Clothier Slammed For Using 'Perfect' Virtual Model 471
Hugh Pickens writes "Swedish Clothing Giant H&M recently disclosed that the images from the company's website, showing models wearing the latest swimsuit and lingerie in generic, stock-form, are not just photoshopped but entirely computer-generated. 'We take pictures of the clothes on a doll that stands in the shop, and then create the human appearance with a program on [a] computer,' H&M press officer Hacan Andersson said when questioned about the company's picture-perfect online models. Advertising watchdogs elevated the controversy by criticizing the chain of lower-cost clothing stores for their generic approach to models, accusing the chain of creating unrealistic physical ideals. 'This illustrates very well the sky-high aesthetic demands placed on the female body,' says a spokesman for the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, one of the groups most critical of H&M. 'The demands are so great that H&M, among the poor photo models, cannot find someone with both body and face that can sell their bikinis.'"
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If you can computer-generate the models... (Score:5, Informative)
Figures I'd lose my mod points this morning. I looked at the article, and thought that the images were no different that a lot of high priced catalogs that seem to stuff our mailbox. I suppose my wife would be happy - seeing sharp angles for bones does not do it for me. If I wanted hard and angular, I'd climb into bed with a box of wrenches.
Re:Cheaper (Score:4, Informative)
Well, that's not strictly true. There has been a backlash against skinnier male mannequins [guardian.co.uk] and you do see them in some clothing stores. I blame the emos.
Re:Cheaper (Score:2, Informative)
It's stunning the social progress we've made, that in late 2011 a mans view is that a good looking women deemed a 'dimwit' has no option but to join the oldest profession. Well done.
I bet some of your best friends are....'choose_your_bigotry'
For some reason a man in the same category is seldom relegated to making good money down the docks, doing favours for sailors, and telling stories just like his old mum.
Aimi Eguchi (Score:4, Informative)
Recently in Japan, a new member in a pop group called AKB48 was "announced", but she was actually a CGI composite of of 6 existing members [wikipedia.org].
People figured it out pretty fast though. So, this sort of thing is not without precedent.
You've got this all wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Why does everyone assume that this is all about keeping the costs down by not hiring models? H&M use computer-generated images because they allow customers to mix and match their clothes in a virtual dressing room. Most pictures have a "Try on" link underneath them. All the clothes still have to be photographed, and they still photograph actual models. The images have to be processed and prepared, so it isn't much cheaper than a regular photoshoot. H&M are using Looklet [looklet.com] to do all of that, and other shops use them too. H&M never hid these facts or claimed that the photos were all real models either, there's no scandal here.
See my blog for the article I wrote about it. [latentexistence.me.uk]
Re:Cheaper (Score:4, Informative)
They may not take away scholarship funds but they take away enrollment slots in the school from someone who actually wants to be there to learn and not to place their entire future in the hands of professional sports scouts.
You're assuming that all college athletes a) don't care about academics, b) are worse students than the average non-athlete and c) all aspire to be professional athletes. This is only true for high profile sports programs, such as football and basketball. You're also assuming that somehow, athletes deny better academically qualified applicants. At my undergrad university, a NCAA D1 school, the average athlete GPA and graduation rate was higher than the school average.
Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Informative)
News flash: A 120 lb woman is not overweight unless she's a midget.
Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Informative)
This is a perfect example. Marilyn Monroe, one of the sexiest ladies that ever lived and a sex icon to this day,weighed over 160 lbs. That used to be perfectly normal. The ideal standard today is so bone thin that women have two choices... anorexia or giving up... there is no middle ground any more. Look at all the fashion models, human coat hangers, stick people, a life support system for bones.
Then you foist a fast food diet on people, and you're screwed. Ever see what they feed kids at school cafeterias? Why is it that when guys look at girls, the girls have to conform to some insane idea of beauty and physical form, and the same guys don't just have muffin tops, they look like hot air balloons at the belt line. Tell you what, when those same guys stop swilling beer and munching potato chips, those girls will stop sneaking ice cream.
Here's the stupid part. The human body is designed to get fat. Its because we all descended from folks who survived famines and disasters. The way they did it was they put weight on when times were good. Now there are no famines and we just balloon up. Worse, our food producers manipulate our genetic hunger for sweet and salty to grow their bottom line. Our society is not geared to support people with a normal weight. How many food commercials do your see a day? How many food billboards do you see on the road to work every day? How many fast food places do you pass driving around.
If it were a matter of just will power, there would be no fat people, nobody wants to look or feel that way. Criminalizing it with discrimination, stigma, and despotic abuse isn't the answer either. We need to move our culture as a whole to state of healthy and happy. Stop looking at one another as a mark to be taken, used, and sucked dry financially. Its time for us to take care of one another and that begins by getting honest about ourselves and how we choose to relate to one another.
Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Informative)
This is a perfect example. Marilyn Monroe, one of the sexiest ladies that ever lived and a sex icon to this day,weighed over 160 lbs. That used to be perfectly normal.
Citation needed. A quick Google search shows that her studio said she was between 115 and 120 lbs, at a height of 5' 5.5". For that height, that weight sounds perfectly normal; to be 160 lbs healthily, a woman would need to be about 5'10" or more.
The ideal standard today is so bone thin that women have two choices
Bullshit. The ideal standard today is healthily thin, which is admittedly hard in the USA these days thanks to lack of exercise and shitty food and shitty diets. That doesn't mean the ideal is wrong, it means that society is wrong in how people live and eat. Trying to tell people that eating trans fats and dying of heart disease at 55 is "OK" doesn't make it so.
If it were a matter of just will power, there would be no fat people, nobody wants to look or feel that way.
It's not a matter of willpower, it's a matter of diet and exercise. Go spend some time in Manhattan and see how many fat people you see walking around the streets of downtown there. In places where people get lots of exercise (because they have to walk a lot), they're a lot healthier than in places where they drive everywhere. The people of Manhattan aren't thin because of willpower, they're thin because they have no choice and they're forced to walk a lot, unless they're like Donald Trump and can afford a private limo to shuttle them around. Same goes in many other places in the world; go to India and hang out with the growing middle class there. Not a lot of obesity there either, even though they do have money for plenty of food unlike their lowest classes. They don't have the crap diet we have, and they get more exercise.