know, lets be practical about this.

00:04:25.166 --> 00:04:33.110
In 2003 GQ magazine perpetrated something 
of a controversy.

00:04:33.110 --> 00:04:40.310
they had Kate Winslet on their cover. 
Kate Winslet one of the finest actresses

00:04:40.310 --> 00:04:47.260
of her generation was digitally altered 
to narrow her hips.

00:04:47.260 --> 00:04:53.490
To effectively elongate her, for what was 
perceived to be the image requirements of

00:04:53.490 --> 00:04:58.950
the clientele. 
so there we have someone who is known for

00:04:58.950 --> 00:05:05.190
her abilities, her integrity as an 
actress, yes, her looks, she's a

00:05:05.190 --> 00:05:10.245
Hollywood star as much as anything else. 
But the need to change it, to sell more

00:05:10.245 --> 00:05:14.760
magazines? 
As opposed to representing her as she is.

00:05:14.760 --> 00:05:19.230
That does seem taking things a little bit 
far, and did cause a controversy at the time. [BLANK_AUDIO]