I've been really busy at work. Jennifer understands, and even encourages my work. It's kinda nice, in a way: although I am salaried, I get time and a half for time at work past forty hours. This is pretty neat.
The past couple of weeks, however, have been rather weird. I've spent a good portion of them checking out a supermodel... all the while my on employer's dime, so to speak, and with their 100% backing and approval. I've studied her from every angle imaginable (including upside down and 90 degrees left and right of center). As I've studied her, I've become more a student of the presentation of her rather than her, actually.
I don't want to mention her name or the publication that is using her images, as this might be some sort of conflict of interest somewhere. I can say, though, that she is Caucasian, blonde (well, blonde in the images I was reviewing) and somewhere between 5'4" and 6'0" tall.
I would like to say, though, that after being forced to look at her for the past few weeks, she isn't so super-looking ... at least not to me. In retrospect, I should qualify this a bit: blondes have never been my first choice in terms of girlfriends, suitable mates, etc. Sorry, Barbie.
Still, this young woman is not unattractive. Some of her photos that I reviewed are quite alluring. I started having problems with her, however, as I viewed proof after proof after proof with her in the signoff phase, and although most of these were lo-res monochrome, they were not unflattering toward her. I should also mention that were printed using departmental class medium speed printers with average contrast, so the graphics output was generally not optimal. Still, looking at the color versions of the proofs, I could not help but note the amount of Photoshopping that had been applied to her close-up poses, in contrast to some street scene "candids" where she was featured.
What really threw me for a loop, though, was her height. There was one picture in particular that led me to believe she was a certain height- after looking up her bio on wikipedia, it turns out she is actually much taller that the picture would lead one to believe.
But, getting back to "alluring" but not attractive to me... the publication I've been proofing for is challenging me to decide what their ultimate message is. And this is where the waters are quite muddied. Because it seems that, even though it is one model in one publication with one line of clothing aimed at a fairly narrow demographic, the "product" isn't something you exchange dollars for. Rather, the "product" seems to be a bit of pleasure given in exchange for a piece of one's soul.
Heavy-handed? Judgemental? Perhaps, but you're not the one who's been staring at her on and off for the past few weeks. In one color photo, she is quite beautiful and attractive, with stunning hair and textbook makeup application. That same photo, in monochrome, shows heavily accented cheekbones, and displaying not a pretty face but a roughly outlined skull- death via glamor?
Monochrome, so often, is the true and final arbiter of the photographic medium. Who has seen Ansel Adams' works and not been moved and awed? I, too, was moved, when viewing this supermodel. But the movement was repulsive- the feeling was revulsion. It was like seeing the world of fashion with all of the veils removed for the first time.
Sorry if this been a bit of a downer- especially after not having published for over a month. If you're looking for data... I can't remember the last weekend where I had two days off. Hopefully I can get back on track and talk a bit about... hmm... Adobe Lightroom... in the next blog or so.
As always, I am hochspeyer, blogging data analysis and management so you don't ave to.
