Week 1.6 The Image in Advertising

From the description of Week 1 of The Camera Never Lies:
Learning Outcomes (Week 1)
On completing this week of work, you should be able to:
1. Understand the broad objectives of the course, and its structure;
2. Begin thinking about your own reactions to images in a modern and historical context; and
3. Consider more critically the images you see in the modern media.

[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]