• Keira Knightley Posed Topless to Protest Photoshopping
    31 replies, posted
[QUOTE]"I think women's bodies are a battleground and photography is partly to blame" Keira Knightley Portrait 2014 MORE 10 Questions With Keira Knightley Not-So-Flawless: Lorde Protests Photoshopping Lena Dunham Slams Jezebel for Publishing Her Un-Retouched Vogue Photos Keira Knightley recently posed topless in Interview Magazine as her own personal protest against photoshopping. Knightley told The Times she demanded the (not safe for work) photos be unedited so people could see what she really looked like.[/QUOTE] [url]http://time.com/3559286/keira-knightley-topless-photoshop/[/url]
Good on her, but this is going to change exactly nothing short term, and probably be forgotten long term.
It's nice to see someone is taking a stand about this issue
[QUOTE=27X;46429356]Good on her, but this is going to change exactly nothing short term, and probably be forgotten long term.[/QUOTE] The same can be said for any non-legislative (or non-military) attempt to make a positive impact on society. The aim here isn't to make a massive splash and change the world overnight; it's to contribute in a little way and help in working towards that goal. A single stroke in a beautiful painting.
[quote]“Our society is so photographic now, it becomes more difficult to see all of those different varieties of shape.”[/quote] I completely disagree. With the emergence of social media like Facebook and Instagram, we're seeing a lot more natural imagery of a larger variety of people. And even without Photoshop, any professional photographer knows how to use composition and lighting to make someone look a lot better than they really do.
I remember when she was upset about them using [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur_(film)#Marketing"]photoshop to make her boobs bigger [/URL]on the cover of King Arthur all those years back, and I can't say I blame her. While I don't think what she's doing will change too much, it's good to see people of her stature taking an active role to do something about it and maybe inspire others to do so as well.
There's a certain hypocrisy at work here when her career is built on make believe, and yet she's complaining that her image has been manipulated.
goddamn
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46429515]There's a certain hypocrisy at work here when her career is built on make believe, and yet she's complaining that her image has been manipulated.[/QUOTE] i feel that there is a big enough difference considering that people know that movies are not real and aren't meant to be whereas photoshopping pictures to make people look better is done and presented as reality
she just wanted to show her boobs
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46429515]There's a certain hypocrisy at work here when her career is built on make believe, and yet she's complaining that her image has been manipulated.[/QUOTE] Two different things. Her career is built on entertaining others, and anyone seeing her work easily is aware she's representing a character, not herself. Magazine covers photo shopping her likeness, are manipulating her true image.
[QUOTE=G-foxisus;46429699]she just wanted to show her boobs[/QUOTE] As if that's a problem?
fuck the police [t]http://imgkk.com/i/_i9l.jpg[/t]
Wheres the tits?
[QUOTE=djshox;46429720]Two different things. Her career is built on entertaining others, and anyone seeing her work easily is aware she's representing a character, not herself. Magazine covers photo shopping her likeness, are manipulating her true image.[/QUOTE] I disagree because a movie is selling you something, those images are created specifically to sell you that. If she's cast in a movie it's because the people paying her feel she'll help sell their product. A magazine is something being sold as well. The image on the cover of that magazine was specifically designed to generate sales. If they put her on the cover it's because they feel she'll help sell their product. It's the same thing but in a different medium. She's playing her part to sell product in both cases. She's trying to have it both ways, make money off an industry that manipulates image, while at the same time voice disapproval of that industry so the public think she's concerned about the effects of what she does.
Someone's part of the Itty Bitty Titty Committee
Her boobs are too big.
Manipulation of image has been happening literally since human beings have been able to paint anything. It's nothing new and it'll never stop. It's all nice and dandy to try and change that but it won't actually change much to simply call out image manipulation. Teaching people that manipulated pictures shouldn't be held as an actual standard for reality is a better idea. I also find it incredibly hypocritical coming from an actress considering her entire career choice is centered on manipulating image. Hell, even the pictures she took that were supposedly unedited were still taken in a proper studio while wearing makeup, with her hair done for the occasion and with a big fat spotlight shining right in her face - not to mention the black & white filter. Sorry to break your bubble Mrs Knightley, but the world isn't in grayscale, so as far as your whole "here is pictures of me unedited and as close to reality as possible" thing going on here is full of shit.
