So I got my new Entertainment Weekly in the mail last week, as per usual. It arrived a little later than normal though, so it was a few minutes before I noticed something odd about the come-hither looks of Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart (of the upcoming Twilight) on the cover. Mostly it was that somebody had a Photoshopping spree on their faces. Normal, right? Not usually for Entertainment Weekly. While the Time Warner-produced weekly mag constantly has big stars gracing its cover, it's normally more the magazine to criticize excessive airbrushing and photo editing then actually use it.
This particular incident came a week after I grabbed my EW from the mail and was taken aback at the Adobe-assisted lack of facial definition on James Bond himself, Daniel Craig. In fact, ever since my favourite magazine's reformatting this summer, I've keenly noticed that the photoshop factor has had its ante upped.
What could be the root of this?
CONTINUED
There could be many things that it could be blamed on. It could be that airbrushing helps to give the magazine appeal to the Adderall generation. It could be that many celebs have become so vain as to expect it. Yet could it actually be another one of the heinous side effects of the bend-over-and-take-it that the U.S. economy is currently undergoing? In a word, yes.
One of the industries that has taken quite a beating during this fall's economic tailspin has been the publishing industry. Cutbacks have happened at all major U.S. newspapers. Men's Vogue, O at Home and Radar Magazine all have folded within the past month, and Vanity Fair has just announced that it has taken a severe financial beating in advertising dollars. During economic crisis, the first things that get thrown out the proverbial window are luxuries. Nights out for dinner, vacations, $6 coffees at Starbucks, and yes, magazine subscription renewals.
Futhermore, many people aren't renewing subscriptions anymore because they don't need to. Technology has finally, truly come to the point where the paper printed word has become (sadly) almost obsolete. People don't just have the ability to check the news from their computers anymore, but the widespread growth of wireless Internet access and mobile devices now allow people to read the news from their laptop with an Internet stick, or from their iPhone. The advent of web 2.0 has made it that many people are reporting on the news themselves (I also realize the irony of writing this thing on magazines with the very medium that is killing it).
Yet does all of this really mean that airbrushing is done as a magazine's response to draw in readers during economic crisis? Maybe not, but here's a few more tidbits of information. Coincidentally, Barco Imaging (the original computer photoshopper) was first introduced right after the Black Tuesday on the stock market in 1987. Adobe introduced Photoshop during the economic recession in the early 1990's. Coincidence? Maybe so, but it was during those times that magazine publishers first started using them to alter images (Remember the Time controversy regarding its cover of OJ Simpson in 1994? Thanks Adobe).
What's even more bizarre is how unnecessary the photoshopping was for two such young, attractive stars on EW's cover. Kristen Stewart is 18 and pretty easy even on my gay eyes. And Robert Pattinson has already caused a frenzy of attention before the movie has even opened. If this is what is going to happen to the youth, what would this mean if the cover were to feature Cloris Leachman?
In the end, I'd rather have the magazine actually show up still every week than have it not happen at all. So if this is what needs to happen in order for my favourite magazine to still exist at all, then that's fine by me. Just know, EW, that your faithful readers couldn't care less how attractive the people are on the cover. Your magazine has never been about eye candy. Stick to the smart articles and leave the sexy to Maxim and Cosmo.
Who know though, maybe I'm wrong about all of this and all that's happen is they hired a new staff photoshopper. And he's not very good at his job.
This particular incident came a week after I grabbed my EW from the mail and was taken aback at the Adobe-assisted lack of facial definition on James Bond himself, Daniel Craig. In fact, ever since my favourite magazine's reformatting this summer, I've keenly noticed that the photoshop factor has had its ante upped.
What could be the root of this?
CONTINUED
There could be many things that it could be blamed on. It could be that airbrushing helps to give the magazine appeal to the Adderall generation. It could be that many celebs have become so vain as to expect it. Yet could it actually be another one of the heinous side effects of the bend-over-and-take-it that the U.S. economy is currently undergoing? In a word, yes.
One of the industries that has taken quite a beating during this fall's economic tailspin has been the publishing industry. Cutbacks have happened at all major U.S. newspapers. Men's Vogue, O at Home and Radar Magazine all have folded within the past month, and Vanity Fair has just announced that it has taken a severe financial beating in advertising dollars. During economic crisis, the first things that get thrown out the proverbial window are luxuries. Nights out for dinner, vacations, $6 coffees at Starbucks, and yes, magazine subscription renewals.
Futhermore, many people aren't renewing subscriptions anymore because they don't need to. Technology has finally, truly come to the point where the paper printed word has become (sadly) almost obsolete. People don't just have the ability to check the news from their computers anymore, but the widespread growth of wireless Internet access and mobile devices now allow people to read the news from their laptop with an Internet stick, or from their iPhone. The advent of web 2.0 has made it that many people are reporting on the news themselves (I also realize the irony of writing this thing on magazines with the very medium that is killing it).
Yet does all of this really mean that airbrushing is done as a magazine's response to draw in readers during economic crisis? Maybe not, but here's a few more tidbits of information. Coincidentally, Barco Imaging (the original computer photoshopper) was first introduced right after the Black Tuesday on the stock market in 1987. Adobe introduced Photoshop during the economic recession in the early 1990's. Coincidence? Maybe so, but it was during those times that magazine publishers first started using them to alter images (Remember the Time controversy regarding its cover of OJ Simpson in 1994? Thanks Adobe).
What's even more bizarre is how unnecessary the photoshopping was for two such young, attractive stars on EW's cover. Kristen Stewart is 18 and pretty easy even on my gay eyes. And Robert Pattinson has already caused a frenzy of attention before the movie has even opened. If this is what is going to happen to the youth, what would this mean if the cover were to feature Cloris Leachman?
In the end, I'd rather have the magazine actually show up still every week than have it not happen at all. So if this is what needs to happen in order for my favourite magazine to still exist at all, then that's fine by me. Just know, EW, that your faithful readers couldn't care less how attractive the people are on the cover. Your magazine has never been about eye candy. Stick to the smart articles and leave the sexy to Maxim and Cosmo.
Who know though, maybe I'm wrong about all of this and all that's happen is they hired a new staff photoshopper. And he's not very good at his job.
No comments:
Post a Comment