Can we believe what we see? Do our eyes deceive us? In an age of digital-enhancement and Photoshop, it’s hard to believe what we see. Yet, we tend to put a great deal of emphasis on visual authority. We begin our sentences with “Did you see that?” We also give credibility to the pictures on the magazine covers at the supermarket check out line. The celebrity models not only tell us to “look at this” but also “this is how you should look.”
Valerie Boyer argues that retouched photographs brainwash viewers.[1] Boyer has two teenage daughters and she is concerned what they are being taught by what they see. Is cultural pressure to look a certain way foisted upon us by computer software that alters the images that we see? Boyer is in a position to do something about retouched photography. A member of the French parliament, Boyer has introduced a law that would “require all digitally altered photographs of people used in advertising be labeled as retouched.” To most of us the law would seem totally appropriate. But we should not be surprised to discover that advertisers are not happy. Most photographs used to sell products are retouched.
Boyer contends that advertising is the issue. The French Parliamentarian asks the question, “Who gets to say what is attractive or unattractive?” Boyer is right to be concerned that people are excluded from society because they do not “fit” cultural perceptions of beauty. For years, the modeling industry has been obsessed with waist size. Now, retouched photographs are creating illusions impossible to achieve physically. As Boyer contends, the bottom line is about honesty. Lies should not be necessary to convince a 16 year old to purchase a certain product.
Valerie Boyer is concerned that fashion magazine photography imposes pressure on young women through visual enhancement. I share her questions about advertising’s cultural impact. But these fears, while assuredly valid, only go skin deep. Advertisers are selling more than the physical allure of a product. Advertisers sell belief. “Seeing is believing,” as the slogan goes, is not always true. The foundational question to address is “Should we put our trust in only that which we can physically experience?” If we doubt a photograph, a news report, a magazine ad, or the look on a politician’s face, where can we put our trust? If there is such a thing as a “half-truth,” from where does the whole truth come?
All of life is a faith commitment. We trust the restaurateur not to poison us with her food. We trust the driver of the car coming toward us not to cross the center line. But more to the point isn’t it possible that what we trust may come from outside our physical, visible world? Our senses can be fooled. We can misread signals from sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. Advertising may take advantage of our commitment to believe what we can see. But visual authority should not be our final authority. Our eyes cannot have authority over our faith. If it comes down to a vote, I do not think “the eyes have it.” For Prime Time America, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, seeking truth wherever it’s found.
Skin Deep, Moody Radio Commentary, January 2010
Dr. Mark Eckel, Professor of Old Testament, Crossroads Bible College
[1] Steven Erlanger, “Point, Shoot, Retouch, and Label?” 3 December 2009 New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/fashion/03Boyer.html?emc=eta1