[QUOTE=ZenZill;46434137]Someone's part of the Itty Bitty Titty Committee[/QUOTE] Small boobs best boobs. More than a handful is a waste.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;46434269]Small boobs best boobs. More than a handful is a waste.[/QUOTE] Big fat obese women titties are the only titties worth a damn.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;46429479]I completely disagree. With the emergence of social media like Facebook and Instagram, we're seeing a lot more natural imagery of a larger variety of people. And even without Photoshop, any professional photographer knows how to use composition and lighting to make someone look a lot better than they really do.[/QUOTE] But "better" in this context is essentially just conformity to certain physical ideals. So, whilst we may technically see more pictures of different shapes, composition and lighting and things are used to make those shapes look all vaguely similar. It's very rare that you'll see a professional photo of a woman that doesn't highlight certain features that are currently considered attractive by our society like cheekbones, jawline, breasts etc. It seems to me as if there are a few certain presets of ideal of beauty that we are told to aspire to (for women it could long-legged and glamorous "hot" or short, big-eyed "cute") and certain features just don't fit into either. I think the photoshopping of Keira Knightly to have bigger boobs is proof that small breasts are one of these features. Good on her for this!
Hey guys, I'm going to retaliate against the media by appearing topless in a staged pose, with a professional photographer using a glamorous magazine style! LOOK AT HOW NATURAL I AM BEING. Is she having a fucking laugh.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;46434269]Small boobs best boobs. More than a handful is a waste.[/QUOTE] this. b through c is master race.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;46434558]Hey guys, I'm going to retaliate against the media by appearing topless in a staged pose, with a professional photographer using a glamorous magazine style! LOOK AT HOW NATURAL I AM BEING. Is she having a fucking laugh.[/QUOTE] It's not against the media, it's against the use of image manipulation.
I think a lot of what's going to go forward in alleviating the problems associated with body image issues in the media is raising awareness of image manipulation, and the fact that the media is rarely honest about what people actually look like. When people are more critical of the media they receive, I think that there is more of a chance to not let idealized representations of people affect one so much. Unfortunately we typically end up learning how to consume media well before we learn to be critical of it.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46429515]There's a certain hypocrisy at work here when her career is built on make believe, and yet she's complaining that her image has been manipulated.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;46434162][B]I also find it incredibly hypocritical coming from an actress considering her entire career choice is centered on manipulating image.[/B] Hell, even the pictures she took that were supposedly unedited were still taken in a proper studio while wearing makeup, with her hair done for the occasion and with a big fat spotlight shining right in her face - not to mention the black & white filter. Sorry to break your bubble Mrs Knightley, but the world isn't in grayscale, so as far as your whole "here is pictures of me unedited and as close to reality as possible" thing going on here is full of shit.[/QUOTE] this comparison/mentality is hilariously shitty. Cry me a goddamn river over using a studio setup over shooting some instagram nudes in the bathroom, The whole point is that you don't need to edit the hell out of a person for them to still look great, and lord forbid things turn black and white oh god no they touched the dreaded photoshop [I]all is ruined[/I] Actors act. They create a new person who does a thing that you watch, expecting it to be someone else being someone else. The object of concern in this is photos of the people not acting, often PR photoshoots for magazine covers and centerfolds and all of those random people you see holding makeup and smiling in the weird glowing metallic aisles in walgreens, it's all there to say these people are perfect, and you're not. But, maybe our product can help that! I don't really think she of all people has much to worry about [I]needing [/I]photoshopping in the first place, but she and literally everybody else in the limelight deal with editors pulling shit moves and pushing the representation of beauty standards all the time, to the point the people being idolized for their looks can't even live up to the expectations put out by their own pictures. overall it's about raising people's understanding that media beauty standards are forged and we need to step back and think a bit harder about our own body image, by not comparing ourselves to the wild exaggerations out there.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;46429806]fuck the police [t]http://imgkk.com/i/_i9l.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I look at her tits first and they're alright. Then I look at her face and I see Nicholas Cage.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;46435161]I look at her tits first and they're alright. Then I look at her face and I see Nicholas Cage.[/QUOTE] So even better?
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46434124]I disagree because a movie is selling you something, those images are created specifically to sell you that. If she's cast in a movie it's because the people paying her feel she'll help sell their product. A magazine is something being sold as well. The image on the cover of that magazine was specifically designed to generate sales. If they put her on the cover it's because they feel she'll help sell their product. It's the same thing but in a different medium. She's playing her part to sell product in both cases. She's trying to have it both ways, make money off an industry that manipulates image, while at the same time voice disapproval of that industry so the public think she's concerned about the effects of what she does.[/QUOTE] except one is a form of art and the other is a way to trick customers you're just trying to sound smart and find a controversy where there is none
There are probably a ton of women right now screaming about how unnatural and unrealistic her body is... Whatever. I happen to think Keira Knightly is outrageously attractive. Like, to the point I actually think it's a little unfair that I have to live on the same planet as her.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.