The people on the magazines aren't even real people. They were made by some fat guy who was in charge of making the magazine cover pretty.

Only those who allow it to be.

So many impressionable people have a distorted perception of beauty, it really is quite sad. You try to give them some insight, but to no avail. The concept of beauty portrayed in the media is never solidified; it changes with the times. The beauty of being a genuine soul is what's perpetual.

Well relevant to this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2IR...

How can an image of beauty be distorted? Who's to say what is beautiful and what isn't for everyone?

Is finding a fat, acne ridden woman with a very kind disposition more valid than finding a woman with gorgeous hair, exceptional skin and an apathetic attitude beautiful?

On Friday 10/16/09 - 10:21:45 PM griffin_wf wrote: How can an image of beauty be distorted? Who's to say what is beautiful and what isn't for everyone?

The media most definatly is saying what is beautiful and what is not.

That's why so many people - especially young girls - think they're ugly.

That doesn't answer the question at all: how can an image of beauty be distorted?

And saying the media is "saying what is beautiful" is a meaningless statement.

A) There are countless forms of media presenting countless different forms of beauty

B) the media gives its opinion on all qualities: what is smart, what is cool, what is logical, what is bad for you

C) Everyone says what is beautiful. You tell others what you think is beautiful, a tv station says what it thinks is beautiful, a book says what it thinks is beautiful and my friends say what they think is beautiful

Thus, saying "The media most definatly is saying what is beautiful and what is not." is ultimately meaningless because it doesn't convey any sort of perspective or message. It's a statement fit for Captain Obvious

You're trivializing a legitimate social critique griffin.

What she's saying is it should be honest and not reflect cheap ideals onto the society.

On Saturday 10/17/09 - 2:03:59 AM thatguy3g wrote: You're trivializing a legitimate social critique griffin. What she's saying is it should be honest and not reflect cheap ideals onto the society.

Neither you nor her have been able to answer the question or justify any opposition to the definitions of beauty presented by the various forms of media.

What is "honest" beauty and what is "cheap"beauty? Can you really attack others for holding a different opinion regarding a subjective term?

Yes.

I think that there are a variety of things that can be beautiful but these women on magazine covers are fabricated. It has an incredible social impact. As long as you are dealing with reality, you can choose to find whatever you wish beautiful. But to propagate unachievable standards of beauty is deceitful and therefore wrong.

Insecure teenagers with concerns about their physical appearance will be insecure teenagers with concerns about their physical appearance whether there are magazines with idealized versions of people or not.

Except those insecure teenagers grow up into insecure soccer moms addicted to botox.

There's no such thing as an undistorted perception of beauty, IMO. It's pretty damn subjective, however many trends there are in popular opinion.

We've got a pretty normal perception of beauty, but don't want to admit that some people aren't beautiful.

perception is perception
even if everyone started to find hairy armpits and fat calves on women attractive, it would still be just perception, but we should not let others tell us what is beautiful, we have to try and figure out what we truly believe is beautiful.

but surely if every picture in a magazine was computer altered to be extra hairy and extra fat 'our' perception would be somewhat distorted when it comes to real women....

I'd say what is beautiful is beautiful, and that's just how we think. If someone is pretty to begin with and has a blemish digitally removed, that could easily make her look better. There's no way around that. No matter how guilty you feel.

Gweneth (or however you spell that damn name) doesn't even look all that bad in the "no" photo.
I think the reason why we photoshop photos to death is because flaws stand out more in still images and Gweneth with reddish, sort of blemished skin isn't going to sell well....though I bet her boyfriend/husband/whatever doesn't care about those things.

If that makes any sense.
I juuust woke up.

i guess the question could be clearer but i think the main point is that real people don't look like magazine cover girls- - of course we are seeing a beautiful image. I don't think anyone would deny that.

On Saturday 10/17/09 - 2:17:00 AM thatguy3g wrote: Yes. I think that there are a variety of things that can be beautiful but these women on magazine covers are fabricated. It has an incredible social impact. As long as you are dealing with reality, you can choose to find whatever you wish beautiful. But to propagate unachievable standards of beauty is deceitful and therefore wrong.

At first I doubted you, but then I saw some media and realized you were completely right.


What trash. It propagates an image of beauty that young girls are completely incapable of achieving. It is just completely unreflected in reality. Anyone who admires this painting obviously has a distorted perception of beauty.

Damn, that's big

On Saturday 10/17/09 - 2:03:59 AM thatguy3g wrote: You're trivializing a legitimate social critique griffin. What she's saying is it should be honest and not reflect cheap ideals onto the society.

On Saturday 10/17/09 - 2:14:02 AM griffin_wf wrote: Neither you nor her have been able to answer the question or justify any opposition to the definitions of beauty presented by the various forms of media. What is "honest" beauty and what is "cheap"beauty? Can you really attack others for holding a different opinion regarding a subjective term?

You can if their opinion is not just held as their opinion but the standard that everyone should be held to, regardless of whether it's attainable or not, and to the possible detriment to the health of those who try to achieve it.

On Sunday 10/18/09 - 12:20:15 AM JadedDiamond wrote: You can if their opinion is not just held as their opinion but the standard that everyone should be held to, regardless of whether it's attainable or not, and to the possible detriment to the health of those who try to achieve it.

Uhh, that's what aesthetic opinions are: holding everyone to your aesthetic standard. If I have a standard of beauty, I'm going to hold everyone else up to it. That's how opinions on beauty worked.

On Sunday 10/18/09 - 12:20:15 AM JadedDiamond wrote: You can if their opinion is not just held as their opinion but the standard that everyone should be held to, regardless of whether it's attainable or not, and to the possible detriment to the health of those who try to achieve it.

On Sunday 10/18/09 - 1:01:51 AM griffin_wf wrote: Uhh, that's what aesthetic opinions are: holding everyone to your aesthetic standard. If I have a standard of beauty, I'm going to hold everyone else up to it. That's how opinions on beauty worked.

That's solely for you though. You aren't holding it up for an entire society.

I'm really surprised that most people don't agree with this. It's advertising. It is selling us an ideal self. This is not just art. These are billboards and commercials that say, you should look like this, and you can, if you buy our sh*t.

You should get smacked for comparing Picasso to this profit driven bullsh*t.