Showing posts with label insanity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insanity. Show all posts

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Pascal Dangin Wants You To Hate Yourself

DAHLINGS -

It is no secret that yours truly has inveighed against the saturation of mediated images in film, television, magazines. In other words, everywhere. I first became fascinated (then much later outraged) by the widespread use of computers on images of--well, everything--after watching a computer animator assemble a bucolic background with mountains, trees, grass, and an old-fashioned train and tracks running through it. He moved the elements around, making sure the finished product was a faultless representation of a small town train station in the mountains.

That is old news. We know that every form of visual media use green screens, blue screens, CGI, etc. As your faithful correspondent has also spoken to a CGI expert whose job it was to fill out Sarah Jessica Parker's bony hands frame by frame in Sex and the City 2. Consumers are used to it, so what is the problem? But do they really know what it is that they have become used to?

Now your own camera can "fix" your pictures so your personal visual reality is more satisfying. Even if it does not match what you see in the mirror.

The cosmetic surgery industry is booming. More than at any time, people, men and women, hate their faces and bodies.

An article that addressed that several years ago was "Pixel Perfect" by Lauren Collins in the New Yorker. A profile of Pascal Dangin, a master retoucher who changes the world that you perceive far more than you are aware.



Pascal Dangin, founder of The Box. One assumes he has been suitably retouched.





Pascal Dangin is the premier retoucher of fashion photographs. Art
directors and admen call him when they want someone who looks less than great to
look great, someone who looks great to look amazing, or someone who looks
amazing already to look, as is the mode, superhuman.

...retouchers tend to practice semi-clandestinely. “It is known that everybody does it, but they protest,” Dangin said recently. I mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual “real women” in their undergarments. It turned out that it was a Dangin job. “Do you know how much retouching was on that?” he asked. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive."

[During a session]...he proceeded to a shot of the actress reclining on a divan in a
diaphanous couture gown. “She looks too small, because she’s teeny,” he said. On
a drop-down menu, he selected a warping tool, a device that augments the volume
of clusters of pixels. The dress puffed up, pleasingly, as if it had been
fluffed by some helpful lady-in-waiting inside the screen.
Next, Dangin moved the mouse so that the pointer hovered near the actress’s neck. “I softened the collarbones, but then she started to get too retouched, so I put back some stuff,” he explained. He pressed a button and her neck got a little bonier. He
clicked more drop-down menus—master opacity stamp, clone stamp. ... He zoomed in so that her eyeball was the size of a fifty-cent piece. “I love all of this
little wrinkle”—laugh lines, staying put—“and the texture of skin. As you
retouch skin, you can very quickly shift the tonal value. If you put a highlight
where shadow used to be, you’re morphing the way the orbital socket is
structured. It leads to a very generic look.” Ultimately, he had minimized the
actress’s temples, which bulged a little, tightened the skin around her chin,
and excised a fleshy bump from her forehead. She had an endearingly crooked
bottom row of teeth, which Dangin knew better than to fix.

In another shot, the actress stood in the middle of a busy city street, in
front of a limestone building. Dangin blew up the segment of the screen that
showed her feet, which were traversed with ropy blue veins. Click. Gone.

“There’s a little slumpiness, and the knees look really big,” he said,
stroking a touch pad with a gray plastic stylus to contour the actress’s legs.



Source: Pixel Perfect

I urge my beloved readers to read article in its entirety. There is far more than can be conveyed in one entry. Next time you find yourself in despair because you don’t look like Anne Hathaway, bear in mind that Anne Hathaway doesn’t look like that either.



Ciao,



Elisa

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Anti-Social Media: Cross-Platforming of Annoyance

DAHLINGS –

Warning: what follows is personal, trivial and may not be interesting. But this is my blog-thing and I write what I choose. You want deep intellectual discussion, read Malcolm Gladwell.

Among the things that social media has changed forever (besides the continual invasion of privacy and being exposed to your acquaintances’ favorite brand of waffles) is the separation of church and state. Bad metaphor, désolé.

Your faithful correspondent knows that every word one puts on the Internet is there FOREVER. But in olden times, one could deceive oneself with the idea that one’s emails, etc. were private. That if one was on a chatboard, any disagreements would stay on the chatboard, non?

