actress and model said enough is enough

[removed account4]

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/the-insider/keira-knightley-posed-topless-protest-135621123.html

 

[MrBrowning]

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/the-insider/keira-knightley-posed-topless-protest-135621123.html

Good for her.

 

[snapguy]

I have to say

I agree with the young lady but I have to wonder. I bet if you look at most actors of the female persuasion's official "mug" or head-and-shoulder shot you will see retouching up to the Kazoo. Actresses have been making themselves look younger since silent film days. And more filled out. And on and on. Of course, you mention "topless" and right away those hopeless juvenile riters at Yahoo go bonkers.

 

[removed account4]

its weird there is another article on the web ( published today ? ) about how they
transform 98lb weaklings to muscle bound dudes for
the sale of supplements ... very strange they are both on the same day ..

 

[pentaxuser]

I don't think I have ever seen a 10 post thread where only 4 posts were deemed to be OK to post.

pentaxuser

 

[Eric Rose]

Glad to see the childish comments were removed. Now to be on topic, I totally agree with her stand. The objectification of women and the immature responses such images spawn is a pox on our culture. When you look at how many young girls in their teens are getting breast augmentation it is frightening.

 

[analoguey]

It's articles related to it that are interesting reading.
And unless Keira went without make up for the shoot, it's hypocritical to call out just photoshop or retouching.
Ah well.

 

[trythis]

Dunno about the makeup comment, but photoshopping things that would require surgery (cup sizes et al) seems different than lipstick and some eyeliner.

 

[analoguey]

Lip-jobs and nose-jobs are all surgery, aren't they?

 

[removed account4]

Where was it ever established that women have to be big up top to be desirable?.

it was established a long long time ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

 

[AgX]

Glad to see the childish comments were removed. Now to be on topic, I totally agree with her stand. The objectification of women and the immature responses such images spawn is a pox on our culture. When you look at how many young girls in their teens are getting breast augmentation it is frightening.

But what about tatooing, piercing and shaving?

Where have those natural women gone?

 

[removed account4]

agx
the practices you mention are ancient as well ..

 

[AgX]

What I meant to say is that there is social pressure to adept to certain norms. And of course photography plays its part in conveying those norms.

 

[sly]

Where was it ever established that women have to be big up top to be desirable? Or perhaps it's just me. But I know what those women will look like when they're my age, and that's not desirable at all.

Don't know how old you are, but I'm 60. I am "big up top", those are the genes I got. I really don't care if I'm desirable to you or not. That's not what defines me, or any other woman; even young, pretty women.

But, to debunk a few myths out there - my breasts do not hang to my navel, in spite of my age, their size, the fact that I haven't worn a bra since the fashionable feminist thing was to burn bras, and my history of breastfeeding for 8 years. This is not because of any virtue, surgery, or beauty regime - just the genes I inherited. If our culture could just get away from prescribing sexual desirability as a woman's most important function, maybe there would be less photochopping and plastic surgery going on.

And, of course, I'm lucky to have breasts, when friends have lost their breasts, and some their lives, to cancer.

Rant over.

 

[cowanw]

Sly, I like your website and your rant. Thanks

 

[removed account4]

Sly, I like your website and your rant. Thanks

+1 !

 

[SuzanneR]

Sly, thank you. Well said.

 

[benjiboy]

Sly, I like your website and your rant. Thanks

I do too

 

[MattKing]

Well put, as usual Sly.

And as good as your website is, both you and your photographs are better in person.

 

[mgb74]

Here's what bothers me. In the video, she's quoted as saying "Our society is so photographic now, it's hard to see all those different shapes". The implication is that photography and digital manipulation are one in the same.

I realize that talented photographers have, through posing and lighting (not to mention darkroom technique), been able to manipulate an image to a degree. But it was at least grounded in reality.

So I agree with her point but its a bit sad if people equate all photography with manipulation.

 

[frank]

Here's what bothers me. In the video, she's quoted as saying "Our society is so photographic now, it's hard to see all those different shapes". The implication is that photography and digital manipulation are one in the same.

I realize that talented photographers have, through posing and lighting (not to mention darkroom technique), been able to manipulate an image to a degree. But it was at least grounded in reality.

So I agree with her point but its a bit sad if people equate all photography with manipulation.

I'd say that her perspective on photography is based on, and tainted by, her first hand experience. It's a personal, not global perspective.

 

[removed account4]

Here's what bothers me. In the video, she's quoted as saying "Our society is so photographic now, it's hard to see all those different shapes". The implication is that photography and digital manipulation are one in the same.

I realize that talented photographers have, through posing and lighting (not to mention darkroom technique), been able to manipulate an image to a degree. But it was at least grounded in reality.

So I agree with her point but its a bit sad if people equate all photography with manipulation.

photography is about fantasy, not reality ...
and photographs have been manipulated since
they were invented in 1839

manipulation is nothing new.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I don't believe it's the manipulation itself that bothers her. It the end that it's used for. And to that end I agree.

Yet if we all looked as good as Keira we'd likely feel the same way. Photos of me sans attire would challenge even the best PS manipulator. Not to mention a rash of spontaneous blindness cases.

 

[analoguey]

http://www.interviewmagazine.com/fashion/keira-knightley-by-patrick-demarchelier
Interesting views.

DEMARCHELIER: The face is supposed to be relaxed. The more you relax ...

KNIGHTLEY: You're absolutely right. It's very funny, because no photographer has ever said that to me before and made the kind of connection between the two things. You shoot digital, right? Do you still shoot on film as well?

DEMARCHELIER: Very rarely, only for special effect when I need it. Otherwise I don't do film anymore.

KNIGHTLEY: I've noticed that the people who started on film still have the ability to see the person in front of them. Whereas for a lot of photographers who have only ever worked in digital, the relationship between the photographer and the person who they're taking a picture of sort of doesn't exist anymore. They're looking at a computer screen as opposed to the person.

DEMARCHELIER: Exactly. I love digital, but the only problem is less intimacy. People look at the screen right away. Before, nobody saw the picture before you saw the final picture. There was more privacy in a way.

KNIGHTLEY: Does everybody then obsess about the image, suddenly trying to be perfect, as opposed to trying to capture a moment?

DEMARCHELIER: Yes. Now you work more like a team, with people who have good taste. It's interesting. You can correct things, and if you don't like an image right away, you can change it. Before you used to do a lot of pictures and pick a picture after. You can't really compare; it's a different way to work.

KNIGHTLEY: Would you ever go back to shooting on film, or do you think you've got to keep going forward?

DEMARCHELIER: Film is not very practical. The new world goes faster, and digital is very fast.

KNIGHTLEY: Do you miss any of the physicality of it? I think I'm a horrific kind of romantic about film. There's something about that single shot that was one moment in time, and something about the physical process of the light hitting the lens and the dark room. I find it difficult to see the romance in digital.

 

[edcculus]

KNIGHTLEY: Do you miss any of the physicality of it? I think I'm a horrific kind of romantic about film. There's something about that single shot that was one moment in time, and something about the physical process of the light hitting the lens and the dark room. I find it difficult to see the romance in digital.

Swoon. Marry me now Kiera!


BTW, that link is NSFW.