- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
If you'd like to send a letter to HP's CEO, go here: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/bios/lyons.html
No photoshop isn't new, and yes, magazines edited by women have been presenting a distorted and pornographic ideal of female beauty for years. What makes this concerning, however, is that it seamlessly integrates the notion that everyone (particularly women, since HP only features women in their ad) should want to be thinner into the design of a mundane utilitarian object. This isn't a fancy camera designed for professionals, it isn't intended for use in magazine photos: it's designed so that every woman in America can distort her digital images to better conform to the social norm whilst recording her family's beach vacation or 4th of July picnic. It's not even on par with a skin lightening cream or a girdle, which fall into the realm of 'beauty products'... I can't think of a similar example where beauty standards are built in to a similar technology.
The thing is, I'm sure this feature doesn't work on photo subjects who are actually overweight, since you can't really stretch out a serious fat roll-- it only makes a difference if you have healthy body proportion and just want to look a teensy bit slimmer. Now, even if we avoid fashion magazines something as seemingly innocuous as a camera asks us "C'mon, don't you wanna lose five pounds?" The HP ad presents the answer to this question as an entirely self-evident "yes" even while demonstrating the effect on two models of apparently healthy body weight. It's like handing out a free girdle with the purchas of every dress size 8 and under. Oy vey.