I shall address my own experience, as a person who is on Twitter, Facebook, Live Journal, and several discussion boards. And most important, my blog-thing. Now, not only can I receive comments on here calling me a “chienne persistante,” it can resonate through any variety of social media “platforms.” It creates, in effect, anti-social media.

Be patient with me about this, mes lecteurs merveilleux, and I will try to make it all make sense. There are discussion boards about one of my main obsessions, which shall remain nameless.

The main discussion board has been in existence for some time. Many of the members have been there since dinosaurs roamed the earth. Many are intelligent, articulate, and well-read. But there is a slight catch: not only do they feel they OWN the topic, they have strong opinions. Opinions that are not to be trifled with. Opinions that are NOT to be disagreed with, unless you want to bring down the wrath of dozens of crazies obsédants. Which this writer seems to have a unique talent for doing.

Now, why bother us with this, you ask? Because many of these same people are on Live Journal, under different IDs. So one risks offending them in an entirely new arena without knowing who they are.

One person who particularly detests your epistler dévoué left some lovely comments on this blog. Later, she maintained she would NEVER have left those comments had she known it was moi.




But it is on Twitter where the whole kerfuffle becomes most distateful.

Let’s see if I can lay this out properly: quite a few people from the discussion boards, Live Journal, whatever, are on Twitter. All of these environments come together in what can become a giant…oh, dear, I simply cannot bring myself to use the correct vulgarity. Let’s say many people having sex at the same time; draw your own conclusions.

It is ludicrously easy to find out other people’s opinions of one, because NOTHING is private on Twitter. It is one thing to be insulted to one’s virtual face; it is quite another to be talked about behind one’s virtual back. Where one can READ it. I will not quote any of the various insults. Because not only are they out of context, they are ridiculously petty. The malefactors know who they are.

Another problem with Twitter "cross-platforming" with all of these other applications is that people can rap you on the virtual knuckles when they feel your tweets are, um, inappropriate. I will NEVER apologize for being inappropriate! Unfollow me, please.

I will not apologize for being “obnoxious,” I will not apologize for “acting like something is wrong” with moi, and I REFUSE to apologize for my opinions to people whose opinions I simply do not respect. I have done that already, and it has been to no avail. (If you knew how rarely I apologize, you would know why this is so irritating. If I’m going to betray myself, the least I can expect back is less hostility.)

If you have something to say to me, please say it in the comments. If you have had a similar experience, please say it in the comments. (Try not to use the phrases “fuck-tard” or “you’re a fat moron.” Those have been a tad overused.)

Ciao,
Elisa & Bucky the Wonderdog

Sunday, August 1, 2010

5 Reasons Twitter Can Drive You INSANE!

DAHLINGS -

As many of you know, I am a formidable presence on Twitter. It is a delightful way to make friends and intimidate people. Millions of people tweet on every single topic under the sun. If I have to explain what Twitter is and how it works, just skip this entry. It will only give you a headache.

HOWEVER, there are certain aspects of Twitter than can drive one to take an axe to one's monitor.

1) Inspirational quotes. WHY, in God's name, do celebrities, in particular, feel they have to tweet dozens of inspirational quotes instead of...oh...anything? Elizabeth Taylor tweeted 2,000 inspirational quotes in two days!! You're a goddamned celebrity! Tell us about your house, your wardrobe, who you're having sex with! Anything but another tweet from @RevRunWisdom!

2) Retweeting inspirational quotes to your followers. It's nice if "Aspire higher than your dreams" makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, but it annoys the living hell out of moi. And if I get that freaking Eleanor Roosevelt quote one more time...

3) Roger Ebert. I swear, the man tweets EVERY TEN SECONDS! When does he have time to get anything done??? With links, yet!

4) Hashtags like #thingsuglypeopledo or #youknowyougotnodickwhen. This idiocy often ends up as a "trending topic".

5) Bots. Use Jesus in a tweet, you get Bible bots. Mention music in a tweet, you get music bots. (I like the porn bots, at least.) Oh, and when I ranted about inspirational quotes on Twitter itself, MY FOLLOWERS LIST GOT FLOODED WITH QUOTE BOTS!

I'm sure I'll think of other things--when next I am on Twitter.

Ciao,
Elisa & Bucky the Wonderdog
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...