Thursday, February 09, 2012

Silly photos of Michael Phelps taking a shower brings me out of my posting malaise!

Michael Phelps showering with a Procter & Gamble product known as Head and Shoulders. When you look at outtakes of the shoot, seen here, you see  photographers gathering around a shower trying to get a sexy shot in bad lighting. This has to be the worst PR demo I have ever seen.

I am astonished that the PR and Marketing wizards didn't schedule this shoot in a swanky gym or five star hotel bathroom.

I have been in a posting malaise lately, but this display of cognitive dissonance snapped me out of it.

More photographs at the Metro: [Link]

5 comments:

Likac said...

What do you say about SI Swimsuit edition with Phelps and Bar Refaeli? Is it any better, according to you? ;)

Tony Austin said...

Oh man! I started something last night but I felt I needed be more measured.

How about Rafa Nadal? I could see him posing gracefully with men but with what's her name, he seemed liked an uninterested corsage.

Something is coming soon.

But now you got me started...

The most "WTF" image was the body painting of the athletes. Not only did they "'shop" out the nipples on Natalie Coughlin, which I can sort of live with, but that they "'shopped" out the amazing musculature of the girls as well barely only suggesting it. Coughlin is ripped and I have a real photo to prove it and it is admirable. For me it was as if a strong girl is not sexy and any sort of athletic ability should be disguised so as not to intimidate fat ass men..

So, ultimately they erased the nipples; which is a body part every one has, and they erased most of the muscle contours out so that all you end up are athletes that look 50% mannequin and 50% athletes. Very boring and crass.

Likac said...

They don't do that to females only. Remember how four years ago some magazines air-brushed Phelps' private parts, quite visible in LZR? That was ridiculous.
I'm very curious to see what you have to say about "remodeling" athlete's body with Photoshop...

Tony Austin said...

When it is a news shot and that includes press releases too, it is immoral to retaouch.

Anatomy notation: When men are cold, or wet-and-cold or even nervous, their "dollar-fifty"; (so to speak), has a tendency to shrink like a turtle. Nonetheless, when Phelps went out there and posed like the Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, he was fair game and should not have had his "dollar-fifty"; (so to speak), blurred or otherwise.

A sports program has a responsibility to report what happens, exactly as it happens, and pull no punches. It is an historical document as is the news.

On the other hand it may be moral for the shareholders of a corporation to allow an artist to retouch a body, face, and the lips of a million-dollar-actress for a "Maybelline baby lips" ad but it is not moral nor unethical towards female users and the society at large.

When I retouched a DVD cover, or poster or when I design entertainment products like DVDs or Movies, I feel no shame for the bodies I am altering are pure fantasy. The people don't exist and when they are are in character, you are not suppose to know who they really are.

I saw "The Watchmen" on TNT and they blurred the genitals of a character. It made me wonder since it is my business, what If men were subjected to ads with "shopped in" penises to made them more better or different... That would really suck and I would boycott those products but women don't. they see the ads and either really believe it will make them like that or they want to believe it will make it happen.

Tony Austin said...

oops, typo, meant ethical not unethical